It was partisan political bickering at its worst. Last week, as the Republican-led Wisconsin Legislature announced its plans to delay the April 5 vote on a statewide referendum “defining” marriage, Democrats were quick to accuse Republicans of using the bill’s provisions to bolster conservative voting numbers for upcoming state and national elections. The Republicans, in turn, criticized Democrats for tastelessly and personally attacking the GOP and the bill’s drafters. The marriage amendment, which seeks to ban gay marriage, including civil unions, will now likely appear on the gubernatorial ballot in November 2006, when high-profile Democrats Gov. Jim Doyle, Sen. Herb Kohl and Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager are up for re-election.
Regardless of whether the delay serves as a political attempt to enhance partisan support on a widely divisive and focal issue, the vote’s postponement is rational in all its alleged conspiracy. With the recent new state-budget release seizing public debate and drawing protests at all levels (such as last week’s great bout of student activism), and with the state Legislature concentrating on a potential property-tax freeze, perhaps a marriage-amendment vote in April is too soon. Political discourse will likely remain focused on the budget’s components, which include fresh tuition hikes and financial cuts for the University of Wisconsin. Though the issue of gay marriage has quieted recently, the marriage amendment, with its baggage of controversy and societal implications, should not be taken lightly nor moved too quickly through the Capitol and onto the ballot. Extra time will allow the bill’s authors to clear up ambiguities and confusion within the amendment’s language and enhance citizens’ knowledge of what exactly they are voting for or against.
What is more, Democrats act as if adding the marriage vote to the gubernatorial ballot spells disaster for their party, claiming that it will help hand the Wisconsin governorship to the Republicans. This claim rests on two assumptions. The first is that Mr. Doyle’s re-election depends on relatively low voter turnout. If the governor loses in 2006, it will be because of a sub-par, disappointing term in office; not because an onslaught of conservatives, rushing to the polls only for the opportunity to ban gay marriage, happens to vote him out.
The second assumption rests on the notion that those desperate to “preserve marriage” outnumber those who wish to preserve equality. If that is the case, then the date of the vote is largely irrelevant.
This was the same logic used to explain President Bush’s victory last November, when 11 states’ presidential ballots included votes on marriage amendments and many blamed the gay community’s quest for social justice for bringing out America’s rednecks and homophobes and handing the president his re-election. Such excuses are nothing more than political cop-outs. Wedge issues such as gay marriage, with its legislative and social implications revealed, should do as much to bring out liberals as it does to bring out conservatives. The challenge lies in bolstering passionate support for gay rights to combat passionate opposition to gay rights (the latter being, at the moment, far more evident in this country).
In addition to attempting to improve their governor’s dismal approval ratings, the Democrats, rather than partaking in pointless partisan squabbling, should dedicate their time to informing citizens of the referendum’s potential backlash. The delay serves as an opportunity to influence the public’s perceptions and enhance citizens’ understanding of the amendment and the gay-marriage issue in general. It provides the chance to educate voters on the bill’s impending effects, including its risk of eliminating unmarried domestic partnership benefits (as was publically noted by city attorney Michael May last week) as well as promoting a negative climate whose coldness could deter more talented students and skilled professionals than the state’s worst temperatures.
But if the vote’s delay does prove to be an effective political maneuver, and conservative Wisconsinites do come out in record numbers to elect a Republican governor and pass the marriage legislation, and progressives and Democrats fail to prevent either, then alas, the great institution of democracy will have triumphed once again. It might have done so at the expense of civil equality and with the assurance of tragic repercussions, but it will have triumphed nonetheless.
Adam Lichtenheld ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and international relations.
