OPINION & EDITORIAL
Questions emerge on marriage issue
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Jeff Carnes:
- Gay frat diversifies Greeks (May 4, 2007)
- Problems in city's environment vast (April 26, 2007)
- State budget must keep UW in mind (April 19, 2007)
- Students should take responsiblity for credit card debts (April 12, 2007)
- State must confront brain drain issue (March 29, 2007)
Related Stories:
- One-stop riders cause bus overcrowding (October 3, 2005)
- Taking it to the streets (October 12, 2004)
- GOP urges campus to cast educated ballots (October 24, 2006)
- Be aware of homeless week (November 9, 2007)
- TAA asks for student support at rally (April 21, 2005)
by Jeff Carnes
Monday, September 4, 2006
Library Mall is one of my favorite places on campus. Walking down Bascom Hill from Van Hise, I always try to stop and watch the near-daily protest, awareness campaign or rally. From the ornate depictions of the villages in the West Bank and campaign workers shoving flyers into your hands to the spectacle of campus icons such as Brother Jed, Library Mall can be considered ground zero for debate on local, state, national and international issues.
This fall, Library Mall will be no different. With the November elections looming, activist groups on all sides of a host of issues should make Library Mall exciting well into late fall. Library Mall will be full of chalk invitations to meetings, flyers posted on any vertical surface and advocates trying to get students to stop and listen.
The hot-button issue for Wisconsin this fall could be the Marriage Protection Amendment, which explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. This state constitutional amendment, passed by the state Assembly and Senate in February, is on the Nov. 7 ballot for the citizens of Wisconsin to decide.
Groups on both sides of the issue have mobilized for the election. As early as 2005, the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin, a public action committee that supports the amendment, sent out DVDs to various churches in the state concerning "the battle for marriage in Wisconsin." Other advocacy groups, especially LGBT groups across the state, have been going door-to-door persuading potential voters to vote "no" on the issue.
Both sides of the issue make the amendment seem like a no-brainer. Those who support the amendment say that marriage is sacred and needs to be defined so that "activist" courts do not overturn the current law, as in Massachusetts. On the other side, those who oppose the gay marriage ban claim that this is an issue conjured up so the conservative base in Wisconsin comes out to vote in higher numbers.
For many voters, the issue is not as black and white. There are a myriad of questions surrounding this issue. What is the actual definition of marriage? Can this definition change, or is marriage a fixed concept? What are the effects of voting for the marriage ban? What will be the side effects to this amendment if it passes? How does this amendment conform to my values? In what ways does this conflict with my beliefs? How will history judge this amendment?
For those on both sides of the amendment, there are simple answers, but for me, the answers result in many more questions. If we can change the definition of marriage, can we change the definition in fifty years to allow polygamy? On the other hand, if marriage is sacred, how come an Elvis impersonator can perform marriages in a Las Vegas drive-through?
The Marriage Protection Amendment questions some of Wisconsin and America's core values. Are we a Christian nation built on Judeo-Christian traditions, or are we a sectarian yet secular society? How much should government on any level be involved or interfere with our personal lives? How do we define our family values as a state and as a nation? How accepting are we of others when their values differ dramatically from our own?
These concerns and a volume of other questions surround this amendment, and many of these issues — religion, civil rights, family — carry ample emotion. Much of this emotion will be on full display in Library Mall for us this fall.
While passion concerning the definition of marriage does show how important this amendment is to many of us on campus and throughout the state, we must look beyond the emotion and at our own values to make a choice on the Marriage Protection Amendment this November.
Personally, I have made that choice, and, upon reflection, I am surprised how difficult the choice was for me. I was forced to look at many of my core values and what I consider important both as a voter in Wisconsin and as a person.
For many of us voting the first time, this amendment is not only historic for the state but a personal struggle. Looking at both sides of a "yes" or "no" vote, the choice can be daunting, though it is necessary for us as a campus and as a state to determine who we are and what beliefs we hold to be most important.
Jeff Carnes (jmcarnes@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in linguistics.
Anonymous (September 4, 2006 @ 11:49am):
You'd think a linguistics major would frown upon usage of "myriad" as a noun instead of its preferred use as an adjective; not that this issue is black and white, but it is necessary to for us as linguists to determine who we are and what beliefs we hold to be most important.
Anonymous (September 4, 2006 @ 7:28pm):
Myriad is also singular.
"There are a myriad of quiestions"
should be
"There is a myriad of questions"
Anonymous (September 5, 2006 @ 12:44am):
You could have saved over 700 words... bad article
Anonymous (September 5, 2006 @ 11:04am):
According to Merrian-Webster online:
Main Entry: 1myr
Anonymous (September 6, 2006 @ 2:17pm):
The description of the constitutional ban on civil unions and marriage for gay couples in this article is extremely misleading. In addition to banning gay marriage, the amendment would ban anything "substantially similar" to marriage, meaning civil unions and most likely any type of domestic partnerships. Considering that polls have shown a majority of Wisconsinites support either gay marriage or some sort of civil union for gay couples, the ban cannot be responsibly discussed without discussing civil unions.
Anonymous (September 7, 2006 @ 11:26pm):
For the person who left the first comment, if you are critizing someone's English writing style, maybe you should ensure that your English is perfect. Linguists should know the difference between "too" and "to".
Anonymous (September 21, 2006 @ 6:13pm):
Okay, it's great to see so many "students" address the real issue in the article: the meaning of Myriad, and how to use it in a sentence. Too much caffeine and lack of focus on the issue at hand???
