OPINION & EDITORIAL
Republicans lack stance on 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)
Related Stories:
- Civil unions vital (September 29, 2006)
- Vote "No" on marriage ban (November 6, 2006)
- Ban will hurt UW employees (October 12, 2006)
- Gay-marriage amendment wrong course for Wisconsin (January 17, 2005)
- ASM: Vote early, vote often (April 5, 2006)
by Guest Columnist
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
When students vote on Nov. 7, they are going to find more than just the names of political candidates on the ballot. They will be voting on an issue that could significantly affect our state constitution and way of life much more than many people truly understand.
The proposed ban on civil unions and marriage, if passed, will irreparably reverse decades of sound, progressive thinking that Wisconsin is renowned for. The two-part ban will embed discrimination, bigotry, and hate directly into our state's founding text. Not only will the ban duplicate existing state law, but it will deeply threaten the rights of people regardless of their sexual orientation.
Governor Jim Doyle believes we should be working on the issues that really matter to Wisconsin families — instead of finding ways to divide people like this amendment does. And the Governor believes that we should not be writing discrimination into the state constitution. The second part, or second sentence, of the ban will explicitly prohibit any status that is "substantially similar" to marriage, which will constitutionally outlaw all relationships commonly referred to as "civil unions." The prohibition of civil unions would extend to all unmarried couples, both gay and straight, and would most likely include a permanent ban on domestic partner benefits. Since UW-Madison already is the only Big Ten school that does not offer these benefits, passage of the ban will do nothing but damage our school's reputation and educational quality.
However, it's not clear that everyone understands the disastrous effect this amendment may have. The College Democrats fiercely oppose the ban, but the College Republicans on campus have refused to take a position. Given that the civil unions and marriage ban will be one of the most important questions facing voters on Nov. 7, we implore the College Republicans to take a stance on this issue.
In an Oct. 4 news report in The Badger Herald, College Republicans Chair Erica Christenson said that her organization has not taken a stance on the ban because they see it as "mostly religious in nature." However, this indicates that adding a constitutional ban that will dramatically affect the rights our state affords its citizens is nothing but a private religious choice. If the ban is "mostly religious in nature," then our state constitution must be some sort of sweeping religious document. Is that how separation of church and state is supposed to function?
Republicans across the country — including those in Wisconsin — hardly ever use religion as an excuse for not taking a stance on an issue. Rather, the Party that has been known for its mantra of "God, guns and gays" uses religion to shape its positions on an increasingly wide range of issues. Republican opposition to embryonic stem cell research, hostility toward women's reproductive rights, and support for pharmacists' personal views taking precedence over doctors' medical decisions — these are all matters in which religion dictated the Republican stance. President Bush supported a ban like this at the federal level. And Congressman Mark Green, who sides with Bush 92 percent of the time, also publicly favors the ban. Even if the proposed ban is a religious issue for most Republicans, as Ms. Christenson claims, why can't the College Republicans take a stance?
As I mentioned above, Wisconsin has a proud, progressive legacy — we were one of the first states to reject the fugitive slave laws, our environmental commitment led to the creation of Earth Day, and government ethics reform was spearheaded here in the early 20th century. But more than just history compels opposition to this ban. It's simply the right thing to do. Defeating this discriminatory and alienating ban is the civil rights issue of our generation. Taking a stance opposing the ban protects the rights of our fellow citizens at the time they need us most.
So, I ask the College Republicans, on the pages of this paper, to take a stance on the proposed civil unions and marriage ban. Republicans in the state Legislature put this ban on the ballot, and the leading campus political groups need to take a stance to show how they'll be voting at the polls, to get more students involved in the political process, and to improve the public dialogue on campus. If a political group cannot even explain why a political and electoral issue appears on the ballot, perhaps that issue should not be on the ballot at all. Tell the College Republicans how you feel as students and as citizens of Wisconsin. Go to www.theamendmentstand.com and have your voice heard.
Three weeks from today, the voters on this campus and across Wisconsin will take a stance at the voting booth. Governor Doyle, the UW Board of Regents, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, the College Democrats — we all oppose this discriminatory ban. College Republicans … where do you stand?
Eli Lewien is the Chair of the UW-Madison College Democrats.
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 6:16am):
Isn't the phrase "take a stand," not "take a stance?"
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 7:42am):
God: Caused Hurricane Katrina
Guns: Recent wave of school shootings
Gays: Mark Foley Scandal
Yep, the Republican party is a lock for November. Maybe the GOP should just stick to bashing the mythical liberal boogyman.
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 8:28am):
I think the College Republicans know exactly how they feel about the ban - they for some irrational, idiotic reason support it - but they also know that over 90% of this campus disagrees with them. The Repubs are just scared to reveal their highly discriminatory and deeply unpopular stance to the rest of us students.
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 8:38am):
Erica Christenson & Co. need to grow a spine and stop walking lockstep with everything the Republican Party wants them to say and do. "Religious in nature?" Come on Erica, start thinking for yourself!!! Seriously, as a college student, how do you really plan to vote on the ban?
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 8:44am):
Well said! As campus leaders they owe it to their members and the rest of the community to take a stance.
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 9:36am):
Riddle me this: how the hell does a political organization like the College REPUBLICANS claim that they shouldn't take a position on an issue that was originally proposed by REPUBLICANS Mark Gundrum and Scott Fitzgerald in the Legislature?!?!? Why didn't the the majority of Republicans at the State Capitol think the ban was too religious to choose a side on?
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 9:49am):
Ten bucks says they bash you for calling them out and never say anything about the issue.
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 10:24am):
Banning gay marriage is not discrimination. Gays have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like straights do. If they chose not to do so, that's their choice, and it should not be the state's responsibility to seek alternatives for these people. You don't like girls? That's fine. Why should we all be force to recognize that? Girls don't like me, so where is my compensation? That's what I call a double standard.
