OPINION & EDITORIAL
Civil unions vital
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Ban will hurt UW employees (October 12, 2006)
- Students essential in defeating ban (October 5, 2006)
- Religious sanctimony unnecessary for marriage (November 7, 2006)
- Marriage: a cultural tradition (January 21, 2005)
- Court weighs culture, law (October 31, 2006)
by Letters to the Editor
Friday, September 29, 2006
In yesterday's column, "Changes Abound in Madison," Joelle Parks incorrectly describes one of the major issues at hand in this election. By referring to SJR 53, she claims it is a vote on the definition of marriage in Wisconsin. While true, she neglects to mention half of the issue: whether to ban civil unions for couples in the state of Wisconsin. This is not a trivial difference. Polls show that a majority of citizens in Wisconsin support civil unions and by calling it an amendment on marriage, Miss Parks misses a critical part of the proposed constitutional ban. By also preventing civil unions, this amendment is too extreme and far-reaching. Civil unions are a necessary legal agreement that couples can use to help protect their loved ones. However, she is correct on one matter. Students can play a major role in this election and certainly need to go out and vote come November 7th. Students do care about this ban on civil unions and marriage and should stand up in the civil rights struggle of our generation.
Matt Weil, Sophomore, History and Latin American, Caribbean and Iberian Studies Major, mpweil@wisc.edu
Anonymous (September 29, 2006 @ 3:00am):
Pretty spot on.
Anonymous (September 29, 2006 @ 2:39pm):
We should, instead, be debating whether our state should recognize marriage at all, since marriage, I am told, was set up by God himself to be between a man and a woman. Once God enters the fray, the issue becomes too religious for our secular country, state.
Perhaps we should alter our constitution to clarify who may take communion and who may not. We should also offer tax breaks to all baptized believers.
Church and state don't get along too well, as you see.
