The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Students essential to defeating ban

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

Also by Guest Columnist:

Stop America's 'green scare' (December 10, 2007)
Greek sexuality misconceptions unfair (December 6, 2007)
Security fee shows UWPD's prejudice (December 6, 2007)
Vote Democrat, vote equal LGBT rights (December 6, 2007)
Free trade stagnates upward mobility (December 6, 2007)

by Guest Columnist

Thursday, September 7, 2006

On Nov. 7, students have the chance to make history. We as young people have the opportunity to take a stand, to say no to discrimination and to fight the civil rights battle of our generation.

This fall, Wisconsin voters will be asked to decide if we should add this to our State Constitution:

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman will be valid or recognized in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

Marriage is already against the law for gay couples in Wisconsin. The ban would not only permanently enshrine this discrimination into our constitution, but it would also ban civil unions and other legal protections for gay couples.

This Election Day, Wisconsin has the chance to be the first state to defeat an amendment to ban marriage and civil unions for gay couples, and students can make the difference.

In a recent Capital Times article, Professor Kathy Cramer Walsh said that for this amendment, "the campus vote statewide will be the deciding factor."

In states that have already passed similar amendments, we're seeing the legal consequences — domestic partner benefits taken away in Michigan and domestic violence charges dismissed in Ohio. These are just a couple examples, and more cases are pending to determine just how many rights are going to be taken away or banned.

The question on the Nov. 7 ballot is no abstract debate. It is a question about real people and about how we treat our friends, our family and our neighbors. It is a question about people's lives — people who live in every part of this state.

In late August, a top professor announced his decision to leave the University of Wisconsin for the University of Pennsylvania. During his six short years at the university, Rob Carpick brought in numerous awards and millions of dollars for his research. Although Carpick loved living in Madison and his job at UW, he felt that his choice was clear. He didn't leave for a more lucrative position or a better location; instead, he left because he is gay and can't get health care for his partner.

Carol and Virginia live in Eau Claire. They've been together for the past 30 years and have raised two children together. A couple years ago, Carol was admitted to the hospital for serious heart problems. Virginia rushed to the hospital, but when she got there she was barred from seeing Carol because she was not her next of kin. Virginia was forced to wait on the other side of the hospital door, not sure if the love of her life — her partner of 30 years — was dying.

If this ban on civil unions and marriage passes, it would only make experiences like these that much worse by eliminating the hope of rights for gay couples, and by seriously jeopardizing any existing legal protections.

It would tell professors like Rob Carpick that their work would be valued more elsewhere.

It would tell families like Carol and Virginia that, even though they've been together for 30 years, raised children and contributed to their community, they don't deserve the rights everyone else has.

It would say to some of our own students on this campus that we don't want to ensure them civil rights.

It would say to all LGBT people that they are not valued in this state — that their lives are merely convenient political pawns. The more states that pass anti-gay amendments, the more we hear that message loud and clear across the country, and it needs to stop here.

I truly believe in our generation. I believe we see past the rhetoric of "protecting marriage" and will stand up against this discrimination by voting "no" this fall.

But we need your help. Join us in the fight to defeat this amendment. Come to the Students for a Fair Wisconsin Kickoff on Sept. 7 at 7:30 p.m., TITU.

This is our chance to shape history. We have the power to make Wisconsin the first state to ever stop an anti-gay amendment and to send a message across the country.

Join us at our kickoff meeting and on Nov. 7. Vote "no."

Andy Gordon is a junior and the campus coordinator for Fair Wisconsin.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (September 7, 2006 @ 7:45am):

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman will be valid or recognized in this state." Does this mean "at a time" or "ever". I just wonder if this law could be extrapolated to make second marriages illegal. Isn't it strange that none of the "family values" group wants to ban divorce?

Anonymous (September 7, 2006 @ 9:28am):

I agree. I'm sick of all these divorcees sucking our health care systems dry and trying to consider themselves "real people".

