OPINION & EDITORIAL
Ban will hurt UW employees
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:
- Civil unions vital (September 29, 2006)
- Gay-marriage amendment wrong course for Wisconsin (January 17, 2005)
- Students essential in defeating ban (October 5, 2006)
- Vote "No" on marriage ban (November 6, 2006)
- For better or for worse (January 18, 2007)
by Letters to the Editor
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Dear Editor,
In her column today Joelle Parks misstates the scope of the civil unions ban.
Parks is right to say that existing law already bans gay marriage. She’s also right to note that the first part of the amendment would put current law into our constitution (taking the issue out of the hands of our elected representatives). And she’s especially right that a “no” vote would leave things exactly the way they are, changing absolutely nothing.
But she is flat-out wrong to disregard the second part of the amendment, which bans civil unions and—as the Regents note—seriously jeopardizes UW’s ability ever to offer equal compensation to gay employees and their families. In Ohio and Michigan, where similar bans passed two years ago, anti-gay organizations are now suing public universities to prevent them from providing gay and non-gay employees with equal benefits packages.
That’s why the Wisconsin Medical Society and the Wisconsin Council on Children & Families urge a “no” vote. And it’s why just this week, the Milwaukee Archdiocese Priests’ Alliance came out against the ban: in their statement, the priests asked fellow Catholics to consider that “the amendment may be construed to deny rights and services, including health care.”
Contrary to Parks’ description, November’s vote is about way, way more than gay marriage. It’s about whether we want our constitution to say that long-term, committed couples should forever remain legal strangers. I think that’s both unfair and profoundly unethical, and that’s why I’m voting “no.”
Sincerely,
Travis Foster Graduate Student, English
Anonymous (October 12, 2006 @ 7:45am):
Marriage is a religious idea. The State and Religion are supposed to be separate; therefore, the state should not recognize or endorse any type of marriage.
Problem solved, no special treatment for anyone.
Anonymous (October 12, 2006 @ 11:40am):
The left agrees but cannot endores that idea because it is too abstract and far from the norm to be palatable to most people.
Anonymous (October 12, 2006 @ 5:29pm):
No marriage?!? Think of the children! ... the children!!!
