The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Hypocritical amendment

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:

A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
$$FC (December 6, 2007)
In a bind (December 5, 2007)
Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)

by Badger Herald Editorial Board

Thursday, December 8, 2005

Yesterday's state Senate passage of a constitutional amendment banning, among other things, civil unions and substantially similar institutions meant to mimic the privileges of marriage, comes as deeply disturbing. And while political odds may seem to indicate to the contrary, it is vital that members of the state Assembly carefully examine this troublesome amendment and cast their votes in the negative.

To prohibit civil unions — no matter what phrasology is lent them — is to cast a firm vote against the homosexual citizens of Wisconsin, family values, monogamy and the very privileges human beings have come to expect out of a nation like the United States. This amendment only serves to classify gays and lesbians as second class citizens, somehow subordinate to their heterosexual counterparts. And frankly such a notion is one that ought to have long ago died with the many other prejudices this country fought during the 20th century.

Moreover, to disallow such unions is to provide a veritable barrier to the sort of loving, close-knit households that not only provide a warm environment for the maturation of children but present a positive environment for the very adults who choose to pursue such commitments. An amendment banning civil unions is not only an amendment that hurts the homosexual community — indeed, it is one, too, that serves to inflict countless heterosexual children.

Further, in an era when the government has gone to great strides to promote monogamous, dedicated relationships, it strikes of supreme hypocrisy to grant certain privileges to such relationships when they are engaged in by heterosexuals, but not when sought by homosexuals. Why tax returns must read differently based on sexual orientation is a question for which there is no decent or logical answer. And it strikes as altogether regressive for a civilized society to strike at such gays and lesbians by not allowing them hospital visitation privileges, among the many other rights that are understood as being entitled to the citizens of the world's greatest nation. These evils come attached to this amendment — no matter what some of its backers may claim — and we simply cannot see the way to endorsing their sordid propagation.

This is an amendment that has no place in our state Constitution. Wisconsin is in no apparent danger of becoming a modern-day Sodom or Gomorrah, but we can't help but to wonder if its backers might be of better service as pillars of salt.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (December 8, 2005 @ 9:44am):

Thank you for a well-written editorial.

Anonymous (December 8, 2005 @ 9:57am):

Cute ending, but what you have effectively said is you wonder if the backers might be of better service DEAD. Not sure that type of rhetoric will change the hearts and minds of voters who may oppose gay marriage/civil unions/whatever. In addition, calling your opponents, stupid, Ill informed cave dwellers (metaphorically) is more likely to harden their viewpoint, although I enjoy that type of exchange myself. Most of the stated benefits of marriage can be obtained through legal proceedings, with the exception of tax status, of course the fair tax would eliminate that issue. Of course a tax policy that promotes some behaviours while demonizing others keeps politicians elected on both sides of the isle so... lets fight about civil unions.

Anonymous (December 8, 2005 @ 10:18am):

Wow, congrats to the conservative BH board. Very surprised by your reaction. Although I don't think Derryn signed off on this one.

Anonymous (December 8, 2005 @ 3:13pm):

in response to the second comment:

consider if...

my partner is sick in the hospital and i do not have legal guardianship over my children but no worries! after years of legal hell and thousands of dollars i can use contract law to get a few of the 1049 rights that britney spears can drunkenly aquire in five minutes at a drive in chapel in las vegas.

gosh. i sure hope i haven't offended any well intentioned republicans who are just trying to protect their children (nevermind those thousands of orpahaned brats that are wallowing in foster homes) and me from marrying my cat or dog (fifi knows better than to do "number two" down the aisle though).

as a homosexual, i really should know my place in society and go decorate something rather than standing up for my rights.

Anonymous (December 8, 2005 @ 3:14pm):

Anonymous (December 8, 2005 @ 6:41pm):

It isn't just tax status. Homosexuals are also excluded from fifth amendment protections given to married couples.

A husband cannot be forced to testify against his wife (or vice versa) but there is no legal procedure allowing homosexual couples this same constitutional protection.

Anonymous (December 12, 2005 @ 10:24am):

As the person who wrote the second statement I am enlightened by the responses. First they assume my viewpoint on civil unions, then they attack emotionally what they perceive as their opponent. I am a conservative who doesn't care if every gay person married tommorrow. It has little or no impact on me or my childrens lives. I was pointing out that attacking with such harsh language only galvanizes those whom you disagree with. Which by the way I enjoy doing myself in conversations with people.

The arguement about forcing a spouse to testify is a valid point. Which could be addressed not by Civil Union laws but by eliminating that protection for a spouse. Not that I would argue for that either. Just remember that some conservatives actually beleive that government should be smaller and less intrusive. Seems to me that allowing Gay people to Marry or whatever would be less intrusive.

The State has the right to define marriage in law, you as an individual do not have a right to marry, please read the constitution. You can claim that the pursuit of happiness gives you the right to Marry but again the State ends up creating the definition. So they can restrict it to read two people, and eliminate gender, species etc.... As a valid point one must consider that the State could then change the law to read between any number of people if that is what voters wanted elected officials to do. Again I wouldn't care. In addition, your rights are listed in the constitution as is the course to ammend the constitution. You want a right to clean air, health care, interplanetary dating then round up your voters and follow the rules set forth by the only rich white dudes to ever set up a government that restricted the power of the elite.

Of course I understand that this is not the end of the agenda driven by a mostly liberal culture in the homosexual community. I have watched the message change from I am an accountant who happens to be gay which is a small part of who I am. To, I am gay, my ability to handle a ledger is defined by my gayness. Everyone must first view me as gay in order to appreciate who I am and what I do. I don't think I have ever made a similar statement as a breeder, but then again maybe, without my knowledge, that is what all other people are doing in their interactions with me. "Their goes good ole straight XXXXXX, he's a helluva straight guy." "Wouldn't mind having a straight guy like that on my basketball team. I mean he can't play a lick but damn is he straight." Wouldn't Dr. King be proud.

If you are a Gay person in a committed relationship who wants to visit your ill partner in a hospital then you must make an extra effort and protect that right through legal documents. As for Parental rights regarding children that are not biologically yours, welcome to the world of the step parent. Be careful what you wish for you just might get it and with it a four letter word D-I-V-O-R-C-E. I can't wait for the mini-series two women getting divorced and on of them has to play the detached, overbearing, cheating woman who uses wealth as a weapon. Now that is fine comedy.