Debate hot on marriage bill
Measure aims to avert recognition of same-sex unions
By DENNIS CHAPTMAN
dchaptman@journalsentinel.com
Last Updated: Aug. 22, 2003
Madison - In a packed and tense state Capitol hearing room, a battle over whether Wisconsin needs to fine-tune its definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman began Thursday against a backdrop of Bible verses and charges of anti-gay bigotry.
During a joint public hearing before the Assembly and Senate judiciary committees, backers of same-sex marriage and opponents of gay and lesbian unions joined a growing national debate over the institution of marriage.
Rep. Mark Gundrum (R-New Berlin) and Sen. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) proposed the bill, which they said would help prevent courts from stretching the state's definition of marriage to recognize same-sex marriages in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin law already defines marriage as a civil contract between a husband and wife. Identical bills in the Senate and Assembly would amend state statutes to define marriage as a contract only between a man and woman.
"This is a time when society needs to reinforce the institution of marriage, not reinvent it," Gundrum said. "There are activist courts out there that are very, very creative."
But Sen. Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee), one of two openly gay state lawmakers, said the measure was "about bigotry, about hatred."
Carpenter said no court in the state's 155-year history has construed a husband to be anything but a man and a wife to be anything but a woman.
Could set precedent
Robert Loggans, minister at Watertown's Calvary Baptist Church, told lawmakers that failing to embrace the one-man, one-woman definition could open the door not only to same-sex marriage but to marriages involving "adult with minor, human with animal, parent with child, sibling with sibling."
He also said that long-term marriages between one man and one woman provide safer homes, fewer abortions, a healthier society and the best environment for children.
Carpenter shot back: "Some young kid is going to hear what you say and think it's OK to beat up some 'fag.' The God I believe in probably wouldn't have said what you said."
The measure could come up for a committee vote as early as next week.
People opposing the bill used non-verbal cues to approve or disapprove of what speakers were saying. They stood and waved their hands in the air to show support, and turned their backs on speakers if they disagreed.
Across the nation, allowing same-sex unions and providing domestic partner benefits such as insurance coverage have sometimes been explosive issues for state lawmakers.
Vermont enacted a law in 2000 recognizing "civil union" for same-sex couples. That law confers all of the benefits of marriage to couples joined in civil union. The measure prompted numerous states to consider so-called "defense of marriage" acts that define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
And last month President Bush said government lawyers were developing federal legislation that would legally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Heated debate
Dozens of people jammed the hearing room Thursday, and many waited nearly six hours to speak on the bills as the two committees took testimony on four other bills earlier in the day. The hearing, which began at 10 a.m., lasted for nearly 12 hours.
At one point, the hearing turned into a shouting match between Sen. Dave Zien (R-Eau Claire) and Rep. Tom Hebl (D-Sun Prairie) and Carpenter. It began when Zien, chairman of the Senate committee, warned the crowd that there would be no demonstrations or he would schedule the bills for a vote next week.
"How dare you!" Carpenter shouted.
"Do they just get to clap for your side?" Hebl yelled.
"If there are outbursts, they are not allowed. They are not allowed," Zien said.
Carpenter stood and offered Zien a mock salute. "Yes, sir," Carpenter said.
Earlier, Meg Gaines, a University of Wisconsin-Madison law professor and a lesbian parent of a 12-year-old son and 10-year-old daughter, told lawmakers that committed gay couples are looking for the same benefits afforded to heterosexual married couples.
"This is an issue of basic human rights," said Gaines, who has been in a committed relationship for 14 years. "Marriage is not what we're after. We're after the civil rights that come with committed union."
Gaines said her family situation differs little from any heterosexual married couple's.
"We have a mortgage, a car payment, a child in middle school and a child getting ready to go there," she said. "We have everything any basic couple that has been together for a long time has, yet we have no protections under the law."
But Rebecca Jest, a Brookfield housewife, read from the Bible and condemned homosexuality as a "perversion of the true marriage relationship."
"God's idea is one man and one woman, for life," Jest said. "It is the building block of society."
Julaine Appling, executive director of the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin, agreed with Gundrum that failing to better define marriage could lead to courts changing the definition.
"The definition of marriage should be at the legislative level, not the judicial level," she said.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison), the Legislature's other openly gay lawmaker, said the bill is based on anti-gay bigotry and "cheapens marriage."
"This legislation says that two consenting adults who love each other, who are committed to each other, are somehow unfit to have recognition from the state," Pocan said.
Christopher Ott, executive director of the gay and lesbian advocacy group Action Wisconsin, called the legislation an attack on Wisconsin families.
"It's time to stop attacking lesbian and gay couples and start talking about ways we can help these couples and families instead," Ott said.
Action Wisconsin found that at least seven of the co-sponsors of the legislation are either divorced or getting divorced, including Zien, who has divorced three times.
"It is hypocrisy . . . for the co-sponsors of these bills to brand lesbian and gay couples as a threat to marriage, when their own marriages failed," said Tim O'Brien, the group's president.
Gundrum called the group's divorce findings "inappropriate" and "personal shots."
Abortion debated as well
The panels also heard testimony Thursday on a bill by Gundrum and Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) that defines live birth, including infants born alive after abortion.
The measure would convey the legal rights of a human being after birth if the infant takes a breath, has a pulsating umbilical cord or has a beating heart. Lawmakers heard testimony from Illinois registered nurse Jill Stanek, who told of comforting an 8-ounce aborted baby with Down syndrome for 45 minutes before the baby died in 2000.
Stanek said some medical professionals have rationalized abortion "so far as to consider infanticide a morally and legally acceptable option."
Susan Armacost, legislative director of Wisconsin Right to Life, said the bill would "draw a bright line between abortion and infanticide."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
I'm sure we'll have a field day with this article.
