Given Madison's resounding opposition to the ban on same-sex unions, it makes sense for the Madison City Council to oppose the latest amendment to the state constitution. Like many on the city council, we also opposed the passage of the amendment. Still, lawmakers who represent Madison have a higher obligation to respect the state constitution.
If Madison's City Council cannot uphold the oath that binds their duties to Wisconsin state law, they do not belong in public office. Lawmakers have the right and duty to voice their personal stances on public policy but ultimately must adhere to state law. The fight for same-sex unions is certainly worthy of support, but Madison's alders need to take action instead of making superfluous nods to liberal beliefs.
The recent uproar over the supplement that allows officials to swear an oath of office under protest to the same-sex amendment lacks critical thought and political foresight.
The protest places Madison in the spotlight, once again, for throwing a tantrum on behalf of liberal ideology. It sets a precedent for future councils to pick and choose which parts of the law they intend to follow. Moreover, the normal oath of office does not prevent the council from advancing efforts to amend the constitution again and nullify the ban.
Ald. Brenda Konkel, District 2, should have proposed action for the sake of same-sex marriage instead of defying the very oath she and her colleagues vowed to uphold.
The U.S. Constitution mandates all government officials ""support this constitution"" by swearing an oath or affirmation. The Wisconsin Constitution charges a similar obligation for electors to support both documents and ""faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices to the best of their ability.""
Pledging to support a constitution with the exception of the same-sex marriage amendment is contradictory. It may not be unlawful to exempt support for one amendment, but it defies logic. Furthermore, it sets up a false dichotomy—either support the constitution or support gay rights. Any City Council member who does not make the supplemental statement will likely be labeled a gay hater by liberal Madison.
If members of the City Council want to sign a statement entirely outside of the oath stating their opposition to the amendment then so be it, but to put a caveat on the oath itself is absurd.
