# Wisconsin to become the next State to protect a word. Marriage. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 29, 2005, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198 "2005-11-29T14:04:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Snickers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snickers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snickers)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/21 "2005-11-30T20:27:15Z")
As a former Wisconsinite, this makes me very sad. As a current Minnesotan, even sadder - rumor has it that Minnesota’s going to try for a similar constitutional amendment sometime in the future, and if WI’s passes, it’ll just encourage that motion. Even tho’ MN, like WI, already has a state law banning “gay marriage.” It sucks. It well and truly sucks. I won’t allow them to write discrimination into my state’s constitution without a fight. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/22 "2005-11-30T21:36:10Z")
> [@Snickers](#): > > As a former Wisconsinite, this makes me very sad. As a current Minnesotan, even sadder - rumor has it that Minnesota’s going to try for a similar constitutional amendment sometime in the future, and if WI’s passes, it’ll just encourage that motion. Even tho’ MN, like WI, already has a state law banning “gay marriage.” > > It sucks. It well and truly sucks. I won’t allow them to write discrimination into my state’s constitution without a fight. I don’t understand the basis for objecting to the passage of a constitutional amendment that reinforces a state law. I understand the objection to the merits of the matter, of course. But you’re at least the second person to say, “Even though there’s already a state law, they STILL want to pass this amendment!” as though that, in itself, is a terrible thing. Can you explain what you mean? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/23 "2005-12-01T00:12:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t understand the basis for objecting to the passage of a constitutional amendment that reinforces a state law. > > I understand the objection to the merits of the matter, of course. But you’re at least the second person to say, “Even though there’s already a state law, they STILL want to pass this amendment!” as though that, in itself, is a terrible thing. > > Can you explain what you mean? Not to speak for anyone else, but… I’m guessing what they mean is that, regardless of the legalities of the situation, it sucks to have their face rubbed into the fact that the majority of voters in their state don’t view them as co-equal citizens deserving of equal rights? Plus, on a practical side, it will make it that much harder to undo, assuming some future time of enlightenment. I mean, what’s NOT to get upset about? Another way to think about it might be this: I think flag burning should be legal. If a law against flag burning was passed, and was (through some weird twist of fate) ruled constitutional, I would still violently (well, not LITERALLY violently) object to an anti-flag-burning constitutional amendment, both on the grounds of making it harder to right this wrong, and because laws come and go, but I don’t want idiotic anti-freedom filth corrupting my constitution. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Big\_Cheese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8baadc/32.png) [@The\_Big\_Cheese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Big_Cheese)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/24 "2005-12-07T22:58:19Z")
**Wisconsin state Senate approves amendment to ban gay marriage, civil unions WSJ** \* The state Senate voted today to amend the Wisconsin Constitution to ban gay marriage and Vermont-style civil unions, leaving only a vote in the Assembly before the proposal could go to the public for a final vote. The Senate voted 19-14 to approve the amendment. Lawmakers expect it to easily pass the Assembly and appear on a statewide ballot in November. Lawmakers rejected a series of attempts by Democrats to alter the amendment, including a push to strip the portion pertaining to civil unions. It would prohibit legal recognition of any relationship between unmarried people that is “identical or substantially similar” to marriage. Wisconsin law already defines marriage as a union between a man and a wife, but amendment supporters fear a judge could invalidate the statute and order the state to recognize gay marriage, as happened in Massachusetts.\* [http://www.madison.com/bn/index.php?action=this&bn\_id=0-64285](http://www.madison.com/bn/index.php?action=this&bn_id=0-64285) It passed one house, needs to pass the 2nd and then go to the voters. ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/25 "2005-12-07T23:09:23Z")
Lets hope they don’t see this then :- [‘Gay weddings’ become law in UK](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4493094.stm) > [@](#): > > "The legislation requires that every authority must offer a civil partnership. The basic level of that is a simple signing of a register - some couples may just want that alone. > > “But if any councils are saying they won’t allow [public] ceremonies, for couples who want that kind of celebration, then it’s time they came into the 21st century.” ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/26 "2005-12-08T00:06:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A state law can be overturned by state courts, if the state courts conclude that the state constitution requires the state to recognize same-sex marriage. This happened in Alaska, Hawaii, and Massachusetts. > > A state constitutional amendment prevents the courts from reaching that decision: it declares unequivocally that the state constitution does NOT require recognition of same-sex marriage. > > Voters in Alaska and Hawaii quickly adopted state constitutional amendments following the state court decisions, and same-sex marriage was never actually in place there. In Massachusetts, the constitution cannot be amended so quickly - it requires two successive votes from the state legislature, and then a public vote. Last term, the state legislature voted for an amendment banning same-sex marriage for the first of the required times. This term, it appears that they won’t follow suit, but may instead adopt a no-marriage-but-yes-civil-union policy similar to Vermont. > > Or they may simply leave the existing scheme in place, as it doesn’t appear to have wrought too much destruction on the moral fiber of society. You know, that two vote rule is something I can celebrate. I believe there should be some roadblocks in the “knee-jerk” reactionist society we live in. Now, if only there were two elections for president… just kidding bricker 😛 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198.md?page=1)