Legislators, marriage amendment should take some time apart
(This is one of several editorials, columns and news analyses on the "culture war" theme I'll be posting over the next few months from a journalism class.)
Right-wing Wisconsin legislators pushing a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages and civil unions need to re-evaluate their righteous agenda.
Both houses of the current Republican-led Legislature must pass the amendment before their session ends in June 2006 to send it before state voters that November–when, coincidentally we're sure, several prominent Democrats, including Gov. Jim Doyle and Sen. Herb Kohl, are up for re-election.
In March, the previous session of the Legislature voted 88 to 40 in favor of the amendment. But in the volatile theater of culture war politics, battles can turn rather quickly. Just look at Massachusetts.
Like Wisconsin, Massachusetts requires constitutional amendments to pass two consecutive legislative sessions, then a voter referendum.
In response to the February 2004 Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that upheld the November 2003 decision granting same-sex couples the right to marry, state legislators passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but allowing civil unions with a 105 to 92 vote in March 2004.
More than 6,600 legal same-sex marriages later, the amendment came up for its second round this month and was roundly defeated, 157 to 39.
One of the amendment's original sponsors, Republican Sen. Brian P. Lees, was among the legislators who voted for the amendment the first time, then switched teams. Lees said he changed his mind after hearing from thousands of constituents and realizing same-sex marriage was established law, and repealing it would be an action against state residents.
Plus, as Lees was quoted as saying in The New York Times, "Gay marriage has begun and life has not changed for the citizens of this commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry who could not before."
So, same-sex couples got married, stayed that way for nearly two years... and the world didn't end. Neither did traditional marriage or the fundamental social order. Massachusetts didn't see so much as a measly plague of locusts.
Perhaps the horsemen of the moral apocalypse are riding in from the west, where those "girly men" in the California Legislature just became the first in the nation to pass a bill granting civil marriage rights to gay couples, in defiance of "Governator" Arnold Schwarzenegger's veto vow. But as of press time, California still hadn't crumbled into the ocean.
If other states' experiences don't compel our Capitol conservatives to drop their drive for a gay marriage ban, given all their talk of defending tradition, they should look back on our own. In 1982, Wisconsin became the first state to ban housing and employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. We tossed our archaic anti-sodomy law off the books by 1983. In 1998, we became the first state to send an openly gay first-time candidate, Tammy Baldwin, to Congress.
We think there's something slimy about hooking a squirming issue like same-sex marriage onto our constitution to gratify current politicians fishing for the famed "values vote" spawned in the 2004 presidential race.
Surely our fine Republican majority can find more useful ways to spend time, taxes and political capital.
If not, we can point them in the right direction at the polls.
Right-wing Wisconsin legislators pushing a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages and civil unions need to re-evaluate their righteous agenda.
Both houses of the current Republican-led Legislature must pass the amendment before their session ends in June 2006 to send it before state voters that November–when, coincidentally we're sure, several prominent Democrats, including Gov. Jim Doyle and Sen. Herb Kohl, are up for re-election.
In March, the previous session of the Legislature voted 88 to 40 in favor of the amendment. But in the volatile theater of culture war politics, battles can turn rather quickly. Just look at Massachusetts.
Like Wisconsin, Massachusetts requires constitutional amendments to pass two consecutive legislative sessions, then a voter referendum.
In response to the February 2004 Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that upheld the November 2003 decision granting same-sex couples the right to marry, state legislators passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but allowing civil unions with a 105 to 92 vote in March 2004.
More than 6,600 legal same-sex marriages later, the amendment came up for its second round this month and was roundly defeated, 157 to 39.
One of the amendment's original sponsors, Republican Sen. Brian P. Lees, was among the legislators who voted for the amendment the first time, then switched teams. Lees said he changed his mind after hearing from thousands of constituents and realizing same-sex marriage was established law, and repealing it would be an action against state residents.
Plus, as Lees was quoted as saying in The New York Times, "Gay marriage has begun and life has not changed for the citizens of this commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry who could not before."
So, same-sex couples got married, stayed that way for nearly two years... and the world didn't end. Neither did traditional marriage or the fundamental social order. Massachusetts didn't see so much as a measly plague of locusts.
Perhaps the horsemen of the moral apocalypse are riding in from the west, where those "girly men" in the California Legislature just became the first in the nation to pass a bill granting civil marriage rights to gay couples, in defiance of "Governator" Arnold Schwarzenegger's veto vow. But as of press time, California still hadn't crumbled into the ocean.
If other states' experiences don't compel our Capitol conservatives to drop their drive for a gay marriage ban, given all their talk of defending tradition, they should look back on our own. In 1982, Wisconsin became the first state to ban housing and employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. We tossed our archaic anti-sodomy law off the books by 1983. In 1998, we became the first state to send an openly gay first-time candidate, Tammy Baldwin, to Congress.
We think there's something slimy about hooking a squirming issue like same-sex marriage onto our constitution to gratify current politicians fishing for the famed "values vote" spawned in the 2004 presidential race.
Surely our fine Republican majority can find more useful ways to spend time, taxes and political capital.
If not, we can point them in the right direction at the polls.
posted by Holly at 8:41 PM
<< Home