Marriage amendment clarifies law

State should reserve definition for one man, one woman

By: Emily Hartwig

Posted: 9/11/06

Someone chalked this message all over campus last week: "A fair Wisconsin votes no."

This refers to the proposed amendment to the state constitution, which will be on the ballot this November and reads, "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."

As I see it, we have a clear-cut choice. Vote yes or no.

Let me restate that.

We have a clear-cut choice. Vote yes and agree with 20 other states in clarifying traditional marriage.

Or vote no and open the floodgates for challenges to current marriage laws.

Though Wisconsin statutes refer to "husband" and "wife" when discussing marriage, nowhere does it define these terms as "man" and "woman." We need to clarify this so future lawsuits don't weaken our interpretation of the law.

Right now, many see this amendment as an attack on same-sex partnerships. But it's actually just what it is titled - a marriage protection amendment.

Many also think the wording in the amendment's second sentence will hurt traditional couples who want a civil union.

I disagree, since "imitation marriages" may as well go the distance and make a full commitment before they receive all the benefits.

Now, I know this is mainly a same-sex marriage debate, so I'll approach it this way.

If Wisconsin followed Massachusetts - which, by the way, had an unclear definition of marriage that was very similar to Wisconsin's current law - and legalized same-sex marriages, who can argue with the North American Man/Boy Love Association when they demand the same privileges?

What about those in incestuous relationships? Or polygamists? Are we going to be "fair" to them, too?

Defeating this amendment wouldn't make Wisconsin exactly like Massachusetts, I know. But it would pave the way for courts to rule in favor of sexually unnatural individuals.

Here's where my personal beliefs come in. You could also call this the "morality argument."

Even anti-creationists have to admit that homosexuality isn't natural. Nowhere in nature will you find same-sex creatures engaging in sexual acts. How do you advance a species that way? It's just not going to happen, no matter how hard you try!

The accepted idea is that we don't choose our sexual inclination. I agree. But just because someone has an unnatural attraction to a person of the same sex doesn't mean he or she needs to act on it.

Say you have an inclination toward alcoholism. Are you going to succumb to your weakness and drink yourself to death? Of course not. You will resist alcohol dependence at all costs. The same is true for those with a weakened sense of normal sexual desires.

I'm not going to hide the fact that many of my personal beliefs come from my religion, which goes hand-in-hand with a general sense of morality. After all, our founding fathers used morals and faith-based principles to establish this country.

As a Lutheran with a living faith firmly founded in God's Word, I have a hard time understanding so-called Christians that choose to ignore certain portions of the Bible. Specifically, portions they don't like.

Interested readers can look up passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, which states that sinners - including "sexually immoral" and "homosexual offenders" - will not go to heaven. How much clearer can you get?

Choosing "no" on the ballot this fall violates both precedence and morality.

We can still make the fair choice and vote "yes."