February
2006
Substantially Similar: What the courts will do on “Defense of Marriage”
Nevermind that defending the institution of marriage is the last thing anyone in Wisconsin wants the state Assembly to concern itself with — not with energy bills rising out of control and a health insurance costs rampaging unabated — but the debate opened Tuesday night in the Assembly on the Republican-proposed “Defense of Marriage Act.” The fourth and final legislative vote on the Act, also referred to as “the gay marriage ban,” coming after debate closed, was 62-31 in favor of the ban.
Follow that debate, with ongoing updates, here.
The Act defines marriage as a union between “one man and one woman” and bans legal recognition of any relationship “substantially similar” to marriage. In other states where similar bans are in place, gay couples with civil unions and domestic partnerships have lost health benefits and other domestic protections.
The stage is now set for the people of Wisconsin to decide whether they want to add the ban to the state constititution. Gov. Doyle has vetoed it previously, so this time it will go straight to the voters as a referendum in the next general election, the governor’s race this coming fall.
Gay marriages in Wisconsin? Not legal. Why are we talking about it then? Because the state Republican Party and the arch-religiocrats running the party think that bashing gay people is good for Republicans at polls. In other words, they think it will help them beat Doyle and win other races.
This is an insult, of course, to many Republicans, who care mostly about taxation and would prefer that the Legislature stay out of their marriages. Moreso, it’s an insult to the state Constitution and the US Constitution, which clearly state that citizens must have equal protection under the law.
Gay couples would lose equal protection in this state if it passes. They’ll lose health insurance benefits that current law allows them and which many private employers and insurers recognize.
The impact of denying legal status to nonmarried couples is far reaching: The courts in Ohio and Utah have ruled that nonmarried couples don’t have protections under the law in domestic violence situations — due to “Defense of Marriage” laws similar to Wisconsin’s proposed law, nontraditional relationships simply don’t exist under the law. It’s not rhetoric — it’s what the courts have ruled, as State Rep. Mark Pocan (D - Madison) pointed out during this week’s Assembly debate. Nontraditional heterosexual couples will also be denied legal recognitions.
How does the GOP respond?
A Republican named Eugene Hahn, from the town of Cambria, argued that Republicans are not mean and spiteful, they are just doing what the Bible says about marriage. That was really Hahn’s argument. Then he spelled out the word B-I-B-L-E.
If the people of Wisconsin approve this amendment to the state Constitution this fall, it will be the first time the state Constitution has been used to take away the rights of state citizens away. It’s obscene.
But they will also have the chance to make Wisconsin the first state to reject a “Defense of Marriage” amendment.
John-david Morgan
John-David Morgan, Watchdogging Wisconsin
RSS feed
Link
This is a bill of hated & discrimination. Created by militant religious theocrats.
What this insidious bill does, however, is allow any business to drop insurance coverage for single parent families. It also does nothing to protect adopted children in single parent households.
Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford), who co-authored this insane bill was divorced in 2001.
Why should anyone in Wisconsin, who is behind such a bill consider a divorced man qualified to make laws on marriage, when he can’t even keep his own going?
Opponents need to take a Karl Rove approach to this bill and start attacking the messenger.
If this passes, you will see bright people leaving Wisconsin and taking their skills and money with them.
It really is an attack on nontraditional families of all kinds, and another invasion into people’s personal lives by the GOP. Suder’s not the only one who can’t keep a marriage together … Leah Vukmir got a divorce last year, yet she thinks she ought to pass this law to defend other people’s marriages. It’s obscene.
Now that we’re done talking to politicians about this, the question for voteres is: Did you ask the state Legislature to Defend your Marriage? Is this something you wanted them to talk about while your winter energy bill was going through the roof?
In Round One of the Amendment process, the vote in the Assembly was 68-27. In this Round Two, the vote was 62-31.
David Cullen, a Democrat from Milwaukee who voted for the ban last time, switched his vote to No this time around. Cudos to Cullen, who must finally be listening to his near northwest side and east-Wauwatosa constituents on this. Three other Dems, John Steinbrink of Pleasant Prairie (south of Kenosha); Barbara Gronemus, of Jackson County, northeast of LaCrosse; and Louis Molepske, of Stevens Point (central Wis.), changed their “Yes” votes in Round One to “No” votes in the final vote.
“Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford), who co-authored this insane bill was divorced in 2001.
Why should anyone in Wisconsin, who is behind such a bill consider a divorced man qualified to make laws on marriage, when he can’t even keep his own going?”
That’s as mean-spirited as you allege this legislation to be. Under your logic, people who have never had an abortion shouldn’t be allowed to make laws related to abortion…
Yeah, this amendment is obscene. So what do we do beyond writing about it and protesting about it? How do we make the apathetic give a shit, and get them our side, to actually go vote, and vote against the amendment? That’s where I become frustrated.