|
Wisconsin Vote: Ban on Gay Marriage
On Election Day, November 7, 2006 Wisconsin voters will have an opportunity to vote on a proposed amendment to the Wisconsin State Constitution. Supporters of the amendment maintain its purpose is to protect the historical and legal definition of "marriage" from being modified by activist judges. If the amendment is passed, nothing about marriage will change - which supporters maintain is the goal: protect marriage from being changed. However marriage amendment detractors and the majority of mainstream media depict Wisconsin’s referendum on marriage as a Gay Marriage Ban, a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage. The issue draws paid advertisements on Google from Gay advocacy groups like ActionWisconsin.org (no surprise) but also taking out paid Google advertisements on the issue are presumed objective sources of news like NPR.org (National Public Radio). Can we stop the spin and cut through the hyperbole? Will the Amendment actually "Ban" Gay Marriage? Or is it a benign measure, akin to an insurance policy, that has no current implications and merely protects against a "what if" . . . that may never come to pass? Inquiring minds want to know! So in that service I sought to find the actual text of the Amendment. Wading through all the spin on the issue (pro and con) to find the actual facts was not easy - but I finally found the actual resolution: SJR 53 Senate Joint Resolution Dated November 5, 2005 (with final passage by the Assembly on February 28, 2006). Here is its internet URL http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2005/data/SJR-53.pdf and here is the text of the actual passed amendment: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Now, therefore, be it resolved by the senate, the assembly concurring,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The Explanation of the proposal reads as follows:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Analysis I see no mention of the word "Gay" nor "homosexual" nor any other word meaning essentially the same thing. I see no mention of the word "Ban" nor "prohibition" nor any other word suggesting that a particular practice is being "outlawed." If the Amendment is indeed a “Ban” on Gay Marriage shouldn't’t the text specifically name the alleged prohibited act (gay marriage, same sex marriage, man and man marriage, or some similar phrase)? And if this is a “Ban” shouldn't we see some reference to penalties for violating the Ban? For example, most of us are aware that a "Ban" against “Driving under the Influence” exists and we are aware there are both fines and imprisonment for violating the Ban. Most of know there is a "Ban" against “adults having sex with a minor child” and that being caught violating this ban will result in imprisonment. On a milder level of offense, most of us are well aware of "smoking bans" in certain public places. In short, a "Ban" creates either a misdemeanor or a crime; it forbids a certain named act and backs up that prohibition with some sort of penalty for refusing to obey that Ban. Whatever are the arguments to oppose the Marriage Amendment, depicting it as a "Ban Against Gay Marriage" is a gross distortion of the facts. That this gross distortion and fiction has been adopted by everyday news media is testimony to the sophistication and influence of Gay Advocacy groups (who do, by the way, have rational reasons to oppose the Amendment). Gay Advocacy groups understand that if they succeed in selling a Big Lie, they don't need to worry about arguing over all the particulars pro's and con's of this Amendment. Depicting the Marriage Amendment as a "Ban on Gay Marriage" takes a complex issue and reduces it to "sound bite" status. While the media has given lots of attention to the so-called Ban and the gatherings and opinions of those who oppose the Amendment, very little discussion of the competing interests has taken place. What about extending certain marriage benefits to civil unions or domestic partners? Amendment detractors have intentionally distorted the meaning and intent of the second half of the Amendment to be a ban against extending recognition or benefits to other forms of domestic partnerships. This is the classic red herring. Listen to the statement of one of the Amendment Co-sponsors, Representative Mark Gundrum: “ . . . significantly though, the language does not prohibit the legislature, local governments or private businesses from extending particular benefits to same-sex partners as those legal entities might choose to do.” If the Amendment passes, how will life be different? |
Article Pages: Post Amendment Passage - How will life be different for Gays and Lesbians? The threat to Traditional Marriage and Family ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ Links Text of Marriage Amendment Question (PDF File) Questions and Answers about Wisconsin's Marriage Protection Amendment (PDF File) "Defense of Marriage" Home Page of the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin The Family Research Institute of Wisconsin Wisconsin Coalition for Traditional Marriage Defense of Marriage Act Petition Facts about Marriage & Family (PDF File)
|
||||||
|
|
