A pillar of the prevailing liberal orthodoxy that government should continuously expand its role is founded upon the idea that a powerful state is essential to protecting human rights. During the Jim Crow era, it was the federal government that intervened to strike down a ban on interracial marriage. It is generally believed that while certain municipalities may embrace a racist culture, higher levels of government can intervene to override localized breeds of inequality in any form.

But what happens when the largest governments become the guarantors of injustice instead of a form of insurance against it? In an atmosphere of such political toxicity that a debate over the definition of marriage supercedes a pending economic dissolution, it is nigh well insane to believe that federal or state governments will act to maximize human liberty. Empirical evidence justifies the conclusion.

In 2006, the Legislature acted to enshrine backwardness in Wisconsin’s constitution by putting the question of gay marriage to a referendum. Voters stayed true to form and voted for the ban — proving once again that public majorities are often woefully inadequate assessors of personal liberty. At the national level, the public displays a similar inclination towards bigotry: In 2007, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 55 percent of Americans oppose allowing same-sex couples to wed.

Social liberals are therefore turning to municipal governments to take the lead in defending civil liberties in the form of legal protections for the unions of same-sex couples. It is a foreign position. The Dane County Board of Supervisors, led by Kyle Richmond and Chuck Erickson, is very likely going to pass Ordinance Amendment 13, 08-09, requiring certain companies — those that grant spousal benefits to their employees — to offer domestic partnership benefits to their employees as well. The ordinance would also create a domestic partner registry for Dane County. Dane County is the only municipality in the state of Wisconsin that has taken either step.

The ordinance is expected to pass overwhelmingly, and Erickson’s legal enquiries were met with strong assurances by lawyers that the measure is “constitutional” within the context of the amendment banning gay marriage. Essentially, the Legislature is consigned to watch as its absurd amendment is flouted before its eyes. Erickson and Richmond were also quick to point out that UW-Madison will not be affected by the amendment. As the UW System is an arm of the state government, Dane County cannot regulate the university’s employment practices when the two are doing business — only private contractors will be affected.

Economically, Dane County can hardly be accused of levying an unfair burden on the private sector. Only businesses that have over $5,000 in contracts with the county will be required to comply with the ordinance, and smaller businesses will be given a three-year grace period to comply.

While the creation of a registry for domestic partnerships is not as locally significant — especially since Madison already has such a registry — the reaffirmation of human rights is inherently encouraging.

The divide the ordinance seeks to address is a very profound one. On one side, the twin manifestations of backwardness — religion and tradition — are used in hindsight as justifications for a very profound distaste for homosexuality. On the other side, there is an understanding that an objective idea of human liberty may interfere with personal preferences founded almost entirely upon bigotry. And yes — the amendment is an endorsement of legal bigotry. The question lies in how it should be remedied.

Until a belief in civil liberties triumphs over unfounded conclusions premised entirely on dogma, Dane County deserves to be commended for its innovative defiance of America’s newest brand of “peculiar institution.”

Sam Clegg ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in economics and political science.