Why doesn't the state Legislature just take away the word \forward"" and admit they'd like to eliminate the state motto? With the passage of an anti-gay bill masquerading as a simple rewording of the definition of marriage, and conceal and carry moving quickly through the houses, a majority of state senators and Assembly members seem on a determined campaign to push a conservative agenda onto one of the nation's most progressive states. They are actively fighting the advancing movement of society and trying to return to an idealized past.
Governor Doyle vetoed AB 475, the so-called ""defense of marriage act,"" on Friday. Calling it unnecessary and divisive, the veto was near instantaneous by government standards, following passage of the act by the Senate by only a day. LGBT groups have applauded his actions, while conservatives call him out of touch with the will of the people.
Despite those conservative claims, Wisconsinites' will doesn't seem that clearly defined. The citizens of this state trust individuals with non-traditional sexualities to represent them in high levels of government, from state Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, to U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis. Why, then, does it seem necessary to ""redefine marriage"" in a way that blatantly excludes them? This legislation is a slap in the face to them and the thousands like them who make this state their home.
Doyle's immediate veto is to be commended and one can expect a response as swift when conceal and carry reaches him in the next week or so. Given the Legislature's inability to override, it is doubtful the margins provided by vote- shifting conservative-to-moderate Democrats will be maintained. If the veto override did not require the bill to be returned to the Senate and Assembly, but relied on the original voting record, the bill would become law.
However, the two-thirds majority is thin, with a 22-10 vote in the Senate and 68-29 in the Assembly. V Given the steady back and forth between this Legislature and governor, vote swithces are are common. Only one senator and three Assembly members need to retract their support (and at least that many probably will) and the veto-override attempt becomes failure number six.
This bill will not make it into law, but the mere fact the bill made it to the governor's hands is an appalling example of discrimination. Supporters advanced it supposedly to prevent activist judges from forcing the people of Wisconsin to accept same-sex marriages as legal. Yet this effort to ""defend marriage"" rings hollow.
This bill forces upon all citizens of this state a ridiculously strict and old-fashioned perception of love and family not shared by all members of the community. Why not take it a further step backwards? In an attempt to point out the hypocrisy inherent in the bill, openly gay state Sen. Tim Carpenter, D-Milwaukee, proposed an amendment that would have inserted ""neither of whom has been previously married or divorced"" after ""man and woman"" in the marriage redefinition.
Though there was much debate, the amendment was not passed because of the huge numbers of citizens who would be barred from the status and privileges that come with being married. Same-sex couples cannot see their partners in some hospitals or make health decisions when their partners are incapacitated. In cases of broken relationships involving children, they cannot easily assert parental rights or be forced to perform parental obligations. Forcing those same restrictions upon hetrosexual but divorced citizens would not be acceptable.
On a constitutional level, the law seems to be in violation of the equal protection and due process clauses in the same way miscegenation laws banning marriage between blacks and whites violated them. Marriage is considered by many to be a fundamental freedom. It should not be denied based upon gender. There have been no efforts by Wisconsin judges to define marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman, and a 1996 ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court fairly clearly bars same-sex marriage under current law. If anything should be changed, it is that.
This bill was unnecessary, discriminatory and seems designed merely to exploit differences and ignorance in order to deny rights to the LGBT community of Wisconsin. As an age-old institution, marriage doesn't need defense. Quite the opposite, it needs to expand its definition. This state has always been progressive and the recent attempts at backsliding by the conservative Legislature mar the character of the state and its people.
