Cal Takes On Fair

(This is from my favorite teenager!) False Wisconsin Analyzing Fair Wisconsin’s Opposition to the Marriage Amendment By Calvin Freiburger July 26, 2006 This past week the organization Fair Wisconsin was out in full force at the Fond du Lac County Fair to drum up opposition to this proposed amendment to Wisconsin’s Constitution: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.” Their focus was on how far-reaching the amendment will be beyond homosexuals. In a handout entitled, “The Civil Unions & Marriage Ban Will Hurt Wisconsin,” they warn that the ban “would hurt many Wisconsinites from all walks of life.” Let’s dissect their claims, shall we? Families “The ban would hurt thousands of loving, committed gay couples who live in every part of Wisconsin. These families are minding their own business, working hard, and taking care of each other. This ban would permanently deny these families critical legal protections, like the ability to share health and retirement benefits or take bereavement leave in the case of a death in the family. The ban would also outlaw civil unions, which Wisconsin doesn’t currently recognize but could offer legal protection to gay families. “But it’s not just gay families who would be affected. The ban would seriously jeopardize any legal protections for unmarried couples. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there are 109,735 unmarried opposite-sex couples in Wisconsin. States that have passed similar amendments are seeing them used to deny domestic violence protections, domestic partner benefits, and other protections for unmarried couples—gay or straight.” We’ll return to the benefits later, as Fair Wisconsin’s own material will shed some light on that question a bit further down. But what’s this? The law is failing to protect homosexual victims from abusive partners? That’s a pretty serious charge. To the average American, this sounds like a terrible injustice…until you start to think about it a little. Are we supposed to believe that restraining orders can only be issued to ward off abusive spouses or fiancés? What about stalkers, or sociopaths and perverts driven by any number of ulterior motives? Romance often isn’t even a factor in whether one individual needs protection from another. But if Fair Wisconsin’s premise is to be believed, our justice system is broken far beyond the scope of this issue. (As a matter of fact, the justice system does face grave problems—on any given evening The O’Reilly Factor is likely to have yet another case of some judge letting a heinous child predator back on the streets. But does Fair Wisconsin favor policies like mandatory sentencing minimums to better protect all Wisconsinites?) And “other protections” for unmarried couples are at stake. Hmm, that’s a little vague. Let’s see if they explain those “other protections” further down. Faith communities “If the ban fails to pass, it does not mean we suddenly have gay marriage in our state. Even if Wisconsin were to recognize civil unions or marriage for gay couples one day, faith communities would not be forced to recognize these unions. Churches, synagogues, and mosques will continue to make their own decisions about marriage. “There are many churches that do recognize gay families and would like to see these families have basic legal protections. Members of these churches will be singled out for discrimination under the Wisconsin Constitution.” Maybe faith communities wouldn’t be forced to recognize gay marriages, but they’d sure be demagogued as intolerant, bigoted, and backward day in and day out. But a gay couple or advocacy group suing a church to sanction same-sex relationships sure sounds more plausible than gays losing domestic violence protections, especially when you consider how liberals like to bribe and blackmail churches (and other groups) to quietly go along with their agenda or lose their tax-exempt status. Just ask the Boy Scouts how tolerant the Left has been towards their right to “make their own decisions” about troop leaders. Churches and congregations which condone homosexuality “will be singled out for discrimination under the Wisconsin Constitution” if this amendment passes. Pardon me for asking the obvious, but: How? By whom? Again, what we have here is a failure to communicate. Perhaps churches will face more hypothetical lawsuits driven by that powerful far-right legal machine called the ACL—oops, wait a minute. The ACLU’s a liberal group. And they only sue those who act too much like a religion, not too little. Seriously, though, how would this amendment unleash any discrimination upon liberal churches? Let’s say Bill and Ted get married in a liberal church. They are now husbands in the eyes of their church and congregation. The worst that happens is that the state does not give Bill and Ted’s union its stamp of endorsement (again, we’ll address the benefits as we find them in Fair Wisconsin’s material). But the state isn’t