This is the fourth in a series of posts which explains who and what I'm voting for and why.  This post is on the amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution which looks to ban gay marriage.  This amendment has created a lot of controversy, especially with the so called "second sentence".  But in the end, the second sentence doesn't affect my thinking one iota.  I'll be voting No on the amendment, and I'd vote no even without the second sentence.

But before I got into my reasoning, let's look at the exact text first:

Marriage:  Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identifical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?

Not surprisingly, this amendment has created a great deal of controversy, a lot of it dealing with the tradition and "sanctity" of marriage, especially as it relates to religious tradition.  The interesting thing about those arguments is that they're meaningless, because marriage as a legal state sanctioned institution has absolutely nothing to do with religion.  Let me say that again so that I'm perfectly clear.  Marriage is not a religious institution.  Right now today, I can take a woman to the justice of the peace, and without ever stepping in front of priest get married.  In fact, I could get married to a woman even if my church expressly forbade it.  Some churches don't allow inter-faith marriages.  Some churches won't recognize marriages if one of the people is divorced.  None of that matters to the state, and that's what we're considering restricting here.  As for the "sanctity" of marriage... I have a hard time taking this seriously since I could easily get married to a woman in a drive-thru in Las Vegas from a pickup truck by Elvis, and then divorce her the next day.

So with that little bit out of the way... what is marriage?  Marriage is a legal relationship that two consenting adults enter into when they decide that they want to share their lives in such a profound and meaningful way that they not only want to share their lives, but their property, their futures, and share their decision making.  Stop me when you see me mention anything that homosexuals are incapable of doing.  Is marriage about children?  While I do think that children raised in family with two parents have a greater chance of success, I don't think that we should restrict marriage purely "because of the children".  Moreover, I don't think there is anything about homosexual relationships that would prevent them from raising children.  They do it today, and have just as good a chance at failure or success as heterosexual couples.  In fact, I think it would benefit the children of homosexual parents if their relationships were recognized by the state as fully as traditional couples are today.  I also think it would help members of their respective families and the community at large to accept them if they had the opportunity to get married.  Perhaps my perspective on children is affected by the fact that I was raised by a single mother for the latter half of my childhood, and had basically no contact from my father during that time.  I think I turned out pretty well even though I wasn't reared in a "traditional" family.

So, if marriage is a privilege that is granted to people who choose to enter into it, that means that no matter what it's history, we have to allow entry into that privileged class fairly.  And in this country, we do not create privileged classes, and restrict them without rational, justifiable reasons that are directly related to the class being created.  To this day, I have yet to hear a reason stated for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples that don't site "tradition" and religion, neither of which are justifiable, rational reasons.  While marriage may have been born from religion, as soon as you gave it state sanctioning, it must now be available to any two people who wish to enter into it, unless you have a rational reason for restricting it. It's what we call "equal protection under the law", and it is something that I fervently believe in.

Now then, some people will start talking to you about "activist judges", and how this issue should not be decided by judicial fiat, but rather through "the will of the people".  But frankly, this issue seems to me to be the exact reason to have judges, even activist ones.  We have a current set of statutory rules that creates a privileged class, and denies entry to that class to a minority of people for no rational reason in violation of equal protection laws.  And then we have a bunch of people in the majority who wish to keep this as the status quo.  For once, I'm behind the activist judges, and not only do I hope this amendment fails, but I hope that a suit is filed in this state, and the current statutory ban is overturned.  Like I said... the second sentence has nothing to do with it.

Update:  For those of who you would consider voting Yes to this amendment for religious reasons, I think Owen put it best when he said:

 For two, I don’t think that we should base our laws on a particular denomination’s interpretation of a religious text.

Of course, he was talking about the death penalty question on the ballot, but I think its just as applicable here.