Defining and consciously preserving traditional one-man/one-woman marriage in Wisconsin is not an issue The Family Research Institute of Wisconsin sought. This issue has been thrust upon all Wisconsin citizens by renegade judges and rogue government officials. These have become champions of the radical agenda of a small but very loud and influential group of people who are determined to redefine a foundational societal institution in utter disregard for the will of the people. They have left us no alternative but to do everything we can to give traditional one-man/one-woman marriage in Wisconsin the very best legal protection currently possible: a state constitutional amendment. Amending Wisconsin's constitution, while rightfully demanding, ultimately gives the people of this state the final say. That is altogether appropriate, especially on an issue of the magnitude of the definition of marriage.
The most recent polling on this issue, done by the Wisconsin Coalition for Traditional Marriage in Nov. 2004, showed that 62 percent of Wisconsin likely voters, when read the entire amendment, support it. Beyond that, 80 percent of likely voters believe the Wisconsin legislature should give citizens the opportunity to vote on the resolution.
These numbers mean that when the State Senate earlier this month passed the marriage definition/protection resolution, that body was acting exactly as a representative body should. The 19 senators who voted in favor of the resolution were reflecting the will of their constituents and appropriately taking action to get this issue to the citizens.
Some, including state legislators, argue state law is already clear on this issue. Wisconsin law says marriage 'as far as its validity at law is concerned, is a civil contract ... which creates the legal status of husband and wife.'
Nowhere in state law is husband clearly defined as a 'man,' or wife as a 'woman.' That can no longer be taken for granted as it was when the statute was originally written. Judges and government officials in Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon and New Jersey have proven that. This proposed amendment is carefully crafted to take care of the problem. The first phrase protects the word 'marriage,' while the second protects marriage from being undermined by 'look-alike marriages,' or marriage by another name, such as Vermont-style civil unions. Without the second phrase, the first one is meaningless and leaves the institution unprotected.
Contrary to the message being consistently given by opponents of the amendment, the second phrase does not 'ban civil unions.' It does appropriately prohibit civil unions that are marriage by another name. However, it does not preclude the state legislature from considering some legal construct'call it what you will'that would give select benefits to cohabiting adults. Nor does this phrase threaten benefits already given to people in domestic partnership registries by companies or local units of government. Beyond that, the phrase does not stop companies and local units of government from extending such benefits in the future. As legal experts have explained, neither a company nor a local unit of government can provide sufficient benefits to make a domestic partnership or civil union or whatever 'identical or substantially similar to' marriage.
This debate is fundamentally about the next generation and society in general. At best, if we don't preserve traditional marriage and proceed down the road of legalizing same-sex 'marriage,' we will have once again submitted our children to a vast social experiment where we have purposely created either motherless or fatherless homes. Caring and compassionate societies don't do that.
They always come to the aid of motherless or fatherless situations. Wisconsin can either join the ever-growing list of states that have given traditional one-man/one woman marriage the very best legal protection presently available by amending their constitutions, or it can leave the door wide open and allow marriage to become redefined and reshaped.
