OPINION & EDITORIAL
Gay marriage ban bad for university
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Emily Friedman:
- Tenure at paper teaches, changes (May 10, 2007)
- Straight or gay, hire either way (May 3, 2007)
- Tragedy provides opportunity to re-evaluate nation's violent culture (April 19, 2007)
- Anti-abortion methods go too far (March 29, 2007)
- 'Don't ask, don't tell' hypocritical (March 15, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Gay-marriage ban bad for Wisconsin (December 2, 2005)
- Vote "No" on marriage ban (November 6, 2006)
- Questions emerge on marriage issue (September 4, 2006)
- Bishop errs in advice (October 11, 2006)
- Civil unions vital (September 29, 2006)
by Emily Friedman
Wednesday, March 8, 2006
November just got a little more interesting.
And controversial, too, thanks to the recent Assembly vote that places the future of the gay marriage ban in the hands of voters on Election Day. The constitutional amendment, also known as Senate Joint Resolution 53 or Assembly Joint Resolution 67, proposes to limit marriage to a union between a man and woman and also includes language that threatens civil unions and domestic partner benefits.
Allow me to be blunt: this is a horrible idea. Banning same-sex unions in the state of Wisconsin is not only discriminatory but also detrimental to the University of Wisconsin as an institution.
To begin, it is necessary to tackle the usual controversy surrounding amendments of this nature, whether they arise in Wisconsin or elsewhere.
As in other states, this amendment has sent Republicans and Democrats to their respective corners. Republicans, on one side, claim that the sole purpose of the amendment is to protect the institution of marriage. One of the authors of the amendment, Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, argues that it has everything to do with marriage and little to do with limiting benefits for gays.
Not surprisingly, the Democrats defend the gay community against what many believe is a Republican attempt to focus the election on a hot-button issue instead of the candidates' qualifications or other important issues. Many of the traditional arguments used by Democrats regarding anti-gay legislation center around one principle question: how can a country based on equality and inclusiveness tolerate legislation essentially stripping citizens of their equality because of sexual preference? One opponent of the amendment, openly gay Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, is convinced that if passed, the legislation will produce "state-sponsored discrimination."
These arguments have all been heard before, and will most likely be discussed right up until Election Day. Another issue, however, unique to the city of Madison and the University of Wisconsin system, arguably makes this amendment a bad one for not only the gay community but for students and faculty members alike. It is one that has caused university administrators like Chancellor John Wiley to take a stand, something rarely done by a university about such a sensitive issue.
In an article in The Badger Herald last Thursday, Mr. Wiley spoke about the risks such an amendment could bring to the integrity and academic caliber of the university. He argued that SJR 53/AJR 67 would discourage potential faculty members from seeking positions at UW-Madison because of the limited benefits that would be available to them. The situation is already embarrassing as it is, because UW is the only Big Ten school that offers no domestic partnership benefits.
Explaining why he decided to speak out on such a controversial issue, Mr. Wiley stated that it is his job to look out for the well-being of the university and make sure that the public knows that this legislation is bad for UW.
I understand that gay marriage is a heated issue. I respect the fundamental differences in opinion on the matter. But because this amendment, in addition to being discriminatory, will undoubtedly hurt the university, it seems clear what the voters must do in November. Whether Mr. Gundrum likes it or not, this amendment has everything to do with benefits and discrimination against gays, and little to do with the actual institution of marriage.
Let us continue to stand out as a university community for our research capabilities, our academic standing and our lively campus culture — not for our discrimination against gays.
Emily Friedman (ecfriedman@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in journalism and legal studies.
Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 7:40am):
Good article! When we read the inevitable childish, biggoted level of negative replies it just proves how wrong this ammendment is. The gay-haters simply cannot explain how gay unions threaten marriage without exposing themselves. You cannot push gays out of the picture. You are going to have to explain gay people to your kids no matter how this ammendmen ends up. There are always going to be gays in the media, news, entertainment and living in your town. When your little kid asks about them how are you going to explain it without exposing yourself? "Oh, little Melissa, we don't approve of THOSE people. They are going to hell. They don't love each other the way WE do." Nice. That'll be the first step in showing your child that you aren't the the all-knowing, all-caring person that they thought. You'll be akin to that grandparent you love so much but have to constantly forgive for the racial slurs that they make.
Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 7:54am):
Great column. Though the amendment doesn't threaten civil unions; it bans them outright. Civil unions exist only in two states, Vermont and Connecticut, and are by definition "substantially similar to" marriage.