interfering in their union either, and their church has given them its stamp. And isn’t affirmative recognition of homosexual relationships the same-sex marriage movement’s main goal? Here they’ve achieved it—just not from the government. Business “Increasingly, companies are taking steps to attract and retain a talented and diverse workforce. Over 100 Wisconsin employers and nearly 250 of the Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner health insurance coverage for this reason. Studies demonstrate that young professionals want to live and work in diverse, open-minded communities. The ban would tarnish Wisconsin’s image—hindering efforts to attract and retain businesses and contributing to the “brain drain.” Also, the far-reaching language of the ban will inevitably invite lawsuits challenging private employer domestic partner benefit policies.” I certainly hope the folks at Fair Wisconsin also notice the “tarnish” to our state’s image caused by rampant election fraud and back voter ID requirements! But I digress. “Domestic partner health insurance coverage?” Isn’t this one of the rights/protections/entitlements that are being denied to gay couples because we don’t have gay marriage or civil unions? If offering such benefits is the smart business practice Fair Wisconsin claims, we can surely expect much (perhaps most) of Corporate Wisconsin and Corporate America to follow suit. Many homosexuals are already receiving these benefits; they don’t need to be given anything by the state. And again, the government isn’t cracking down on them at all. Plus, here’s some food for thought on Wisconsin’s image. Maybe the companies liberals want to attract will feel more at home in a state where “over 100 Wisconsin employers” offer such benefits on their own, and don’t have to be forced by the government into a liberal position. The opponents of the amendment don’t have any further argument aside from trotting out the same old hypothetical lawsuits. Hey, Fair Wisconsin! Here’s an idea: if you’re so concerned with the law being twisted against innocent Americans, why not take a stand against sleazy trial lawyers like John “The Baby’s Ghost Says to Give my Client a Pile of Money” Edwards, or maybe the Kelo judges who unleashed a wave of eminent domain abuses on the nation? As a matter of fact, eminent domain offers a clear answer to concerns that the marriage amendment’s wording could be twisted beyond its original intent. The Constitution clearly says the government can only take private land “for public use.” Kelo enabled private land to be taken for private use, in clear violation of the law. So it doesn’t matter how you word something; any law can be abused and distorted. Fair Wisconsin would do well to work toward solving this problem by joining with conservative voices and efforts against judicial activism and end far-reaching infringements on the rights of all Americans. Higher education “Just as the ban will hurt business by making it more difficult to attract companies and talented professionals, the ban will also hurt higher education by making it more difficult to attract top-notch researchers and academics. UW-Madison is now the only school in the Big Ten that does not offer domestic partner benefits. This fact has already cost UW talented researchers who bring millions of dollars into our state through their research in fields like nanotechnology. The ban would likely make it impossible for UW to offer domestic partner benefits in the future, and it would generally tarnish Wisconsin’s image.” State law won’t recognize gay unions, so UW-Madison won’t be able to either? That’s interesting. I can’t imagine the state legislature affirming a resolution accusing the Bush Administration of staging the 9/11 attacks, or any substantial number of Wisconsinites believing the same, but that hasn’t stopped Madison from employing a crackpot “professor” who claims precisely that. Narcotics are illegal in Wisconsin, but Madison’s University Residence Halls brochure for 2006-07 (whose Diversity Programs page doesn’t exactly show a hotbed of homophobia, what with a Safe Zone Program and LGBT Campus Center, by the way) promises only one floor of one dorm for “Substance-Free Housing:” Juaire House in Witte. UW-Madison has never felt a need to reflect the opinions and values of Wisconsinites or Wisconsin policy before; there’s no reason to believe it would start now. Perhaps Fair Wisconsin should think a little harder about fanatical professors and drug dens on campus if they’re serious about the good name of the University of Wisconsin Madison. The elderly “Of the thousands of unmarried couples in Wisconsin, many are senior couples who have never married or chose not to remarry a new partner after the death of a spouse. The ban will seriously jeopardize their legal protections such as wills, medical decision-making, and financial powers of attorney for these couples. This is why