Wording of gay marriage ban too exclusionary
Eichberger, Tony
Issue date: 3/6/06 Section: Letters
The Spectator staff has missed the point as to why the Wisconsin referendum for a constitutional ban on gay marriage is so unjust. Take a look at how the text of this referendum will appear on the November 2006 ballot:
"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."
Due to the second sentence of this proposed amendment, its passage by Wisconsin voters would simultaneously prohibit both same-sex marriage as well as any type of civil union between gay or lesbian couples.
There are many voters who are uncomfortable with the idea of "gay marriage," but who also feel that same-sex civil unions - granting basic domestic protections to same-sex couples without defining it as a "marriage" - would be a reasonable compromise.
However, the potential consequences of constitutionally banning such civil unions will not be apparent to numerous voters who pay most of their attention to primarily the first sentence of this amendment.
With this in mind, right-wing interest groups obviously lobbied Republican members of the state assembly and senate to structure the amendment in this fashion as a way of being intentionally deceptive.
They want to preclude any and all forms of recognition or protection for same-sex couples. To this end, they rolled the dual issues of "gay marriage" and "civil unions" into one collective amendment, to deliver a "one-two punch" to Wisconsin citizens who happen to be in same-sex relationships.
Aside from that intentional stealth, why should heterosexual voters be able to determine whether homosexual couples in Wisconsin can have access to automatic inheritance, power-of-attorney, hospital visitation, or other basic privileges? These legal opportunities are essential for a genuine unit of consenting adults who desire to be recognized and guaranteed protection as each other's benefactor by the state.
Aren't these legitimate examples of intimate, personal affairs that should be adjudicated at the discretion of same-sex couples who are in a monogamous, committed relationships?
If the situation was reversed, would opposite-sex couples appreciate being denied the ability to attain secular, domestic parity by other people outside of their own relationships?
Tony Eichberger
Senior
"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."
Due to the second sentence of this proposed amendment, its passage by Wisconsin voters would simultaneously prohibit both same-sex marriage as well as any type of civil union between gay or lesbian couples.
There are many voters who are uncomfortable with the idea of "gay marriage," but who also feel that same-sex civil unions - granting basic domestic protections to same-sex couples without defining it as a "marriage" - would be a reasonable compromise.
However, the potential consequences of constitutionally banning such civil unions will not be apparent to numerous voters who pay most of their attention to primarily the first sentence of this amendment.
With this in mind, right-wing interest groups obviously lobbied Republican members of the state assembly and senate to structure the amendment in this fashion as a way of being intentionally deceptive.
They want to preclude any and all forms of recognition or protection for same-sex couples. To this end, they rolled the dual issues of "gay marriage" and "civil unions" into one collective amendment, to deliver a "one-two punch" to Wisconsin citizens who happen to be in same-sex relationships.
Aside from that intentional stealth, why should heterosexual voters be able to determine whether homosexual couples in Wisconsin can have access to automatic inheritance, power-of-attorney, hospital visitation, or other basic privileges? These legal opportunities are essential for a genuine unit of consenting adults who desire to be recognized and guaranteed protection as each other's benefactor by the state.
Aren't these legitimate examples of intimate, personal affairs that should be adjudicated at the discretion of same-sex couples who are in a monogamous, committed relationships?
If the situation was reversed, would opposite-sex couples appreciate being denied the ability to attain secular, domestic parity by other people outside of their own relationships?
Tony Eichberger
Senior