Anyone who wants to keep track of what's going on in the fight against this civil unions and marriage ban should check out <a href="http://noontheamendment.blogspot.com"> this great blog</a>.
Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 9:45am):
Are you saying that the "Will of the People" is wrong because academic elitist "Know Better"? Perhaps the Federal Government should decide and trample state's rights? How would it hurt UW more than NO rights for partners already does? It seems to me that you postulate a lot of knee jerk reactions when faced with the possiblity of the majority of the citizens of Wisconsin deciding against you.
Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 11:54am):
Well said! VOTE NO this November!
Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 12:53pm):
I don't see how gays are being discriminated against. They make the choices to do what they do, and they must accept the consequences that go along with that. If being gay means they can't get married, then that is their choice. Just like choosing to be single means you don't get the benefist of marriage. Are single people being discriminated against? I demand that single people be granted the benefits that married people get.
Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 4:47pm):
"Bigoted", not "biggoted!"
Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 4:57pm):
I'm a worm, and if anyone's begin discriminated against it's us worms. Just because we can be cut in half and become two worms is not something we worms go around bragging about. But last month I got laid off from my job and some old homo sapien hag at the unemployment office told me that my family of 354 are counted as only one. And I'm like "Hey, lady, I still got 354 mouths to feed! You humans don't know how lucky you are!"
But then again, biologically advanced species to tend to take a lot of things for granted. Well brains ain't everything, kiddo! Adaptability is how you stay ahead in the game. Let's see humans tackle that! Try engineering themselves for immunity to cancer instead of trying to come up with a cure for it. Ain't figured it out yet, eh? Keep tryin', suckers!
Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 5:49pm):
Being gay is not a chioce, people are born that way. The question then is: if you are gay, should you be allowed to choose one person to live with the rest of your life and at the same time take advantage of all the state benefits of marrige? I think all fair minded individuals would agree. Gay couples do not want to destroy marrige, as the previous commenter implied by equating gay marrige with singles getting marrige benefits, but rather take part in it the same way their straight peers do.
Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 6:30pm):
Whether or not you believe in the right to be a homosexual is beyond the point. The fact of the matter is that, contrary to conservative opinion, there are plenty of smart gay people in the world whom students could learn an awful lot from. When the state sets up an obstacle to limit the benefits of gays it is going to hurt the universities ability to recruit gay faculty members. That is how it hurts the university. If you think it is OK for it to be illegal to get married, I suppose that is your choice. However I would assume that as a student here you would like to think that your school could recruit the best talent possible to teach you, and if this legislation passes their hands will be tied.
Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 6:52pm):
"I don't see how gays are being discriminated against. They make the choices to do what they do, and they must accept the consequences that go along with that. If being gay means they can't get married, then that is their choice."
"I'm a worm, and if anyone's begin discriminated against it's us worms."
As predicted the simpletons with no ground to stand on have come out. You've only succeeded in proving the first post's point. You have no answer.
People "choose" to be gay??? Are you really that stupid? You are a very pathetic individual?
Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 9:35pm):
Gays and lesbians just want to pick one person to spend the rest of their life with, is that too much to ask? Or better yet, would you rather have them settle down with one person, or be much more promiscuous, you know, trying to convert straight people or spreading AIDS as most people think they do. And who do you think would provide a better family atmosphere, an abusive drunk father, or two loving men?
Gays aren't setting out to destroy marriage, straight people are doing a good enough job by themselves.
Anonymous (March 9, 2006 @ 11:01am):
Not to be nit-picky but many of us prefer sexual orientation rather than sexual preference. I didn't choose to be gay. I was born that way and saying sexual preference gives those on the right a way to say, "see, they prefer it that way". Just my 2 cents.
Good article however!
Anonymous (March 10, 2006 @ 11:20am):
I continue to be dismayed at how people rationalize discriminating against homosexual individuals. I have yet to hear or see a single coherent explanation of how allowing two individuals of the same sex marry will hurt society. And as for the "will of the people" being a good gauge of right and wrong...there have been more than a few instances in our history where the majority was wrong. For example: slavery, inter-racial marriage, a woman's right to vote, and so on. For those in the so-called majority who don't understand that our system in the US is designed to provide protections for the minorty against the majority need to study more history. The "activist" judges are not legislating from the bench they are interpreting the law and constitution to the best of their ability. Any effort to codify discrimination in the manner being proposed is disgusting.
