In the nine months since Wisconsin voters were first told that they would be voting on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, public discourse has focused on what most assumed to be the ban's core issue: the alleged "sanctity" of wedlock. In bouts of hyperbole and hypocrisy, writers from a variety of campus and off-campus media sources — including columnists on this page — have declared that the ban is necessary to protect the "traditional institution of marriage."
Such claims could have some merit if the "traditional institution of marriage" wasn't such a joke. We are, by the way, talking about the institution used by Britney Spears as a 55-hour love ride "just for the hell of it"; the same institution used as a "get rich quick" scheme by Anna Nicole Smith and ostentatiously mocked by such prime-time reality shows as "Married by America" and "Who Wants to Marry My Dad?" We are referring to the very institution that has been undercut by a 50 percent divorce rate and countless annulments, while being effectively trampled upon by Jennifer Lopez, Bill Clinton, free, five-minute online ordinations and the city of Las Vegas. Monitor the short life of any high-profile celebrity hitch, and it will prove that wedlock is anything but cherished in our society.
Therefore, preserving the "sanctity" of marriage has little to do with this ban because marriage is just not that sacred. Religious connotations aside, marriage is more than a social symbol of mutual commitment — it is a legal union that affords individuals with more than 1,000 benefits and rights. Therefore, the issue at hand is not whether we're depriving individuals of marriage, per se. It is whether we're depriving them of the legal benefits of marriage and, correspondingly, their civil rights.
The second sentence of the ban explicitly forbids state recognition of "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage." This goes well beyond protecting traditional ideas of matrimony. The wording of this clause would effectively prohibit homosexuals from seeking the legal protections of marriage through vehicles other than marriage, such as civil unions. Even President Bush, in his crusade to outlaw gay marriage at the federal level, has accepted civil unions as an alternative for same-sex couples. This is where the ban is particularly disturbing — it leaves little room for the judiciary to remedy a blatant deprivation of equal access to fundamental rights. Without civil unions, the ban would deprive individuals of nearly 200 legal rights offered by marriage in Wisconsin.
Yet it is not just homosexual couples that would be stripped of the benefits of being in a monogamous relationship. More than 100 state employers offer domestic benefits to non-married heterosexual employees. Such perks — including health and dental insurance, sick and parental leave, housing rights and life insurance — would be in jeopardy if the ban passed, subjecting certain individuals to discrimination under the law merely because of their marital status.
Meanwhile, the ban would threaten a handful of other rights for non-married couples, including access to shared retirement benefits, funeral and bereavement rights, power of attorney status, medical visitation and shared property rights, joint tax benefits, health care program options and the ability to make medical decisions. There would be more indirect effects as well; after Ohio adopted a similar amendment, a man was acquitted for abusing his girlfriend after the court determined that, because the two were unmarried, a classification of domestic violence did not apply.
In the end, the referendum on Tuesday's ballot is not a moral issue, a religious issue, or a gay issue — it is a legal issue; a debate over whether unmarried couples (both homosexual and heterosexual) should be granted the same fundamental civil rights as those engaged in matrimonial relationships. In this view, the ban is unnecessary — both the Wisconsin Constitution and the Wisconsin Supreme Court reject same-sex marriage. Your vote should not hinge on whether you support the idea of gay marriage, but whether you support the idea of everyone retaining the same rights and benefits under the law. There is no doubt that the ban would have drastic repercussions on people of all sexual orientations, while threatening the sanctity of that which we all cherish — civil equality.
Adam Lichtenheld ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and international studies.
