The two state legislators that the Madison Jewish Community Council invited to address the “Town Hall” meeting on May 4 did not attend. Both told The Chronicle they could not because it was the last day of the floor session of the legislature, and work lasted late into that evening.
However, they both were willing to speak to The Chronicle about why they are the chief sponsors of the proposed “Marriage Amendment” to the state constitution that would prohibit same sex marriage in the state.
They appear to have had somewhat different hierarchies of concerns. Sen. Scott L. Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said in a telephone interview Monday that a primary impetus for him was concern over separation of powers in state government.
In February 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a “monumental decision,” and “ordered the executive branch and ultimately the legislature to begin marrying same sex couples,” Fitzgerald said.
This triggered a national debate, and Wisconsin was “drawn into it” because “for the most part, what we currently have in place in state statutes is identical what was in place in Massachusetts,” Fitzgerald said.
“Could this happen in Wisconsin? The answer was yes,” said Fitzgerald, who has been in the state senate since 1994.
“It’s really a question of who’s setting public policy,” the state Supreme Court or the legislature, he said. “We are defenders of the status quo.”
Gundrum also referred to the Massachusetts decision in his answer; but his first reaction when asked why he sponsored the proposal was, “Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the dawn of time. It is the healthiest situation for bringing up children and providing them with the gender balance that they need.”
To open marriage to same sex couples would be a “radical cultural change” that could cause “confusion for youth” and lead more “to experiment with same sex relations,” said Gundrum, who has been in the state assembly since 1998.
The culture would change from “looking at marriage as an institution for the rearing of children in the healthiest and most balanced atmosphere possible to instead viewing marriage as nothing more than a mechanism for getting a basketful of government benefits,” Gundrum said.
Both legislators challenged the contentions opponents made at the Temple Beth El meeting that the amendment — especially its second sentence: “A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.” — would invalidate any contractual arrangements that a same sex couple might make in such matters as joint adoption or health care.
“That’s a red herring,” said Fitzgerald. “Those are all legal instruments available to anybody in Wisconsin right now.”
Such allegations are “complete fear mongering that the opposing side is doing to detract support from the amendment,” said Gundrum.
“Any hospital can have any policy” it wishes about visitation; and “any bank” can make a policy on having joint bank accounts for same sex couples. “That’s legal now and will still be legal” if the amendment passes, Gundrum said.
Fitzgerald said that the second clause exists to invite judges to “determine what benefits will rise to the level of ‘substantially similar to marriage.’” This won’t “undermine future benefits,” but “opens the door” to the legislation of benefits and leave it to courts to decide whether such benefits have gone too far.
Gundrum, on the other hand, said the purpose of the clause is to “prevent the establishment of same sex marriage that is called by a different name,” such as the “civil union” that Vermont established by state law in 2000.
Loading ...