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 10:50am):
Cowards. I agree, grow a spine
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 11:38am):
I say the United States is not doing enough to require everyone to marry a person of the opposite sex and produce children. We should make laws that descriminate against singles over the age of 21. If you're not married, you're probably doing something immoral.
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 2:21pm):
Eli Lewien is a freedom fighter for all those who are facing oppression.
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 3:24pm):
Finally, the phrase "freedom fighter" used in a proper context. Can he also be a "protest warrior?"
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 3:48pm):
"Banning gay marriage is not discrimination. Gays have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like straights do."
Idiotic arguments like this are why the College Repubs stay closeted in their discrimination against gays. They *know* it's wrong but all that matters to them is election outcome.
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 6:28pm):
"Can he also be a "protest warrior?""
Yeah, but he has to put up idiotic signs all over campus and march around protests carrying a shabby picket sign.
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 7:33pm):
this article was absolutely ludacris.
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 8:48pm):
maybe the college republicans don't like to tell its members how to vote?
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 8:55pm):
"Banning gay marriage is not discrimination. Gays have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like straights do."
As a Republican, this offends me. There is no reason to be crude.
There is, however, a reason for the College Republicans not taking a stand on this issue: we don't all agree. Why disinclude some of our members by taking a stance that cannot be agreed upon by everyone? And why is it so important to the College Democrats that we solidify our position on the issue?
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 9:02pm):
Why? Don't they, as the leading right wing political organization on campus owe it to the students to say where they stand?
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 11:18pm):
"If a political group cannot even explain why a political and electoral issue appears on the ballot, perhaps that issue should not be on the ballot at all."
Nuf' said.
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 11:25pm):
If the College Republicans don't like to tell members how to vote, why has it done so? Also, isn't that the point of political groups on this campus- to tell people what to vote for and why?
When I go vote this November with that marker in my hand, I want to know what I'm voting for. Senator, Governor, and some amendments. What do people think about these candidates? These issues? That's political dialogue, and it's hard to have a one-way conversation.
Still, I'll give kudos to the Repub. chair for telling it like it is- this amendment is about religion. Isn't it against the Constitution to enact legislation based on purely religious opinion? Would it then be legal to enact Sharia law? As a Christian, I think homosexuality is a sin, but as an American I don't see how I can legally make a civil law against it. What do the College Republicans think? Am I wrong? *I don't know* because they won't tell me.
Anonymous (October 18, 2006 @ 12:36am):
At the very least, I am glad some CR's have the heart to not discriminate against fellow students, and against fellow CR's - yes I said it.
Anonymous (October 18, 2006 @ 12:58am):
As previously mentioned, it is important to consider the backgrounds of all people affiliated with the college republicans, and thus by taking a stance on the ban they risk alienating some of their members, either by supporting the ban(Members who are already affected by civil unions would be alienated) or by condemning the ban (Straying from contemporary republican beliefs).
The issue, it would seem, hits a lot closer to home with democrats which is why they have taken such a firm stance. It is not right for the college democrats to pigeon-hole the republicans into fully supporting or discouraging the ban, where there is so much more to it.
Anonymous (October 18, 2006 @ 7:21am):
"If a political group cannot even explain why a political and electoral issue appears on the ballot, perhaps that issue should not be on the ballot at all."
Letting the voter decide is called democracy. You should try it some time. It's a great thing.
Anonymous (October 18, 2006 @ 10:44am):
"Letting the voter decide is called democracy. You should try it some time. It's a great thing. "
OK George friggin' Washington, what's better for democracy than political discourse and debate? Ask yourself who's standing in the way of this, the Democrats who have articulated their feelings on the amendment, or the CR's, who've punted. Telling people how to vote and why is what political groups DO. This isn't coercion or a knock against democracy. It's how democracy works.
"It is not right for the college democrats to pigeon-hole the republicans into fully supporting or discouraging the ban, where there is so much more to it."
If it needs to be a reasoned, hedged, calculated, thought-out or nuanced view, fine. Some Democrats might yell at the CRs for it being ambiguous, but I won't.
People have been complaining in this country and on this campus that political discourse is getting too polarized. Now's the chance for the CRs to help by giving a view that isn't lockstep with the party line or talking points. Remember Arlen Specter and John McCain? They're popular because they (sometimes) do this. It's a challenge, but the days of Moderate Republicans aren't dead. Just ask Dave Magnum.
Anonymous (October 18, 2006 @ 1:47pm):
So, funny thing, if we live in a DEMOCRACY, why is it that Republicans exist? We don't live in a Republic, and actually, that's what we left Europe for.
Also, when a Political Party takes a stance on an issue, they chose their stance by a majority vote. Further more, if there is not a majority debates are opened in order to come to a majority. That's why they are called political parties, because you are in a group with similar views and opinions.
I personally feel that same-sex marriage should not be. BUT I feel that civil unions should be recognized by America.
At one time, African Americans could not marry whites because IT WAS ILLEGAL. Why are we doing this all over again?!?!
Grow up, get counseling, or admit you are a prejudice bigot.
Anonymous (October 19, 2006 @ 1:13am):
My thinking is while all college Republicans (note the lowercase C) don't need to have the same opinion on a political issue, the College Republicans (capital C), as one of the leading political groups on campus, should have an expressed opinion on one of the largest political issues in the state this year. As a political party with a professed set of beliefs on what government should be and do, its the duty of the group to suggest to its membership how this issue fits into the larger scheme of their vision of government.
Anonymous (October 19, 2006 @ 2:50am):
"We don't live in a Republic, and actually, that's what we left Europe for."
Oxford English Dictionary: republic |ri?p?blik| noun - a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
