Senate candidates disagree on gay marriage ban [Wisconsin]

Greater Milwaukee Today (AP) ^ | 1/12/2004 | Associated Press

[JohnnyZ]

WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold says he’ll fight a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage this year, while two of his would-be GOP challengers support the proposal.

Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat facing re-election this fall, calls the amendment an ‘‘abuse’’ of the Constitution. Most members of the state’s congressional delegation, regardless of party, also oppose it.

Republican Senate candidates Tim Michels and Bob Welch support the amendment, while the third candidate, Russ Darrow, said he’s undecided.

The amendment by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., defines marriage as a union of a man and woman, and prohibits both the state and federal government from recognizing gay marriages.

The amendment has gathered momentum because of last November’s Massachusetts Supreme Court decision striking down that state’s ban on gay marriage. After the ruling, President Bush said a constitutional amendment may be necessary.

‘‘I don’t believe the U.S. Constitution should be used to deal with an issue like this,’’ Feingold said. ‘‘There’s no reason to interfere with states on this issue.’’

He accused Republicans of trying to use the amendment as a ‘‘wedge issue’’ to score political points. A recent Badger Poll found nearly two-thirds of Wisconsin residents would support a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage.

‘‘There are certain things I have an obligation to do,’’ Feingold said, citing his position as ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution subcommittee. ‘‘I swore to uphold the Constitution.’’

But he declined to say whether he supports gay marriage.

‘‘I don’t have anything to say about that right now,’’ Feingold said.

Michels argued defining marriage was a proper role for the Constitution.

‘‘The Constitution provides a foundation for our country and for the states,’’ said Michels, a construction company owner. ‘‘For me, marriage between man and woman is a basic premise.’’

Welch, a state senator, said the amendment was necessary to protect Wisconsin and other states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts.

Darrow, a Milwaukee area car dealer, said he would consider supporting the amendment but hasn’t made up his mind.

The three Senate candidates will be narrowed to one after the Republican primary Sept. 14 and take on Feingold in the November general election.

The state’s other senator, Democrat Herb Kohl, said he was leery of the amendment.

‘‘Family law, which governs marriage, divorce and adoption, has traditionally been a matter of state concern and varies among the states,’’ he said. ‘‘The issues surrounding this bill are better dealt with by the states on an individual basis.’’

The amendment is also unpopular among House members from the state. Five have spoken out against the amendment, including three Republicans.

‘‘Marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman, but I don’t think this is something that requires amending the Constitution,’’ said Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican.

‘‘I believe constitutional amendments should be reserved for only the most vital matters pertaining to the function of our government and protecting our individual liberties and rights.’’

Republican Tom Petri, agreed, saying constitutional amendments should be reserved for only ‘‘the most serious problems.’’

Republican Jim Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was traveling last week and unavailable for comment. But he has previously called the amendment unnecessary.

Democrat Tammy Baldwin, the first openly lesbian member of Congress, said constitutional amendments should be used for expanding rights, not restricting them.

‘‘I just don’t believe it’s a question that should be foreclosed to the states and all future generations by cementing discrimination into our U.S. Constitution,’’ she said.

Rep. Jerry Kleczka, a Democrat, said he saw no ‘‘compelling reason’’ for the amendment.

Rep. Ron Kind, a Democrat, declined to comment on the amendment. Democrat David Obey and Republican Mark Green did not return phone messages.

In November, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, vetoed Republican-sponsored legislation that would have defined marriage in the state as strictly a union between a man and a woman.

A lesbian couple living in Elk Mound, Wis., said they would get married if gay marriage was legalized in the state.

‘‘We’re in it for the long term,’’ said Barb Steenerson, 44, who had a commitment ceremony with her 58-year-old partner, Margo Wilde in 2000. ‘‘This is a lifetime commitment to each other.’’

[JohnnyZ]

Good wedge issue to use against Feingold! :) And what's with Russ Darrow not knowing if he'd support an amendment?

[AuH2ORepublican]

I guess Darrow isn't as conservative as some would have us believe. If he's "not sure" on gay marriage, I don't even want to think about what his views are on other social issues.

Michels could certainly use gay marriage, along with partial-birth abortion, the War on Terror (Feingold voted against the Patriot Act and the use-of-force resolution on Iraq), the marriage tax penalty and affirmative action as wedge issues against Feingold.

[Kuksool]

Feingold should also be held accountable for Campaign Finance Reform.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Feingold should also be held accountable for Campaign Finance Reform."

---

While you and I may hate CFR, I'm not certain it's all that unpopular in Wisconsin. And Feingold is one of the few CFR supporters who put his money where his mouth is and refused to take PAC money in 1998 (and he nearly lost for it), so it may not be the best line of attack against Feingold. If Feingold is to be hit on CFR, it should be the pro-life and other groups that have seen their rights infringed that do the attacking (maybe in mailings to like-minded people, not in TV commercials), not Tim Michels.

[fleshwound]

Russ Darrow does support this--the reporter messed up, Darrow has said many times that he believes marriage should be only between a man and woman. The issue is whether or not states will take care of it first--37 or so states already have.

All of the candidates will use this against Feingold but the questions is which candidate has a chance to win and Darrow is the only one that can--he is raising the money, gaining the grassroots support, has the name ID, and is apealing to a broad base,

[Indy Pendance]

It's tough to say you support something not completed, unlike feingold, who supports any liberal cause just because a liberal proposes it, not what's good for the country, or what the people want. Feingold has got to go. What an utterly pathetic senator human.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Darrow has said many times that he believes marriage should be only between a man and woman. The issue is whether or not states will take care of it first--37 or so states already have."

---

Have they? If liberal judges rule that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires states to recognize marriages from other states, even if they are between members of the same sex, then those state Defense of Marriage Acts won't help us any. That's why we need a federal Marriage Amendment that will make it clear that no state may give the benefits of marriage or recognize as marriage a union that is not between one man and one woman.

[fleshwound]

That is true, if the judges do rule that then the Congress should act, but until then shouldn't we allow individual states to enact or strengthen their defense of marriage laws? Last count I heard was that 36/37 states have done this, with WI's Gov. vetoing the bill (with a cop out answer of our state constitution already says this and this is just more leg on top of that).
But the point being shouldn't more power not less be given to states?
With that being said Russ Darrow has said that if what you outline occurs then he would do what ever it takes (including a Fed Amendment) to defend the marriage.