Opinion

Civil unions vital

In yesterday's column, "Changes Abound in Madison," Joelle Parks incorrectly describes one of the major issues at hand in this election. By referring to SJR 53, she claims it is a vote on the definition of marriage in Wisconsin. While true, she neglects to mention half of the issue: whether to ban civil unions for couples in the state of Wisconsin. This is not a trivial difference. Polls show that a majority of citizens in Wisconsin support civil unions and by calling it an amendment on marriage, Miss Parks misses a critical part of the proposed constitutional ban. By also preventing civil unions, this amendment is too extreme and far-reaching. Civil unions are a necessary legal agreement that couples can use to help protect their loved ones. However, she is correct on one matter. Students can play a major role in this election and certainly need to go out and vote come November 7th. Students do care about this ban on civil unions and marriage and should stand up in the civil rights struggle of our generation.

Matt Weil, Sophomore, History and Latin American, Caribbean and Iberian Studies Major, [email protected]

Have a thought? We welcome your input, but please be polite and stay on topic wherever possible. Your comment may be deleted if it is inappropriately off topic or promotional or if it is unnecessarily rude or contains personal attacks. We may delete comments for other reasons as well. Just keep it simple and focus on your points as respectfully as possible.

We allow and encourage comments employing satire, wit and irony to make points. Do not flag comments just because you disagree. Flagged comments will be immunized from further flagging unless they stray far from the guidelines and do not add to the discussion. Before flagging a comment you think is offensive, consider your time might be better spent rebutting it than censoring it.

blog comments powered by Disqus

2 older comments

user-pic

Pretty spot on.

user-pic

We should, instead, be debating whether our state should recognize marriage at all, since marriage, I am told, was set up by God himself to be between a man and a woman. Once God enters the fray, the issue becomes too religious for our secular country, state.

Perhaps we should alter our constitution to clarify who may take communion and who may not. We should also offer tax breaks to all baptized believers.

Church and state don’t get along too well, as you see.

Donate