 |
Oct. 5, 2006
|
 |
Debate extends beyond
marriage amendment |
|
Gay rights, worker benefits get mention at Waukesha event |
|
|
|
MILWAUKEE — A debate about the marriage amendment appearing on the Nov. 7 ballot was held at the University of Wisconsin-Waukesha Oct. 2. The amendment, often called the “same sex marriage ban,” has been the subject of much discussion about the future of marriage in Wisconsin.
Julaine Appling, CEO of the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin, supports the amendment. Mike Tate, campaign director for Fair Wisconsin, opposes the amendment. Each was given two-minute opening and closing statements, and accepted prepared questions from the media. Questions from the audience were not accepted.
“Gay marriage is already illegal in Wisconsin and nothing on the ballot can change that,” said Tate. “This is not just about a one man and one woman marriage; it’s about health care benefits, pensions, domestic issues. If you spend 30 or 40 or 50 years of your life with someone, you should never, ever be treated like a stranger if that person is sick and dying in a hospital.”
“This is about the definition of marriage and making sure that children grow up in homes with married mothers and fathers,” said Appling. “It’s about the definition of marriage and what it means to the state of Wisconsin. This amendment gives the very best legal protection for marriage in Wisconsin.
“Vermont-style civil unions are exactly the same as marriage,” she continued. “Who gets to define marriage? We, the people, or a judge?”
Tate retorted that amendment supporters appear to be trying to trick voters into thinking the amendment is a ban on gay marriage.
“This is about scare tactics and talk about gay people so citizens don’t know what’s going on,” he said. “Saying ‘gay marriage’ gets people all riled up. Gay marriage is already illegal.
“What they’re trying to hoodwink us with is that second part of the amendment on the ballot,” he continued. “That could be used to take health care benefits away from families, domestic violence laws could be jeopardized, as well as power of attorney documents.”
When asked if this amendment will promote homophobia, Appling stated that she doesn’t see it as a homosexual issue.
“I don’t think so,” she said. “It’s not about gay rights; it’s about the citizens of the state who are concerned enough to take the definition of marriage into their hands. If not, we’ll wait for a judge to tell us what marriage is.”
The two sides were also asked their political affiliations, and from where they received their funding.
Fair Wisconsin is supported by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Wisconsin Medical Society, among others. Tate remarked that 90 percent of Fair Wisconsin’s funding comes from people living in Wisconsin.
Appling is affiliated with national groups including Focus on the Family and Family Research Council.
That Family Research Institute of Wisconsin is affiliated with national groups was bothersome for Tate, and he addressed Appling.
“This should be a debate about Wisconsin, funded by Wisconsin residents and you don’t have any Wisconsin money; you have national organizations backing you,” he told Appling. “I think we need to get the national dirty money out of Wisconsin.”
“Homosexual relationships last on average of one to two years,” said Appling. “You may say, ‘I know people who have been together 25, 30 years,’ and that is not the norm. People can continue to live as they choose, but where we draw the line is, they don’t get to define marriage.
“Catholic Charities in Boston had to close their doors rather than disregard what they believe,” Appling continued. “They said, ‘We’ll stop doing adoptions’ because they wouldn’t place children in (homes with) homosexual relationships. That’s a tragedy.”
“We’d all love (to have) the idyllic, perfect family, but we live in the real world,” said Tate. “Eight thousand kids are in foster care in Wisconsin. Why would we refuse gay people as parents when they’re scientifically shown able to do it just as well?”
The debate also focused upon employment benefits for unmarried couples in the state.
“Employers can give benefits to whomever they choose,” said Appling. “However, if marriage was redefined, business owners would lose that right. This amendment would keep the law in Wisconsin as it is. It would give business owners the right to give benefits to unmarried couples if they choose to. …This amendment never intended to take away benefits from unmarried couples.”
Tate disagreed, and felt that business owners may lose their right to offer benefits to unmarried couples.
“This could potentially jeopardize business owners’ right to offer these benefits,” he said. “This would leave stuff open to the interpretation of the courts. We have the record of what happened in other states.”
The Wisconsin Catholic bishops released a letter in June pertaining to this issue. “A Letter to Catholics on Defining Marriage in Our State Constitution” is available at <www.wisconsin.nasccd.org>.
The amendment is available in full at <www.legis.state.wi.us/2005/data/AJR-67.pdf>. |
|
|
|
