Being a legislator cannot be easy. For any one issue, politicians must seek the opinions of experts and listen to constituents on every side, then formulate a well thought-out stance. They must repeat this process for countless issues, whether social, economic, domestic or international. The responsibility that politicians bear, the responsibility to effectively represent the voices of their public, is a heavy burden indeed.
This is what makes the recent actions of Wisconsin's state Legislature more than baffling-these actions are downright irresponsible. Last week, the Wisconsin Assembly rushed a bill through the Legislature that redefines marriage as a union between \one man and one woman"" instead of one between ""husband and wife."" This bill is intended to supercede future federal definitions that are already demonstrating a more liberal view of marriage.
But this article is not about the pros or cons of same-sex marriage. It is about the irresponsibility of legislators who ignore meaningful issues that would have a much stronger, more tangible effect on more of our citizenry so they can posture and pose on meaningless issues. Our state has needs that can only be addressed by its legislators, but as long as those legislators are distracted by inconsequential topics, the more meaningful issues will go unaddressed.
How does something like this happen? It's as if legislators come into work and say, ""Hmm, Wisconsin is one of the worst states at enforcing clean water laws. UW-Madison students are facing skyrocketing tuition hikes. There are issues to work out surrounding the new concealed weapons law. We need to deal with the budget, education and employment. But first, let's spend all day coming up with a new definition for the word 'marriage.'""
Isn't there someone in the Assembly who says, ""Forget it-we have more important things to discuss""?
Of course, there are those who say, ""But this is important. This is about the cohesiveness of the family unit, the disintegration of which can be blamed for so many of society's ills."" Fair enough, until you read a quote from Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, who proposed the bill back in August, ""We created this bill to preserve those aspects of marriage, society and culture that have existed since the beginning of time.""
Where is the voice of logic to ask, ""But Mr. Gundrum, if these values have existed since the beginning of time, why the sudden sense of panic? Might a principle that has survived for scores of centuries be on the verge of crumbling suddenly in October 2003?"" The institution of marriage lasted long before Mr. Gundrum ventured upon the scene, and it will survive long after he's just a footnote in history. If an issue threatens our liberties or our rights, then it is most certainly an important one. But this debate centered on defining a word whose meaning is already clear to most of us. To call this discussion an issue is to grossly overestimate its value to society.
Certainly, the issue of same-sex marriages needs to be discussed and healthy debate is always vital in a democracy. Had the Assembly been discussing whether same-sex marriages should be legally recognized, this article would never have been written. But what they debated was how to define the word marriage-there's a big difference.
In the meantime, our tuition is still sky-high. Unemployed people are no closer to finding jobs. Environmental controls are still lacking. The scenario is reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. We must hold politicians to higher standards of performance excellence; this irresponsibility, this failure to deal with more urgent needs instead, cannot be condoned.
Does this argument imply there's no room for less-pressing issues, that special interests of minority groups can't be addressed until all larger issues have been resolved? Certainly not, but there is a precedent for answering this question. The U.S. Supreme Court can decide which cases it will hear and which it will throw to lower courts. It receives far more requests for hearings than it can possibly grant. So, it selects the cases it will hear based on their importance to the nation. It chooses cases dealing with freedom of expression, sentencing guidelines and civil rights, and it ignores less-relevant cases.
Our Assembly should do something similar. It should create a list of priorities it will address in order of the impact they will have on the state. It should leave the more frivolous cases to smaller committees, and it should address them only when the higher priorities have been tackled.
For politicians to use their limited time to discuss non-issues is irresponsible. It would be like a corporate CEO spending work time planning the corporate holiday party instead of dealing with the business' more urgent concerns. It's about time we citizens demand meaningful action from our representatives. And if we continue to get meaningless action, we need to remember that on Election Day.
Dinesh Ramde is a graduate student majoring in life sciences communication.
