The debate over banning same-sex marriage has been a growing national issue for several years. This week, it hit home, appearing on the front pages of both student newspapers and getting coverage in both The Capital Times and The Wisconsin State Journal. It's bad enough that this issue is still even a topic of conversation. Now it's the subject of a constitutional amendment that would lead to banning same-sex marriage in Wisconsin.

This is a bad idea.

The proposed amendment — referred to as either Assembly Joint Resolution 67 or Senate Joint Resolution 53 — would limit the legal definition of marriage to heterosexuals. The 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."

The arguments in favor of this amendment come down to the belief that the traditional institution of marriage must be protected, especially for the sake of the children. The two leading supporters of the amendment — State Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, and State Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin — argue that recognizing only heterosexual marriages will give children the greatest amount of nurturing and protection.

What? Did I hear that correctly? The amendment's supporters would rather a child be in foster care, where abuse and neglect often occur, or worse, in orphanages with little hope of adoption. According to the Administration for Children and Families, as of Sept. 30, 2001, there were an estimated 542,000 children in foster care. But as long as they avoid the dreaded same-sex marriage, the kids will be fine. Right? Wrong.

Supporters also argue that if same-sex marriage is permitted, it will open the door to all kinds of perversions. Many worry about a dangerous slippery-slope scenario in which the absence of a clear protection of marriage will open the door to the legalization of behavior such as polygamy, pedophilia and incest.

There is no argument to be made that homosexuals are worthier or better suited to be parents. Similarly, there is no argument that heterosexuals are better parents, either. Why, then, do the amendment's supporters fail to realize that if they really do care about the children, they will focus on what is most important: that children grow up in caring, safe homes with parents who love them?

I understand that marriage was previously thought of as a purely heterosexual institution. But it is time to realize things are different now. Just as we've come to understand that women and minorities deserve to advance in ways never before deemed possible, all people — including homosexuals — deserve the benefits of marriage. Those benefits go beyond the minimum legal and financial advantages now extended to homosexual couples.

Just as there will always be racists, there will always be homophobes. But the strides we have taken both here in Madison and in society as a whole are tremendous. The proposed constitutional amendment will only turn back the clock.

Emily Friedman ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in journalism and legal studies.