OPINION & EDITORIAL
Vote “No” on marriage ban
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Civil unions vital (September 29, 2006)
- Gay-marriage amendment wrong course for Wisconsin (January 17, 2005)
- Students essential to defeating ban (September 7, 2006)
- Students' vote imperative to barring unfair ban (November 6, 2006)
- Ban will hurt UW employees (October 12, 2006)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Monday, November 6, 2006
The voters of Wisconsin will have the chance to make history tomorrow, Nov. 7. They will decide whether to amend the state Constitution to disallow same-sex marriage and civil unions, and we urge you to vote "No" and strike down this blatantly discriminatory measure.
The proposed amendment states, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage 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." This measure was passed by two consecutive sessions of the Legislature, and now the voting population of Wisconsin is the only body standing between the rights of all people in the state and sheer bigotry.
Such a resolution would be detrimental to the University of Wisconsin System, which, under state statute, cannot give domestic partner benefits to any of its employees. This amendment would ensure that the state's universities would be hampered in attracting and retaining quality professionals.
In their campaign to ban gay marriage, proponents of the amendment have cited studies claiming that same-sex couples are less stable than their heterosexual counterparts and that an upbringing in a gay household would be damaging to children. However, these studies are refuted by other research that demonstrates no correlation between the quality of a child's family life and the sexual preferences of his parents.
Furthermore, state statutes already define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, which renders this legislation superfluous. And while supporters of the ban claim the proposal would protect the state from "activist judges," there is an undeniable trend in the social acceptance of homosexuality. It is extremely difficult to remove an amendment to the state Constitution, and legislators would likely challenge the ban in the future should it pass.
While we understand that some people in the state religiously object to gay marriage, we call on voters and future lawmakers to observe the separation of church and state that is granted in the U.S. Constitution. Prejudice rooted in religious ideology — or in any other form — should never be written into the state Constitution.
Let's make Wisconsin the first state in the U.S. to vote down this type of amendment. Vote "No" to keep the state moving in the right direction and guarantee equality to all.
Anonymous (November 6, 2006 @ 7:42am):
If marriage's sole purpose is to create children, then we should also be allowed to vote against the marriage of post-menopausal women. Also, sterile couples should just forget about it; their lifestyle is not welcome here.
Let me be the first to congratulate those who vote yes tomorrow. You have done your part to forever end gayness. God's proud of you.
Love your neighbor, unless he's gay.
Anonymous (November 6, 2006 @ 9:22am):
The "yes" people are scared to death that UW students will turn out to vote in large numbers. Let's be the reason WI makes history! Turn your ballot over and vote NO!
Anonymous (November 6, 2006 @ 9:25am):
If you think marriage's sole purpose is having children, you're only going to have sex when you're trying to get pregnant, right?
Anonymous (November 6, 2006 @ 9:44am):
Vote yes to end fun sex.
Anonymous (November 6, 2006 @ 10:47am):
This all boils down to the America you want to live in. Do you want women and non-whites to have the same rights as land-owning gentlemen? This question has been asked before, but we still can't get it through our thick skulls.
We are all Americans, like it or not, and we all deserve equal rights.
Anonymous (November 6, 2006 @ 11:13am):
Giving gay couples extra rights and benefits is unfair. What about straight single people? Where are my extra benefits?
Anonymous (November 6, 2006 @ 11:53am):
"Giving gay couples extra rights and benefits is unfair. What about straight single people? Where are my extra benefits?"
You're an idiot. Show me anywhere that says that voting no on this ban would give extra rights to anyone. This would not result in any extra rights. If you think this benefits gay couples only, read the fine print. This ban would also outlaw domestic partnerships, which apply to heterosexual couples.
If you're that worried about your rights as a single heterosexual, then you should start trying to get the entire institution of marriage outlawed.
Anonymous (November 6, 2006 @ 12:21pm):
After this amendment passes, we should require genetic testing to prove the sexes of the partners. Testicular feminization is a real threat, my friends. No marriage to two dudes, even if one looks like a girl.
Anonymous (November 6, 2006 @ 12:25pm):
>>Giving gay couples extra rights and benefits is unfair. What about straight single people? Where are my extra benefits?<<
Extra rights? How is voting against ammending the constitution to make sure that gay people never have the SAME rights as you voting for extra rights?
Stop being brainwashed by the far right wing.
Anonymous (November 6, 2006 @ 12:53pm):
"Giving gay couples extra rights and benefits is unfair. What about straight single people? Where are my extra benefits?"
You already get over 1,000 legal benefits via marriage that are currently being denied to same-sex couples. If we can't give gay couples the same rights you enjoy, maybe we should take away your extra rights and benefits and level the playing field that way.
Anonymous (November 6, 2006 @ 2:20pm):
So, I'm sort of confused. Is this referendum tomorrow about giving the gays a full vote instead of just three-fifths?
Is this the kind of constitutional amendment that lasts forever like prohibition?
I love when we meddle with the fundamentals of our democracy for election year gimmicks. Thanks, Republicans, way to see the big picture.
Anonymous (November 6, 2006 @ 3:53pm):
Vote Yes! GOD Bless the USA! Doesnt it feel good to say Yes!
Anonymous (November 6, 2006 @ 5:54pm):
The idea that this amendment is superflous is incorrect. An amendment to the Wisconsin Constiution would make it impossible for a judge to allow gays the ability to marry or a similar institution. With the status quo, a judge could overturn the law. This is common knowledge, and it's upsetting the school newspaper would print such an obvious error.
Anonymous (November 6, 2006 @ 6:52pm):
Vote yes on the death penalty for gays (with DNA testing to prove they are homosexual.)
If you vote no, you will be turned into salt!
Anonymous (November 6, 2006 @ 8:03pm):
The Badger Herald used to have a good editorial board when I was a student here. Sure, they advocated liberal positions, but at least they had solid reasoning and persuasive writing.
So my vote tomorrow is "sheer bigotry"? Come on! Are you trying to persuade or just take shots?
"Research that demonstrates no correlation between the quality of a child's family life and the sexual preferences of his parents." How about citing some of it? Maybe because there isn't any??
"[S]eparation of church and state that is granted in the U.S. Constitution." Where? I don't see those words anywhere in my copy.
And on and on...
This issue has nothing to do with civil rights, and everything to do with homosexuals and activist judges wanting to force themselves on the rest of us. Everyone otherwise eligible to marry does and still will have the opportunity to do so, as long as it is to someone of the opposite sex. If gays and lesbians really felt they were being denied rights, how come so few of them are applying for marriage licenses in Massachusetts?
Anonymous (November 7, 2006 @ 9:20pm):
Voting yes will hurt all gay pepole
Anonymous (November 7, 2006 @ 9:23pm):
Gay maraige might be a good thing for all gay pepole....voting no will not hurt gay pepole....Please vote NO
