As the debate over gay marriage heats up in the U.S. Congress, Wisconsin's Legislature is considering a bill to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
The joint resolution between the state Assembly and the state Senate, called the Wisconsin Defense of Marriage Act and headed by state Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, and state Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, would modify portions of Wisconsin's laws to refer to marriage as between \one man and one woman"" rather than as between ""husband and wife.""
Gundrum told the Wisconsin State Journal in August that the bill was meant to stop judges from loosely interpreting ""husband and wife"" in the future.
""This is a time when society needs to reinforce the institution of marriage, not reinvent it,"" Gundrum said. ""Our law creates potential for ambiguity.""
Adam Peer, a spokesperson for state Sen. Tom Reynolds, R-West Allis, said the bill is in line with what most Wisconsin residents recognize as marriage.
""It makes the definition much more specific, especially in the recent light that there are some states that have recognized a definition of marriage that is different than our state's,"" Peer said.
But some legislators believe the bill has hidden intentions. State Rep. Spencer Black, D-Madison, said he favors civil unions for gays and lesbians and opposes the Defense of Marriage Act.
""It's an attempt by some politicians to gain political advantage based on prejudice against gays and lesbians,"" he said.
Black added that he did not believe the argument that gay marriage would weaken heterosexual relationships.
""As someone who's been married for a long time very happily, I don't need politicians to tell me how to defend or maintain my marriage,"" Black said. ""Neither myself nor my family are threatened by gays or lesbians living their lives.""
The bill received a public hearing Aug. 21 and is currently in committee.
John Quinlan, the executive director of OutReach, a Madison-based lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender organization, said his group believes the bill is unnecessary.
""The people who are bringing this legislation forward keep speaking of wanting to counter what they call judicial activism,"" Quinlan said. ""Those of us who are proponents of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender rights don't see it that way. We see it simply as a matter of giving us the same protections under the law that everyone else has under the Constitution.\
