In writing and passing amendments banning same-sex marriage, socially-conservative politicians across the country have relied heavily on the religious convictions of their constituencies for support. These convictions have won in all of the states amendments have been introduced’leading to 19 amended constitutions.
However, unintended consequences have caused groups that helped to pass these amendments to wonder if they made a serious mistake, forcing the question of whether the writers of the Wisconsin amendment are overreaching their bounds.
The trouble with the amendments ratified by such states as Michigan, Missouri and Utah is in addition to specifically banning same-sex marriage, the laws include vague phrases forbidding any sort of similar legal unions for unmarried couples. Shortly after the new laws went into effect, citizens in these states have watched as formerly uncontroversial legal precedents have been overturned. Lawsuits in Michigan threaten to make it illegal for private employers to provide health benefits for not only their workers’ partners, but also the couples’ children, whether the couple is same-sex or heterosexual. In Utah, a man charged with assaulting his girlfriend had his charge reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor under the new amendment.
Supporters say the amendment, if passed, will not affect any kinds of benefits currently enjoyed by unmarried heterosexual couples. Yet the language of the legislation completely fails to support this claim, as refusing to recognize ’a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals’ is, in fact, more troublingly vague than the amendments of the states mentioned above.
Unlike the wording of the amendment, the ways in which Wisconsin’s citizens stand to be harmed by the legislation are specific and concrete. In addition to potentially losing domestic partner benefits for both gay and heterosexual couples from both public and private employers, the domestic violence protection laws in the state would likely become invalid for unmarried couples of any kind. To put that in a useful context, Dane County handles more domestic abuse cases every year for unmarried couples than married ones.
Same-sex marriage amendments have found their chief support in social conservatives with strong religious affiliations. While some of these people do not support unmarried heterosexual couples much more than they do married gay ones, Wisconsin politicians will have a hard time getting a majority vote from this group alone. If the amendment is ratified, it seems ironic that a law written with the interest of preserving tradition in mind will likely lead to sweeping, controversial changes.
