Senate moves to ban gay marriages
00:00 am 12/08/05
JASON STEIN jstein@...

The state Senate, voting Wednesday along party lines, moved ahead a
constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and same-sex
civil unions, leaving only an Assembly vote to go before the measure
is cleared for a popular vote in November.

During hours of argument that ranged from constitutional law to
lawmakers' own divorces, senators debated whether the measure was
needed and whether it would have wider consequences that affect the
benefits some employers give to employees' domestic partners.

"Senate Joint Resolution 53 proposes to preserve and define marriage
as it's been defined in the statutes for 150 years," said lead
sponsor Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau. "We can protect the institution
of marriage from judges and for that matter legislators in other
states . . . that do not share those values of traditional marriage."

The amendment would limit marriage to unions of one man and woman and
would prohibit civil unions or other arrangements that are "identical
or substantially similar to marriage." Wisconsin law already limits
marriage to a "husband and wife."

Two Democratic senators, Dave Hansen of Green Bay and Roger Breske of
Eland, who previously voted for the measure in the first of two
required votes by the Legislature, switched their vote Wednesday and
opposed the amendment with the rest of their party.

Afterward, Hansen said he switched because of concerns over
the "substantially similar" clause, which Democrats said could lead
to lawsuits against the domestic partner and health insurance
benefits that employers like Dane County are already offering
workers' unmarried partners.

"This could have a tremendous impact on heterosexual couples" as
well, he said. "We have grave concerns about that."




Fitzgerald said the clause wouldn't interfere with domestic partner
benefits, since they don't amount to a status similar to marriage.
But he acknowledged judges would have to interpret the "substantially
similar" wording. "That begs the judiciary to get involved."

Madison attorney Tamara Packard thinks the state's judges will have
plenty of chances to do that if the amendment is adopted.

Nebraska, Ohio and Michigan have adopted amendments with similar
language and all three states have seen litigation, with no clear
trend emerging yet, she said.

In Michigan, where marriage of one man and woman is "the only
agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose,"
a trial court upheld domestic partner benefits but the case is still
on appeal, she said.

"People are having to duke this out and this is just the tip of the
iceberg," said Packard, adding that private employers would be less
likely than local governments to have a successful challenge to their
domestic partner benefits.

Openly gay lawmaker Tim Carpenter of Milwaukee led the Democrats in
offering some 20 amendments which aimed at protecting existing
arrangements for domestic partner benefits, hospital visitation and
child custody for couples. Two other amendments would have prevented
divorced men and women from marrying and mandated that only marriages
free from adultery would be recognized by the state. All were
rejected.

For Breske, the decision to change his vote came Tuesday afternoon,
in part after talking with a priest.

"I made up my mind I was going to change and do what I think is
right," he said. "We're working on the wrong thing today."

The proposal must still get an expected approval from the GOP-
controlled Assembly before it can be put to a popular referendum in
November.


How the proposed constitutional amendment 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."


What's next The constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage must
still pass a vote in the state Assembly before it can be put to a
statewide referendum in November.

This is a violation of the separation of church and state clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article I, section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

Love between two people is in inherent right, and we as either gays or transgendered, should be able to have the full equal protection of the laws, as do other non gays or non transgendered people.

Government should not be involved in affairs of the heart, or what goes on in the bedroom.

The legislation that is being passed by the majority of he states, is because of President Bush's religious beliefs. He is the one who started all of this, and we are going to have to be the ones to finish it. There is no room in a democratic government for political leaders to "MAKE" someone do their bidding, because they personally disagree with those of us who are different by choice, or were born different. We are supposed to be a free country, with the right to choose for ourselves who we are, who we should love, who we should marry.

With best wishes,
Barbara Lynn Terry
"If I have to be this girl in me, Then I have a right to be."