WORST REFERENDUM EVER?

GAY MARRIAGE:

NOT THE WORST REFERENDUM EVER

<>By Michael Horne

Wisconsinites have been invited to vote in November on SJR 53, the anti-gay marriage referendum. The amendment reads: : "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."

Is this the most cynical and most discriminatory referendum Wisconsin voters have ever had to face?

No, it is not.

That dishonor belongs to two referenda of 1858 and 1865 which asked, “shall suffrage be extended to colored persons?”

In 1857, Wisconsin voters said, “no,” by a vote of 41,345 to 28,235. In 1865, after the close of the Civil War, voters again rejected suffrage for African Americans by a vote of 55,591 to 46,588.

What is it, besides the outcome, that marked these referenda as the most cynical and discriminatory in the state’s history?

That’s easy – the referenda were put on the ballot in response to an earlier referendum on colored suffrage which the voters passed in November 1849 by a vote of 5,265 to 4075.

The 1865 referendum so infuriated supporters of equal rights that such heroes as Sherman Booth and Edward D. Holton encouraged Milwaukeean Ezekiel Gillespie, a black man, to vote. Although blacks had voted in Wisconsin as early as 1835, when Solomon Juneau’s cook cast a vote, Gillespie was turned away. He brought suit, and the case quickly went to the state Supreme Court which ruled that the 1849 referendum had, in fact been ratified as of November 6, 1849, rendering the subsequent referenda moot.

Thus, the referenda of 1858 and 1865 must rank as the most cynical and politically-motivated in our state’s history, the anti-gay marriage amendment notwithstanding.

This leads us to the question, “Is the anti-gay marriage referendum the most cynical and politically-motivated Constitutional Amendment in the state’s history?”

For that question, the answer is definitely, “yes.”

For one thing, the “colored suffrage” referenda were on the ballot because the Wisconsin Constitution requires any extension of suffrage to be voted on by the electorate. The referendum of 1912 in which Wisconsin men voted 227,024 to 135,545 against extending the suffrage to women was another dark spot in our history.

The anti-gay marriage referendum, however, is in the form of a Constitutional amendment – which is a type of referendum, and is the 193^rd amendment submitted to the electorate. It is by far the worst one. [Check for yourself ]

It is the only amendment designed to limit the rights of a class of people; it is the only amendment offered to solve a non-existent problem; it is the only amendment to place, in the constitution, a law that already exists on the books; it is the only referendum designed to prohibit legislative activity; it is the only referendum to embrace a religious viewpoint and it is the only referendum designed to encourage citizens to go to the polls to vote – for governor.

So is the anti-gay marriage referendum the worst referendum ever – no. Is it the worst constitutional amendment ever offered to the people of this state? Yes. Vote “no” in November.

CALLING ALL GAY RELATIVES OF REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS

Milwaukeeworld.com has begun contacting the republican legislators who supported the anti-gay referendum to ask this question: “Do you have any gay relatives?” So far, there has been no response from Sen. Alberta Darling and Sen. Scott Fitzgerald. We’ll continue to contact other supporters of the bill, to see if they have any gay relatives, but there is only so much time in the day.

We singled out Alberta since she is from River Hills, and even represents a portion of the sophisticated east side of the City of Milwaukee where lots of gays live and is therefore presumed to possess some degree of social and political sophistication. There is nothing in her background to suggest she is anti-gay. Fitzgerald was chosen because he is the sponsor of the bill, and as such, must of necessity be as pure as Caesar’s wife. Certainly no man with a family history of homosexuality would dare sponsor an anti-gay amendment.

Of course, there is a likelihood that these representatives will not get back to us.

So, in the interest of efficiency and information, let’s pose the question another way: “Dear Reader – are you the gay relative of a Republican legislator?” If you are, kindly drop a note to horne@milwaukeeworld.com and we will help you get in touch with your long lost (spiritually and emotionally lost) republican legislator relative. It’s time for fireworks!

[Update: March 23rd 2006, 1:45 p.m. Tom Petrie of Sen. Darling's office called to say that the senator "would decline comment on this question and any other question" regarding the defense of marriage act, as he called it. The senator's office would be happy to share her voting record on the issue. Call 1-800-863-1113 to speak to Sen. Darling's staff. --Ed.]

--Michael Horne