The problem with the language of the proposed amendment is that is does not define "marriage." In legalese, it defines marriage as "...a marriage between..."

You cannot define something as itself. It would be like trying to define an apple as an apple.

This is a very poorly worded amendment, and should be rejected for that reason.

Thats just absurd, there is a difference between homosexuality and what you call "abnormal". If we are going to protect the rights of the people (something that this current administration has been doing poorly for the last six years) we must stand up for our rights.

And what is wrong with polygamy? Many people have multiple romantic or sexually oriented relationships. Is it fair to make it illegal for those who enjoy that lifestyle to actually have that lifestyle? You say this is a "morallity argument" but whose morals? Each person has their own beliefs, own idea as to what is right and what is wrong.

It is one thing to be against things like molesting children, and pedophilism, its another to be against general rights. The current laws should be changed so all people are treated fairly, as that is what the constitution demands. The current understanding (Husband and Wife) is bias, just through the meaning of the words. Husband defined as the male wife the female, any dictionary will tell you so. Further this structure of marriage is based upon a religious moral structure, something that the Government shouldn't have any say over in the first place, according to our first ammendment rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." By ratifying any law that makes it illegal to become married as a homosexual person, or a multiple group marriage, is in its self illegal.

So personal morality aside, we must look to what is legal, and what is illegal, and in this case any law that prohibits marriages of any sort is illegal.

I have to say that this article disappointed me. Obviously the author has never befriended a homosexual person otherwise she would have seen that they are indeed real people like you and me and thus deserve the same rights.

I would also like to inform the author that her claim about homosexuality never occurring in nature is completely and utterly false. I urge her to visit the www.wikipedia.org and type in 'list of animals displaying homosexual behavior'. There she will see that homosexuality DOES occur in nature - quite frequently actually - and there is documented evidence.

As for the author's religious argument, I too was raised in a religious family. My parents and I are Catholic and believe that God would never want any of his children to be denied the right to love and marry. Why would He create homosexuals if homosexuality is a sin? I urge the author to take a step back and ask herself if she is really defending marriage or simply justifying homophobia.

First off, I must say that homosexuality IS seen in various other species. It is not an "abnormal phenomenon" that only occurs in humans. It has been seen time and time again all over the animal kingdom and is not something that any educated person should ever refer to as wrong.

Secondly, pedophilia and incest are nowhere near the same as homosexuality! As a matter of fact, most pedophiles are heterosexual, not homosexual. Allowing someone to be with the someone else of the same sex is very different from allowing them to be with a child or a close relative.

Finally, I would like to say that religion and politics are meant to be kept separate for a reason. I was born and raised Catholic (and have read the bible multiple times), and it is not against christianity for someone to be homosexual. Yes, the church does frown upon it, but actions are considered sins - not the state of being. Why is this? Because being homosexual is NATURAL.

And before I forget, I must say that the past comments are correct... Emily has obviously never had a homosexual friend. I did not intend to attack her person, but the fact remains that she is prejudice - good job at pushing people away from the faith. Thanks for giving christians a bad name!

I have to respond to Emily Hartwig's incredibly offensive, poorly researched, and misleading essay "Marriage amendment clarifies law". To equate alcoholism with gay relationships, and deem that gay people would be better off alone and celibate is amazingly narrow-minded and judgmental. Calling gay people "unnatural" is uninformed as well, and a quick search of the web will bring up many articles documenting this "unnatural" orientation throughout the animal kingdom. Using a few passages out of the bible to justify discrimination is nothing new; it has been done throughout our history to justify slavery, racial discrimination, and why women should not be able to vote. Also, if you happened to look at studies of the countries that have had equal marriage rights or civil unions for years, there has been no "slippery slope", the institution of heterosexual marriage has not been harmed, and their societies have continued to thrive.

I encourage Emily to actually meet and get to know some gay people (there are many of us at UWEC and Eau Claire), and find out that we have the same desire for respect, love, and long-term stable relationships as anyone else. As real people in real families, we need and want the same protections for our families as anyone else -- knowing that we can make important health decisions for our partners at critical times, having mutual access to health benefits, and over 1000 other rights that the government grants to the majority of our population. This proposed amendment does real harm to real people. Other states that have passed similar amendments are in the middle of legal battles over the far-reaching interpretations of the second sentence, which has been used to argue against things from civil unions to domestic partner benefits to domestic violence enforcement for heterosexual couples. Faith organizations in the region representing over 500,000 congregational members have passed resolutions against the amendment. And as far as precedence goes, the constitution has traditionally been used to grant rights, not to take them away. This amendment is not clear, it is not fair, and I urge people to vote NO.

Emily Hartwig has absolutely no credibility when addressing the amendment in her editorial, since she completely glosses over the fact that the proposed amendment would indeed prohibit same-sex civil unions IN ADDITION TO same-sex marriage.

She entirely ignores the reality that, if this amendment is passed by voters, consenting adults in committed relationships (who happen to be members of the same sex) will be constitutionally denied basic privileges of domestic party, such as joint inheritence, mutual power-of-attorney, joint taxation, etc.

I'm so glad I live in California now...

(oh wait, they're probably going to try to shove one of these bigoted "constitutional amendments" in front of us too, in 2008...that is, if Bruce McPherson gets elected and succeeds in permanently rigging our voting machines...)

The problem with this whole "marriage amendment" is that it is entirely political with no common sense anywhere in the discussion. The state Republicans have decided it is a way to lure Conservative voters to the polls to support them. The opposition left, including the gay community, has decided to make this a "let's scare everyone into thinking that all our personal rights are in jeoprady" argument, reminiscent of the let's scare all the old people social security debates the left always throws out. Both sides are engaging in political demagogue for their own benefit. I don't think this should be on the ballot, so shame on the Repubs, and shame on the scare tactics of the left to convince us that our society will unravel if this passes. Shame on both sides!

Emily does make a good point about where does this end? Do we eventually allow marriage between adults and minors if both parties consent? Do we allow multiple marriages if all parties consent? Where is the line to be drawn?

I don't see how a legal argument could be made for marriages between adults and minors: because minors, not being of the legal age of 18, don't have the same consensual authority that 18+-year-olds have.

I don't personally have a problem with multiple-spouse marriages, even though it's not something I desire for myself...the main problem here would be how to administer matters such as inheritence and joint tax benefits within a multiple-person union, as well as how to administer consent if additional individuals wanted to enter the union (although I seriously doubt this would be much of an issue, since the number of people who'd want to enter into multiple-spouse marriages would be merely a sliver of the overall population).

The beastiality and pedophilia comparisons that Emily desperately tried to parallel with homosexuality, quite frankly, fall flat. Beastiality and pedophilia, by their very definitions, are not consensual. Same-sex relationships can be. Hence the difference. Don't try to enforce your "morality" on me.

And Jim, in this case, "the Left" (along with those of us in the center) has every legitimate reason to be concerned. Society as a whole may not "unravel," but passage of this amendment will signify same-sex couples becoming permanent legal strangers in Wisconsin. Not only does this affect the very core of many people's lives (when we're being targeted by the language of this amendment), but it sets a dangerous precedent for social conservatives to continue to impose their "moral standards" upon the rest of the population.

The ignorance of Emily strikes again (remember Vagina Monologues...?). If hateful people would keep their mean overly-religious opinions to themselves our university would be a much more positive environment. Since when do some Christains value hating and ostracizing homosexuals more then they value love, forgiveness, and leaving the judgements to God? Don't use your faith to justify your "facts."