Marriage Amendment Passes Wis Senate

No doubt Doyle wishes he could make this go away with his magic pen:

MADISON, Wis. - The state Senate approved a proposed amendment to ban gay marriage and Vermont-style civil unions Wednesday over objections it could strip unmarried couples of health care benefits and other legal recognitions.

Supporters countered those concerns were overblown and maintained the amendment would ensure marriage in Wisconsin would remain a union between one man and one woman while allowing room for future lawmakers to grant limited benefits to unmarried couples.

The amendment prevents "judges or the state from creating marriage in another name and granting identical benefits" to unmarried couples, said amendment sponsor Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau.

The Senate voted 19-14 to approve the amendment, leaving only a vote in the Assembly before the proposal could go to the public for a final vote. Lawmakers there are expected to pass it easily when they take it up after the first of the year, with an expected statewide referendum in November.

After trying to rally the cause based on the standard appeal, Senator Tim Carpenter inserts my favorite recent example of pretzel logic:

Sen. Tim Carpenter, one of two openly gay state lawmakers, tried to alter the amendment to strip that language, maintaining it would have an impact far beyond its intended purpose. That includes impacting the ability of unmarried couples to visit partners in the hospital, their inheritance rights and their access to health care benefits.

After lawmakers rejected those moves, he proposed amendments to prohibit divorcees and adulterers from marrying, which he argued was a much greater threat to the institution of marriage than a union between two gay people.

That's right, don't worry about looking silly or petty on the floor of Wisconsin's legislature, Senator Carpenter. The article discusses some of the debate and includes responses from pro- and con-amendment sources:

"If the state Legislature wants to take up adoption and inheritance rights, it can do that" if the amendment becomes law, Appling said. "Nothing in the second sentence prohibits that. Nor does it in any way affect existing benefits given by local governments or the private sector."

The vote split exactly along party lines. No surprise there.