H 23°, L 4° | Tomorrow: 
H 22°, L 6°Last Wednesday, in a 4-3 decision, four judges in New Jersey defied hundreds of years of tradition and the will of New Jersey's residents and ordered that the state of New Jersey recognize same-sex unions. These four activist judges imposed their opinion on thousands of state residents, forcing them to accept something they did not vote for nor ask for.
New Jersey had laws banning gay marriage, but no such language was enumerated in its Constitution. Since New Jersey had nothing in its Constitution explicitly prohibiting gay marriage, it was very simple for the New Jersey Supreme Court to rule that the laws supporting traditional marriage were unconstitutional.
This is why Wisconsin must vote "Yes" for the Marriage Protection Amendment Nov. 7.
Without a constitutional amendment, any judge in Wisconsin can invalidate the state law already in place banning gay marriage. All it takes is one lawsuit and one activist judge to open the door to gay marriage in Wisconsin. Rest assured, this lawsuit will be brought to court somewhere near or within Madison; where gay marriage supporters can be confident that an activist judge rooting for their cause will be assigned the case.
The sole responsibility of judges is to interpret the Constitution and rule on the constitutionality of laws enacted by the Legislature, not promote their own agenda through their rulings. Those who truly believe in representative democracy can all agree that this issue should be decided through the Legislature and the ballot box, not the judiciary.
The marriage amendment will likely pass in Wisconsin. In all 20 states where this amendment has appeared on the ballot, it has passed, with an average of 71 percent voting in favor of the amendment. Also, in a recent survey taken by St. Norbert College, Wisconsinites resoundingly approved the amendment, with 60 percent in support.
Gay marriage advocates are targeting Wisconsin, hoping to gain a landmark victory (their first) by defeating the amendment. In the recent weeks, the pro-gay-marriage group, Fair Wisconsin, has resorted to dishonest tactics. They are airing misleading television ads, hoping to trick amendment supporters into voting "No." In these ads, they claim that voting "no" means "no same-sex marriage" and "no change."
Amendment opponents also insist on protecting the rights of homosexuals, claiming this amendment will deny them their basic human rights. However, the right for homosexuals to marry is not listed or even implied anywhere in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.
The fact is, homosexuals in Wisconsin enjoy every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the same as heterosexuals. The U.S. Constitution is silent on marriage, and therefore, states have a right to define it themselves.
After four judicial activists on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court re-defined marriage in 2003, there were 7,341 same-sex couples who obtained marriage licenses between May 2004 and December 2005. The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy notes that, estimating a 5 percent homosexual population in Massachusetts, this indicates that merely 5.9 percent of gays and lesbians chose to marry. If gay and lesbian couples truly felt persecuted and denied basic human rights for generations, one would expect more than this tiny minority of their population to obtain marriage licenses.
So why do advocates of same-sex marriage remain persistent despite such little demand? Perhaps they have a larger agenda.
In December 1984, an article titled "Waging Peace: A Gay Battle Plan to Persuade Straight America" appeared in Christopher Street, a gay publication. The authors wrote, "Against the mighty pull of institutional religion one must set the mightier draw of science and public opinion. Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and the acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can again work here."
It's true: A religious component exists in the marriage debate, but not in the way traditional marriage opponents suggest. The left is seeking to drive radical secularism throughout America, and homosexual marriage is their current vehicle.
Homosexual activists play the bigot card to discredit opponents and use hate-crime legislation to silence them. Activists realize they have much greater leverage in the argument when churches find themselves opposing constitutional rights. If fully implemented, the secular left's agenda will ultimately leave little room for free exercise of faith or speech.
Amendment supporters have legitimately utilized the political process to protect traditional marriage, while opponents use deception, smear tactics and back-door judicial activism. A "Yes" vote sends a strong message of resistance to the radical secularists, whose agenda and tactics should concern any student of even minimal belief in traditional values. More importantly, it affirms the good that traditional marriage has brought to our families in Wisconsin for many years.
Please vote "Yes" to protect traditional marriage on Nov. 7.
LaVonne Derksen ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in accounting and finance.
IP hash: 7f775d08
lets return ‘straight is great day’!!!!
IP hash: 61801f8a
Although I stongly disagree with your sentiment on the proposed ban up for vote, I am all for your right to share your views. But before doing so, I urge you to get your facts straight when backing up your argument. The St. Norbert poll (according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) found that 51 percent (not 60) of respondents indicated that they supported the amendment, and took place a few weeks ago. This Monday, a Wisconsin Survey Center poll found that 50 percent supported the amendment.
This battle is going to be a close one, requiring journalists to be a little more careful when throwing numbers around.
IP hash: 67d48a6c
People should read the article “Top Ten Reasons to Vote NO” found here: http://www.shepherd-express.com/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2006-10-19&-token.story=175471.113121&-token.subpub=
Not one heterosexual marriage has ended because gay people have been allowed to marry in some countries. Please tell us what the supposed threat is. You have to explain gay people to your kids no matter what and in that explanation you will either come off as a loving individual or a biggot.
