Spring Break
Marriage amendment clarifies law
State should reserve definition for one man, one woman
Emily Hartwig
Issue date: 9/11/06 Section: Editorial/Opinion
|
This refers to the proposed amendment to the state constitution, which will be on the ballot this November and reads, "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."
As I see it, we have a clear-cut choice. Vote yes or no.
Let me restate that.
We have a clear-cut choice. Vote yes and agree with 20 other states in clarifying traditional marriage.
Or vote no and open the floodgates for challenges to current marriage laws.
Though Wisconsin statutes refer to "husband" and "wife" when discussing marriage, nowhere does it define these terms as "man" and "woman." We need to clarify this so future lawsuits don't weaken our interpretation of the law.
Right now, many see this amendment as an attack on same-sex partnerships. But it's actually just what it is titled - a marriage protection amendment.
Many also think the wording in the amendment's second sentence will hurt traditional couples who want a civil union.
I disagree, since "imitation marriages" may as well go the distance and make a full commitment before they receive all the benefits.
Now, I know this is mainly a same-sex marriage debate, so I'll approach it this way.
If Wisconsin followed Massachusetts - which, by the way, had an unclear definition of marriage that was very similar to Wisconsin's current law - and legalized same-sex marriages, who can argue with the North American Man/Boy Love Association when they demand the same privileges?
What about those in incestuous relationships? Or polygamists? Are we going to be "fair" to them, too?
Defeating this amendment wouldn't make Wisconsin exactly like Massachusetts, I know. But it would pave the way for courts to rule in favor of sexually unnatural individuals.
Here's where my personal beliefs come in. You could also call this the "morality argument."
Even anti-creationists have to admit that homosexuality isn't natural. Nowhere in nature will you find same-sex creatures engaging in sexual acts. How do you advance a species that way? It's just not going to happen, no matter how hard you try!
The accepted idea is that we don't choose our sexual inclination. I agree. But just because someone has an unnatural attraction to a person of the same sex doesn't mean he or she needs to act on it.
Viewing Comments 1 - 9 of 9
Kerry Thomas
posted 9/11/06 @ 4:41 PM CST
The problem with the language of the proposed amendment is that is does not define "marriage." In legalese, it defines marriage as "...a marriage between. (Continued…)
Kristoffer Martin
posted 9/12/06 @ 2:06 PM CST
Thats just absurd, there is a difference between homosexuality and what you call "abnormal". If we are going to protect the rights of the people (something that this current administration has been doing poorly for the last six years) we must stand up for our rights. (Continued…)
Kate Casey
posted 9/12/06 @ 10:07 PM CST
I have to say that this article disappointed me. Obviously the author has never befriended a homosexual person otherwise she would have seen that they are indeed real people like you and me and thus deserve the same rights. (Continued…)
Tanya
posted 9/12/06 @ 11:23 PM CST
First off, I must say that homosexuality IS seen in various other species. It is not an "abnormal phenomenon" that only occurs in humans. It has been seen time and time again all over the animal kingdom and is not something that any educated person should ever refer to as wrong. (Continued…)
LJ Sommer
posted 9/14/06 @ 8:39 AM CST
I have to respond to Emily Hartwig's incredibly offensive, poorly researched, and misleading essay "Marriage amendment clarifies law". To equate alcoholism with gay relationships, and deem that gay people would be better off alone and celibate is amazingly narrow-minded and judgmental. (Continued…)
eichbear
Tony Eichberger
posted 9/14/06 @ 5:51 PM CST
Emily Hartwig has absolutely no credibility when addressing the amendment in her editorial, since she completely glosses over the fact that the proposed amendment would indeed prohibit same-sex civil unions IN ADDITION TO same-sex marriage. (Continued…)
bakerdrive
alumni jim
posted 9/18/06 @ 12:16 PM CST
The problem with this whole "marriage amendment" is that it is entirely political with no common sense anywhere in the discussion. The state Republicans have decided it is a way to lure Conservative voters to the polls to support them. (Continued…)
eichbear
Tony Eichberger
posted 9/19/06 @ 10:29 AM CST
I don't see how a legal argument could be made for marriages between adults and minors: because minors, not being of the legal age of 18, don't have the same consensual authority that 18+-year-olds have. (Continued…)
erica1016
Erica Banton
posted 9/20/06 @ 4:44 PM CST
The ignorance of Emily strikes again (remember Vagina Monologues...?). If hateful people would keep their mean overly-religious opinions to themselves our university would be a much more positive environment. (Continued…)
Post a Comment