Opinion
Inequality must be disallowed
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- Clegg absurd, biased on CFACT (May 5, 2009)
- Fund peer tutors (April 28, 2009)
- UW policy consistent with nation (April 23, 2009)
- Biddy's initiative not worth it (April 20, 2009)
- A plan for better advising (April 20, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
The Badger Herald's Article last Friday asking UW students their opinions on the Civil Union & Gay Marriage amendment reminded me as a member of PAVE (Promoting Awareness and Victim Empowerment) about the serious implications the Ban would have on the rights of all unmarried people suffering from domestic violence. This amendment is not a hypothetical question but an issue with serious legal implications.
In Ohio, where a similarly vague amendment was passed, thousands of domestic violence victims have been left without the safety of law. These limitations on legal rights are not solely felt by homosexuals but by all people living in domestic relationships without the official legal standing of marriage. In one case a defense attorney was successfully able to argue that a certain domestic violence law was partly unconstitutional because the law defined a "family or household member" as a "person living as a spouse." The court ruled that based on the superiority of the Ohio constitutional amendment, this law could only constitutionally protect married couples and could not protect those only dating or engaged. The effects of the amendment are completely indiscriminate of sexual orientation.
Similarly to the Ohio amendment, the Wisconsin amendment reads, "Any legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state." This broad far reaching language would directly contradict and overturn many of the protections afforded victims in the domestic violence laws which Wisconsin has worked for years to insure; including laws as logical as those concerning restraining orders.
A Vote NO on the ban is not only a vote against inequality but also a vote FOR Wisconsin's continued commitment to holding batterers accountable. So join me and thousands of other UW students on Tuesday by going to the polls, flipping over the ballet, and voting NO against the ban and for the rights of domestic violence victims.
Andrew Wolf Class of 2010 PAVE Member
1 Comment | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Domestic violence? You're really grasping for anything now.
This vote should remain pure: a vote "yes" proves you're the straightest person in the world, just like Pastor Ted Haggard [wishes he was].
It's not about hate, it proving you're straight.