IP hash: abf9bdc9
whatever
IP hash: 92f70a2e
“Radical secularism”: In case you were confused, the United States was designed as a secular country. Why do you think we have The Constitution instead of directly using the Bible as our formal book of laws? Oh, probably since most “Christians” have never read the entire thing through and probably never will.
Now here’s the truth: You are a sucker. Gay marriage has nothing to do with you or your religion, but it has everything to do with getting you excited for voting. Gay marriage and abortion: food for election year suckers. Sucker!
P.S. Shut up about “activist judges.” If a court ruling by educated, well-studied legal professionals (of which you are not) doesn’t go your way, you immediately blame activist judges. You’re a senior now, it’s time to act like you’ve got a college education (from a SECULAR university, by the way).
IP hash: 460df5e2
“recent survey taken by St. Norbert College, Wisconsinites resoundingly approved the amendment, with 60 percent in support.”
When you say recent, you must mean April. All current polls are showing about a 5 (or less) point race. That’s not a “resounding” approval by any standard.
In fact, Wisconsin will not pass the ban on November 7th, and that’s why you’re writing this column in the first place; your side knows that Wisconsin residents haven’t been fooled by this amendment or your misleading campaign for it. Your side is running scared about the fact that Wisconsin will put a stop to this discrimination. UW students and Wisconsinites understand that the ban is harmful, far-reaching, unfair, and inherently opposite of the way we do things in our progressive, forward-looking state.
This is about far more than gay marriage, and that’s why a fair wisconsin will vote NO in 6 days.
VOTE NO!
IP hash: 460df5e2
Fair Wisconsin is a not a pro-gay marriage group.
The polls aren’t showing 60% approval.
New Jersey’s case law on gay rights is far different from Wisconsin’s.
An activist judge is simply a judge who rules a way that you don’t like.
A YES vote only writes discrimination into the consitution. It has nothing to do with “secular leftists”, “traditional values,” or any other right-wing bile that you choose to spew out in this garbage-filled screed.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
I can’t believe they event put this to print. I don’t think I’ve ever read an article with more factual inaccuracies.
I’m voting NO, and all my friends are, too. I can’t wait to prove you wrong on November 7th when Wisconsin will be the first state to beat one of these amendments.
Vote No.
IP hash: 01d013ed
your bigotry and lack of compassion do more to harm marriage then two men that love each other could ever do. If anyone’s marriage is harmed by who someone else is married to, then their marriage is not that strong. A marriage should mean nothing to anyone but the two people married to each other. If your marriage is demeaned by what someone else does, says, or who they love then you are indeed in a sad and empty marriage.
IP hash: 228bc578
And by voting yes to “protect” traditional marriage you do, indeed, show your bigotry and intolerance toward anyone different from you. Have fun explaining this to your kids when they ask “why do we hate Abby’s mommys?”. As they grow up they will be ashamed of your behavior in the same way many of us have to be ashamed of our older relatives for their racial intolerance.
IP hash: 194af9da
Here’s the issue: what happens if we vote now? Nothing. Nothign changes.
If we vote yes, a whole lot changes. Religious views of a specific group within Wisconsin will be imposed on all Wisconsin residents. Civil Liberties will be in danger.
I like the option where nothing changes. Give it a few years, come back to the issue, and we can talk about it as adults. At this point, it’s like a bunch of drunk high-schoolers arguing.
IP hash: 194af9da
Vote no…I meant no.
IP hash: 6fabc93d
Vote Yes to rename our state “New Alabama.”
IP hash: a3678497
Ms. Derksen rants that “More importantly, it affirms the good that traditional marriage has brought to our families in Wisconsin for many years.”
Nothing sickens me more than the “vote yes for the kids!” arguement being shamelessly propagated by right wing ideologues.
The ingredients for a good family are love and committment NOT a man and a woman. This is self-evident by fact that incest, divorce, and child negligence are rampant in heterosexual families. Safe, healthy children are the products of good parenting… not ma + pa.
Lavonne, if you are so very concerned about the welfare of families and children, then I politely suggest that you volunteer your time working at the local women’s shelter or domestic abuse crisis line rather than spewing poison rhetoric around campus.
Most sincerely,
Emily McWilliams
IP hash: 431db898
Basic constitutional rights for American citizens should not be up for a vote. This proposed legislation is just another red herring by the anti-freedom RepubliCrat Party. We need Free-Thinkers, or at least Libertarians, in charge. If you want to live in a faith-based nation you are more than welcome to move to Iran, Saudi Arabia or some other charming religious hell-hole. Be thankful you live in a secular nation where freedom of religion is paramount(or at least used to be before the Christian wackos spread their faith-based sickness around us).
IP hash: 6fabc93d
LaVonne, since I am obviously not enlightened, can you please tell me which world theocracy you would like America to mirror? Since I’m not convinced that a theocracy is the best way to go, I need you to give me an example of a successful theocracy. Thanks… until then, keepin’ it secular.
IP hash: f22b6f77
They are airing misleading television ads, hoping to trick amendment supporters into voting "No." In these ads, they claim that voting "no" means "no same-sex marriage" and "no change."
How is that dishonest? These are true claims. Voting against the amendment does not legalize gay marriage, and it is not a change.
