Supporters and
opponents raised the specter of judicial interference as
advocates debated the pros and cons Tuesday night of a
proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex
marriage, which goes before Wisconsin voters on
November 7. "This issue boils down to we the people
defining marriage or a judge with an agenda doing it for
us," said Julaine Appling of the Family Research
Institute of Wisconsin, which supports the amendment,
at the debate in Green Bay. "The amendment is designed
to prevent the institution of marriage from being redefined
by a judge creatively coming up with some new name."
Opponents contend the amendment would have
ramifications for gay and unmarried straight couples
because it also would bar the state from recognizing
any civil union or other legal status similar to marriage.
The result, they argue, could be new restrictions on
domestic-partner benefits, and questions over rights
of partners to hospital visits and medical decisions.
"Nobody knows exactly what that wording is going
to do," said Mike Tate of Fair Wisconsin, which
opposes the amendment. "One thing is for sure--a
lot of judges, a lot of lawyers, and a lot of courts are
going to be dragged into this, and the residents of
Wisconsin are going to have to read about this for
years to come."
Appling said current benefits between unmarried
couples would not be jeopardized. "We are not going to
see benefit structures currently in place taken away
by this amendment, nor will local units of government or
companies be prohibited from creating such benefits in the
future should they choose to," she said. "This is
about preservation--nothing about punitive action."
Tate framed it as an issue of fairness. "It's a
debate about who we are as a people in Wisconsin and
how we treat people who live here," he said. "This is
about families that live everywhere in the state and
whether we're going to take away their ability to share
health care benefits or raise children under the
protection of the law." (AP)