Anonymous (September 7, 2006 @ 9:37am):

Why should a gay man's "partner" get his health insurance? What about my best friend who I have known for years? We aren't gay, but still, I think he should be covered under my health care. My point is, just because two people like to have sex (gay or otherwise) doesn't mean that the state should give them special treatment. Marriage between a man and a woman is different than gay "relationships." If they want to be gay, and live together, and have gay sex, I don't care. But why should they get special benefits. What about all us single people? There should be a "social revolution" for unmarried men who want tax breaks and free health insurance.

Gays do have equal rights. They have just as much right to marry a woman as I do. If they choose to waive that right, then that's the sacrifice they make.

Anonymous (September 7, 2006 @ 1:02pm):

My spouse and I were married in Canada ,registered as DP in California(terminology I loathe but it nonetheless provides us with the same protections as hetero married couples- at least in regards to state law.As far as the Feds are concerned we don't exist.)and have been together for well over a decade.We are productive ,contributing memebers of societyand well regarded.Providing equal status under the law is not giving "special" rights to anyone.Marriage equality will one dy be the law of the land and these unjust marriage "protection" laws will one day be viewed with the repugnance they richly deserve.Civil marriage for a committed couple is only just; individual churches can decide for themselves.As a one time Madisonian I urge all Wisconsinites to reject this morally offensive ballot measure.

Anonymous (September 7, 2006 @ 2:27pm):

Well that was a very heartfelt plea you have written. It almost makes me overlook the facts. Luckily I have been in college for a couple years more than you or I may have been pulled in.

1) Domestic Violence charges equate to assault and battery correct? Therefore those types of crimes would simply be prosecuted under a different name. I'm sure if someone walked up and punched a complete stranger there is in fact a law that is being broken there, correct?

2) Hospital privaledges can be granted to anyone. You just need to file the paperwork. If that takes longer than 30 yeras then we have another problem indeed.

3) Wisconsin statute does not say anywhere that marriage is between one man and one woman. It says marriage is a union between husband and wife... that is remarkably similiar to what the law said in Massachusetts... did that law hold up there?

4) Wisconsin has been in the top 5 research schools in the nation, and has not fallen out of its ranking because of its policy on extending domestic benefits. Your plea to the tale of one professor is a great tactical move, just like your other emotional pleas, but the statistics do not fall in line quite as nicely.

5) Lastly there are some points I would like to point out. For the state to purposely create/promote family units where the children and purposely deprived of either their mother or father is ludicris, and with all this talk about domestic violence there is always a dismisall of the fact that the marriage relationship statistically is the safest environment for both husband and wife. Most violence occures in boyfriend/girlfriend type situations and relationships that are not the traditional marriage type.

I hope that people will really look at some of the statistics behind this amendment issue and make and informed decision, rather than a decision based soley on their feelings and emotions, which is sadle what many people are trying to make this into.

Dustin
Grad Student UW-Milwaukee

Anonymous (September 7, 2006 @ 3:33pm):

The argument would be that two men marrying is not different (excluding biology) than a man and woman. It's not *special* treatment. It's equal treatment.

I suppose blacks should not be given special treatment when they are allowed to use the same restroom...

There are legal protections in things such as civil unions, something that is seperate from your marriage argument and unfourtunatley this is a civil union AND marriage ban.

Anonymous (September 8, 2006 @ 2:17am):

Hospital privaledges do not exist.

Anonymous (September 8, 2006 @ 2:47pm):

If you want to get married that bad, move to Canada. Wouldn't that make a statement?
Oh yeah, just like the libs who cried they were moving to Canada after the election, it'll never happen. No matter how much you complain about America being an awful, unfair place to live, you won't leave.

Anonymous (September 14, 2006 @ 4:10pm):

To those who wrote in opposing the ban:

Your motivations are as transparent as your arguments. It is clear that your "reasons" for opposing the ban are merely a way to rationalize and justify your bigoted beliefs about gay men and lesbians.

Why spew hot air when you can just say the truth:

"My name is _____, and I don't like gay people. My parents taught me not to, and it threatens my masculinity."

Do you understand what I'm saying, or has that Bud Light you are clutching clouded your mind even further?

Emily McWilliams
Resident Lesbian
Madison, WI