by Kerry Thomas
November 28, 2005
The State of Wisconsin is poised to once again codify
state-sponsored discrimination into law.
But that’s nothing new. Our
governments at both the state and federal levels have been practicing discrimination
for a very long time.
Through our elected representatives in government, we, as a
society, discriminate on the basis of race, by prohibiting non-Indian business
owners from (legally) operating gambling machines in their establishments.
We discriminate against successful people, by taxing them at
a higher rate than we tax those of lesser means.
We discriminate against those who chose to smoke tobacco
products, by prohibiting them from using their legal product in many public
places.
We have a long history of sanctioning discrimination,
violating individual rights, in the name of the good of society. After all, we do it to protect those against
whom we discriminate from themselves, for the good of us all.
The State of Wisconsin is trying to amend it’s Constitution,
to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The backers of this amendment are using the
same old religious arguments again to justify their discrimination, this time
to protect the “sanctity of marriage,” whatever that means. With half of all marriages ending in divorce
these days, just how sacred is marriage?
In the Catholic religion, marriage is a sacrament. Other religions generally revere marriage in
a similar light. As a religious
institution, marriage itself should remain an institution.
The problem arises when we confer legal civil human rights
to this religious institution. When
that happens, we separate the religious component of marriage from it’s civil
legal rights.
As a religious institution, a church has the authority to
confer the blessings of marriage upon only those whom that church chooses to
allow to marry. Those participating in
marriage within that church are bound by that church’s teachings.
But when it comes to conferring legal civil rights within
the legal bonds of marriage, irrespective of any religious connotations, is it
right to impose discriminatory laws upon different groups in society? Just because the beliefs of others don’t
mirror those of the majority of society, is it right to deny these minorities
the same legal protections and rights we afford the majority?
Many good upstanding religious people say such
discrimination is perfectly acceptable.
The justification for their discrimination always seems to have a
religious foundation. They seem unable
to separate the religious component from the legal aspect of such
discrimination.
Maybe those with such belief systems would do well to also
remember a little something known as the golden rule. Something about doing unto others as you would have done unto
you.
Are you comfortable with legalized discrimination? Would you feel so comfortable if this same
discrimination were practiced against you and your beliefs? This is a question each of us will have to
ask ourselves, as we will be given the opportunity to cast our own vote on this
proposal before it becomes part of our State Constitution.
2003 Wisconsin Assembly Joint Resolution 66 states:
"Resolved by the assembly, the senate concurring,
That:
”Section 1. Section 13 of Article XIII of the Constitution is created to read: [Article XIII] Section 13. 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."
For
additional background information and opinions, see:
Legal
Considerations - State Bar of Wisconsin
Considering
Wisconsin’s Marriage Amendment - National Association of Social Workers -
Wisconsin
Political
impact of voting against marriage amendments - National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force
History of 2003
Wisconsin Assembly Joint Resolution 66