Americans have an unfortunate tradition of passing trend legislation that accomplishes little and, more importantly, is unneeded. Wisconsinites are no different.

Nearly twenty years ago, Wisconsin passed hate-crime legislation, and on Nov. 7 voters in Wisconsin will decide whether we discriminate against LGBT couples, and, if so, whether we should extend trend legislation into a new and dangerous realm: trend amendments.

Wisconsin's history with trend legislation, or hate-crime legislation, was born out of the supposition that bigoted crimes were running unchecked across the country and needed not only to be punished, but also punished more severely than other violent crimes. Society was outraged by these hate crimes, and advocates consequently claimed legislation was needed to deal with this "epidemic."

Legislators were faced with a choice to either denounce bigotry or give their political opponents fodder for one of those cheesy negative ads we have all grown to despise (or masochistically enjoy). Thus, after virtually no debate, state after state passed legislation asserting their popular opposition to hate crimes.

Noticeably absent from this debate, however, was any discussion about whether the legislation was actually necessary.

Some opponents of hate-crime legislation claim that the infrequency of the violations should preclude its inclusion in our law. I reject this argument that infrequency of violation makes a law unnecessary.

We have special legislation to combat terrorism, and, despite its infrequency, few people find its existence threatening to our legal culture. Consequently, whether hate crimes are happening every day or once every three years is irrelevant.

I oppose the legislation on the grounds that the institutional mechanisms already exist to effectively deter and punish more severe hate crimes. The mechanism is called discretion, and has been part of American legal culture since its inception.

If society becomes extremely repulsed by a specific hate crime, it could choose to punish that crime more severely than others during sentencing hearings — when this should happen — rather than in legislative sessions — when it shouldn't. Ironically, an essential portion of the justification of the adoption of hate-crime legislation, the idea that hate crimes need a mechanism enforcing harsher punishment for certain crimes, is better suited as a justification against their adoption.

Legislators across the country took taxpayers for a ride, wasting time and effort drafting and passing bills that amounted to little more than a symbolic affirmation of our existing institutional mechanisms for dealing with these crimes.

However, to claim that trend legislation is universally pointless would be wholly incorrect. Trend legislation also deals with other issues facing racial and ethnic minorities, such as affirmative action and the extension of the voting rights act.

These bills have served to better society as a whole and serve as a justification for the possibility of trend legislation's efficacy. However, the exception fails to be the rule. Trend legislation is spreading, and not in a good way.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman in 20 states by a constitutional amendment, and an additional 21 states have legislative policy stating the same. Wisconsin could become part of this group and, by doing so, jeopardize our legal tradition.

Wisconsin statute has already defined marriage to be between a husband and wife. Passing an amendment when statutory law already exists amounts to waste, something both conservative and liberal voters can agree is never a worthy goal of a legislature.

The question to be asked is, "Why do we need the amendment when statutory law already addresses this issue?" Surely the only answer is that the proponents of this amendment are afraid Wisconsin's marriage law will be overturned by the courts.

Given this threat, the legislation does serve a need, but it amounts to little more than overkill and serves selfish interests, which undermines the efficacy of democracy.

Even with an understanding of the fear of this amendment's proponents, why do citizens need to address this issue with a constitutional amendment? Constitutional amendments are supposed to be reserved for the most fundamental of issues pertaining to democracy.

Are we to include marriage's definition in the same legal class as the right to speak or have equal protection under the law? Hardly.

The amendment's proponents need a wake-up call; amending the constitution over trivial issues such as this will only open the door for their opponents to do the same in the future.

This headache is something Wisconsinites should avoid, if only for the peaceful prospect of an election in which the future of our state's legal culture is not at risk. Therefore, the choice falls to you, voters.

Let's get off of this legislative ride, for the sake of the law and our collective sanity and vote against this unnecessary legislation.

Robert Phansalkar ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in languages and cultures of Asia and political science.