I’m still waiting for anti gay marriage folks to explain to me how this threatens their particular marriages….
IP hash: b68d10da
“Radical Secularism” HAHAAHA… o god, that just made my day.
IP hash: 53a16d92
LaVonne- While you try to hide your bigotry behind separation of powers and democratic process arguments, you consistently fail to recognize the historical importance of a judicial check on the majority’s ability to trample on minority rights through the democratic process. Since your faith and your views are already constitutionally protected, why do you keep pushing? Could it be bigotry?
IP hash: 69927ef4
Wow, everything I planned on saying has already been said. I guess I’ll reiterate some points:
Activist judges? You only say that because you disagree with it. If this amendment actually explicitly said “Gay marriage will be legal” and it passed, you’d be very, very upset. But wouldn’t the people have spoken then? Which is exactly what you want?
Then, if the State Supreme Court overturned that decision and said gay marriage was illegal again, wouldn’t you be oh so happy even though, technically, that is your definition of an activist judge?
A study of the U.S. Supreme Court shows that the most activist judges — defined as those who go against precedent the most — are all conservatives. You don’t have problems with activist judges then do you?
On another note: bigotry pisses me off. Anyone and everyone should have the right to marry. That is the direction the younger generation is going towards because we are aware of this thing called tolerance. Our parents aren’t as aware and if the amendment does pass, it will be very hard to overturn it in the future when everyone realizes what a mistake it was.
Yeah…that was longer than I expected, but I hope you actually respond to all these people who refuted you. It would show that you have more than inaccurate facts and bigoted views on your side.
IP hash: 928cdbca
Maybe the next step, if the amendment passes, is another amendment “only those capable of procreating can get married” why not take it to that next step? just like they argue if we vote no, its a slippery slope to polygamy and bestiality (which is a stupid argument), then if we vote yes, it could lead to more religious control over who can and cannot get married.
IP hash: a3678497
AMEN, Emily McWilliams!
IP hash: 6fabc93d
“Secularists, regardless of their religious preferences, believe that religious considerations should be excluded from civic affairs and public education.”
Make note, the word “exluded” implies an all or nothing condition. If we include religious considerations in public policy, we are not a true secular country.
Once again, the Right has used the Constitution to wipe their collective asses.
IP hash: 9151c9bd
Hmm…using the constiution to take away rights…interesting concept
IP hash: 7496e7ee
“The secular left.” Are you implying that anyone whose politics are left of center is non-religious? You couldn’t be more wrong, because people of faith vote NO!
IP hash: 6fabc93d
We still haven’t heard from any pissed off polygamists on this issue. One man, one woman seems to rule out multiple wives. This crap would never fly in Utah.
IP hash: a3678497
I just can’t wait for the ban to be voted down- then my pets and I can start to explore our relationship in new ways. I mean once gays and lesbian people are able to enter legally sanctioned monogamous unions, the LOGICAL next step is polyamory and a harem of lovestruck animals. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
-Emily McWilliams
IP hash: 3912ac61
After gay marriage becomes legal, and marriage to pets follows, I am going to marry and impregnate my cat and create highly deformed offspring with non-functioning brains who will STILL be more capable of forming logical arguments than the writer of this opinion piece.
IP hash: 27a6754c
I am a Republican, I am Christian. It takes no courage whatever to show your colors as a democrat on this campus. I must complement my sister on her courage.
Courage is functioning in spite of your fears—not being fearless—therein is the virtue. You must over come. You don't over come there is no virtue. To have faith with out doubt is not virtuous. One cannot both be sure in their beliefs about God and have faith. Faith has no purpose for those who are sure. Proof is sure, and if it is sure you have no choice, and if you have no choice—-you have done nothing at all.
As a Republican and a Christian I fear saying this: If we find that same sex marriage hurts our country then by all means let us abolish it. But as it stand we just don't' know. We have not even given it a chance. It is just bad logic and reasoning to suppose that a thing is bad when there is no evidence to suppose it is bad. That evidence would come from knowing that gay-marriage hurts people. Once again we cannot know because it has not been done. We cannot know.
I can see nothing American about withholding from Gays the prospect of stability. I can see nothing American about withholding a freedom that would not evidently hurt America from Americans. I can see nothing about limiting choice that provides freedom to choose God, even if that choice is homosexuality.
I have faith that if gay marriage hurt America we would amend, just as we did with women's suffrage, black suffrage, equal protection etc. We would see this problem and fix it. I have faith we would. I have faith in us. We must give them a chance, else there can be no faith, no choice and reason. No faith on our part in our system, no choice on any ones part to choose God and reason on that we cannot logically condemn something that has no been witnessed—gay marriage.
Let them find stability and maybe they will find more, as a Christian I know you must have choice, as a Republican I am suspicious that this is an assault on our libertarian freedoms and privacy and to be fair we must at least give them a chance to show they can contribute to a more perfect union.
I cannot imagine why anyone with American values would vote "YES." It is un-Christian, un-American, invalid and unsound. God help me, and give me courage, I will be voting "NO."
IP hash: b7410a5f
Why is there such a push for “Gay Marriage?”
Simple. Follow the money!