Just Venting

There’s more to state’s amendment proposal to ban civil unions and marriage than meets the eye

by Thomas E. Mitchell, Jr.
To: The voters of Wisconsin (especially the state’s African American community)

Re: The proposed state constitutional amendment (also known as AJR 67) defining marriage and its unintended impact on the Black community.

While a lot of attention is being paid to the election for Wisconsin governor and attorney general, there is an issue on the November 7 ballot that also requires your immediate attention, especially if you are in a relationship where you’re living together without benefit of marriage (gay or straight) and have children together, or are elderly and living with someone out of financial necessity.

There is a question on the fall ballot that asks voters if the state constitution should be amended to ban civil unions and marriage for lesbian and gay couples.

This amendment is not a "marriage amendment" or a "defense of marriage amendment."

Instead, this is how the question on the ballot 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?"

Translation: The proposed ban would permanently deny civil unions and marriage to lesbian and gay couples.

Okay, a lot of you who don’t like the gay marriage thing think that this is okay. After all, you say, marriage was meant to be between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Okay, fair enough. As for me, I really don’t care what gay folks do! It’s their business. But what about the rest of the ballot question: "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized by this state"?

Scratching your head wondering what the HECK that sentence is all about or that it still only applies to gay folks?

What I’m TALKIN’ about is the proposed amendment would ALSO prevent ALL unmarried couples, GAY or STRAIGHT, from accessing the rights that come with civil unions and domestic partnerships.

These rights include:

o Hospital visitation in emergency situations

o Being able to share health insurance

o Being able to make life and death decisions for a loved one, and

o The right to pensions

Do I have your attention now? I thought I did.

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.

As for old folks, the news is just as bad. Of the thousands of unmarried couples in our state, many are senior couples that never married or choose not to remarry a new partner after the death of a spouse.

(Many seniors choose to establish spousal relationships without a license because it adversely impacts on their social security benefits. Getting married means a smaller check, similar to the marriage penalty.)

The ban would 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.

Simply put, the ban DISCRIMINATES against both gay and straight people and the elderly.

The ban would also disproportionately impact on African Americans, since many people in our community are living together and not married, for many reasons.

So you ask, "Hey, Mr. Just Venting, what should we do?"

While I’m not a fan of same sex marriages (or for that matter the adoption of children by gay couples--especially Black children), I would (and am going to) vote "NO!" to amending the state constitution banning civil unions and marriages.

Because once that baby (the state constitution) is amended to include this ban, it stays on the "books" so-to-speak until the end of time ... and that’s a mighty long time, if ya know what I’m sayin’!

This amendment proposal IS discriminatory against a lot of people, gay and straight and oldsters, and would open up a whole can of worms that we won’t be able to reseal.

Now, you’re probably asking yourself (again): "But hey Mr. Just Venting guy, would voting NO on the ballot question make marriage or civil unions by gay folks legal?"

The answer to your question is ... "HECK NO!" You see, gay marriage is ALREADY ILLEGAL in Wisconsin. By voting NO! you’re maintaining the status quo.

How about that, Black folks voting to maintain the status quo in this state! Ain’t that a kick in the head? Well, at least this status quo will work to our advantage for a change.

This ban on civil unions and marriage is the brainchild (or should that be brain-dead child) of state GOP lawmakers who think they are protecting the sanctity of marriage.

While in the past I’ve supported some GOP legislation that holds the line on spending, require an ID to vote, and the right to bear arms on your person to protect yourself on these crazy streets, this ban on civil unions and marriage goes too far and only serves to stoke the fires of anti-conservatives, liberals and missionaries who are just as dangerous as a semi-automatic weapon in the hands of a criminal (or a high school student who had cheese, milk, and a beer while watching a Packers’ game).

Simply put, these right-wing legislators are going too far on this one and should rethink this thing!

Reading this column, it has probably occurred to you that I’m actually against legislation that is Republican based and focuses on preserving the sanctity of marriage.

"What’s up with that?" you ask. "Has Just Venting REALLY QUIT the Conservative cause like he proclaimed (tongue-in-cheek, by the way) in a previous column?

I know it sounds strange coming from me and I’m not trying to be a hypocrite. I believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. I also believe in saving the Black nuclear family, for it is, to me, the very foundation on which Black America must rebuild our nation within a nation and move forward as a people economically, educationally, culturally and spiritually.

But there are many couples who are raising their children (and doing a fine job of it, too) in our community without benefit of a piece of paper that makes them legally "man and wife."

The referendum, as it’s worded on the ballot, will harm these couples and their families unnecessarily.

Obviously, the most logical remedy for unmarried couples raising their children in a traditional manner would be to "get legally hitched." Whether this referendum to amend the state constitution to ban civil unions and marriages passes or not, it may "encourage" these couples to "jump the broom." Who knows.

As for the other referendum question, which would bring the death penalty back, well, I’ll save my opinion on that one for another day.

For now, let me just stress again that the ban on civil unions and marriage would be the beginning of the end for our rights in this state--regardless if you’re Black, Brown, White, Yellow, gay or collecting Social Security (or what’s left of it).

It’s a no-brainer folks! Vote "NO" on the ban on civil unions and marriage on November 7!

Sincerely,

A brotha who thinks some legislators in Madison should be banned from thinking!