the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups opposes the ban.” Now we’ll address the question of benefits. It’s interesting to note that Fair Wisconsin doesn’t try to elaborate on how the ban will jeopardize these benefits, or why elderly Wisconsinites are uniquely vulnerable. Let’s take a look at them one by one: - Wills: Does Fair Wisconsin not know what a will is? Or do they think we’re too stupid to know what a will is? A will is a legal document whose terms are defined by the author. Anybody who draws up a will can leave any possession to anyone. It is sheer idiocy to believe, and sheer dishonesty to claim, that wills only apply to romantic relationships. How do eccentric old ladies manage to leave their estates to their cats when they die? They write a will! - Medical Decision Making & Financial Powers of Attorney: Gay marriage activists would have you believe that without at least civil unions, homosexuals would be banned from visiting incapacitated partners in the hospital and would have to watch helplessly as key decisions are made about the partner’s medical care or estate. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, anybody can grant both a health care proxy (legal authority over medical decisions) and power of attorney to any individual—parent, friend, sibling, spouse, partner. Sure, same-sex partners would have to make these arrangements beforehand, but it’s still a far cry from “Whites Only” water fountains. Domestic violence victims “Similar bans passed in other states are being used to challenge domestic violence charges and restraining orders for unmarried people. Lawyers in Ohio and Utah claim that the new bans prohibit judges from treating unmarried couples as if they’re in a marriage-like relationship, even for the purposes of domestic violence protections. The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence and local agencies oppose the ban because they believe the ban could impact Wisconsin violence laws.” We already addressed the domestic violence question under Families. But let me reiterate: People can only seek protection from abusive lovers? I’d like to see Fair Wisconsin offer something a little more substantive than “lawyers claim” to explain this one! Besides, for every so-called legal expert who predicts one result, an advocate for the other result is usually not too far behind. So I would hesitate to put all my eggs in that basket. Labor “Civil unions or marriage can provide families with hundreds of rights, protections, and responsibilities. Many of these are employment-related benefits, like having access to worker’s compensation, insurance, family leave, retirement, and other benefits. For many workers, the ban is an economic justice concern. “The amendment’s far-reaching second sentence could overturn domestic partner health insurance policies that have already been negotiated and adopted for public employees in Wisconsin. In Michigan and Ohio, similar bans passed in 2004 are being used to overturn domestic partner benefits. “Wisconsin employers that offer equal benefits include the La Crosse, Sun Prairie, and Madison School Districts, Western Wisconsin Technical College, and the City of Milwaukee. The amendment could also take domestic partner benefits off the table for future bargaining. For these reasons, the state AFL-CIO, AFSCME Council 40, SEIU Local 1199W, the Milwaukee Labor Council, AFT-Wisconsin, Madison Teachers, Inc., the Coalition of Labor Union Women, and other labor leaders oppose the ban.” I thought the purpose of labor unions was to negotiate and win for their workers more than the bare minimum required by law. As with the aforementioned UW example, public employment practices need not stop at state law. Again, all Fair Wisconsin has is the specter of lawsuits. Here we see the main lure that amendment opponents have been using: “the amendment’s far-reaching second sentence,” which forbids the state from recognizing “a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage.” Supposedly this vague language will pave the way for all manner of legal contortions. It is true that the second sentence is poorly written, but again, it has historically been the Left’s game to contort the law, and it is they who have fostered the ambulance-chasing, judicial-activism legal culture that enables such contortions. The question before Wisconsin—whether our state wants to recognize same-sex marriage and unions—remains unchanged. Lastly, let’s look at the idea that marriage and domestic partner benefits are an inherent right. This is not the case. As we will expand upon below, true marriage is a unique, sacred institution with an incomparable societal purpose: uniting men and women to bring children into this world and craft them into able members of the next generation. Whatever benefits that come with marriage are for the purpose of promoting this union. Don’t take my word for it. Ask Paul Nathanson, a Canadian scholar who is a homosexual: “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival…every human society has had to promote it actively…Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that defines marriage as an opposite-sex union (emphasis in the original). Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council offers this observation on one example of marriage/domestic partner benefits: “It is ironic that activists are now seeking Social Security survivor benefits for homosexual partners, since Congress originally intended them as a way of supporting a very traditional family structure—one in which the husband worked to provide the family's cash income while the wife stayed home to keep house and raise the children. Social Security survivor benefits were designed to recognize the non-monetary contribution made to a family by the homemaking and child-rearing activities of a wife and mother, and to ensure that a woman and her children would not become destitute if the husband and father were to die…Very few homosexual couples organize their lives along the lines of such a "traditional" division of labor and roles. They are far more likely to consist of two earners, each of whom can be supported in old age by their own personal Social Security pension.” Every Wisconsinite “Our Constitution has never been used to deny freedom or limit individual rights. If we pass the civil unions and marriage ban, it will make it easier in the future to limit other freedoms. Every Wisconsinite will be hurt by this. “The civil unions and marriage ban represents the worst in today’s politics. If we continue to allow ourselves to be distracted by the issues that divide us, rather than important issues that truly help our state and unite us, every Wisconsinite will ultimately lose.” Fair Wisconsin has unwittingly hit upon the fundamental hole in the “equal rights” case for same-sex marriage: America is based on the concept that we are all individuals, endowed with individual rights. If this amendment passes, the law will still treat every single Wisconsinite—straight or gay—the same. Straight people can marry anyone of the opposite sex. Gay people can marry anyone of the opposite sex. Neither group can marry someone of the same sex. The law grants, and this amendment upholds, the individual right of every Wisconsinite to enter into the institution of marriage. “But that’s not who I want to marry!” Gay readers say. Well, marriage has never been merely about what people want; it has always been far deeper. Our increasingly secular, gratification-centric society may have forgotten, but marriage is an institution with meaning, purpose, and responsibility. The meaning, of course, is the union of a man and a woman committed to one another. The purpose? Perhaps Canadian scholar Margaret Somerville put it best: “Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life.” And therein lies the responsibility of marriage: new life. Children. Children need the influence of a mother and a father to grow into mature, well-rounded adults. Conservatives speak of the sanctity of marriage because it is sacred; it has a role in our society that every American ought to revere, a role that deserves unique societal recognition. Simply put, marriage is the nucleus of the family, which is the foundation of civilization itself. It is true that modern marriage often fails to live up to this lofty description. We live in an age of rising divorce, casualized sex, and encouraged youth “experimentation,” resulting in broken homes, broken hearts, and far too many children growing up without the love, discipline, and guidance they need. It is true that, by and large, we have failed to protect marriage. (It is also true that those who advocate gay marriage by pointing to our less-than-sacred treatment of marriage have a lot of nerve; often they also advocate the lax moral standards that got marriage to this degraded state!) But distorting it to encompass homosexual unions would be a further failure to defend it. If we are ever to pull this sacred institution out of the hole we left it in, we have to put are foot down now to the gay marriage lobby’s attempts to sink it deeper. No, Fair Wisconsin, this amendment does not “represent the worst in today’s politics.” The worst comes from those who, in their blind quest for gratification and an affirmation of their lifestyles, would tear down the values and institutions that have made civilization civilized since the beginning. The amendment is far from a distraction; indeed, defending the values and foundation of our society is an issue of the highest order to the people of Wisconsin. The same-sex marriage debate will not end with this amendment, far from it. In fact, the sanctity of marriage can never be fully secure in any state until we adopt a federal marriage amendment to the US Constitution. But until then, we must reverse the tide and fight back on every front we find. That means the people of Wisconsin must pass this marriage amendment.