The Leader

Media Credit: Janelle Karl

In an attempt to ban discrimination, Wisconsin state Sen. Jon Erpenbach has started working on his own amendment which would allow state-approved civil unions.  Erpenbach says that the problem with the ban lies in the second sentence, which states that anything “substantially similar” to marriage will not be recognized by the state. Erpenbach says that the first part of the amendment which says marriage is between a man and a woman would remain intact, however, his proposal would eliminate discrimination in the Wisconsin Constitution. 

His amendment would allow the Wisconsin Legislature the ability to grant unmarried couples domestic rights. Unsure of how well the amendment would do in the Republican-controlled Assembly, Erpenbach says he hopes the state Senate’s shift to a Democratic majority will increase the likelihood of his amendment being passed.

Erpenbach’s amendment is creating optimism for many Wisconsin residents, including some at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The Leader spoke with Steph Pellmann, the president of People Like Us.  PLUS was formerly known as The Rainbow Alliance at UWM, but with a new mission statement and new officers, PLUS aims to be an outlet for LGBT and their straight allies to come together in a safe setting for volunteering and political action. 

Q: Were you surprised that Wisconsin voted to add a ban on gay marriage?

A: I had hoped for the best, but was prepared for the worst.  There was a lot of work and effort involved and we hoped our voices could reach groups of people that we couldn’t normally reach, but the fact that over 800,000 people voted “no” is a milestone in itself.

Q: Considering Wisconsin is typically seen as a liberal state, why do you think so many people voted yes?

A: There was a lot of confusion in the way the amendment was worded.  People voted yes thinking they were voting for gay marriage.  I know some people here in Milwaukee who did that and if a few people in Milwaukee were doing that, there were other people elsewhere who must have been as well. 

Q: Do you think advising the amendment is the correct thing to do even though it was voted down?

A: That’s a huge question to answer because it’s not just an LGBT issue or a religious issue.  This is an issue of civil rights.  This is about government wanting to deny citizens of basic human rights.  The government is discriminating against members of its own society and reversing the amendment is just the first step.

Q: How likely do you think it is that the amendment will be reversed?

A: Very likely.  It’s just an issue of time.  People against the ban just thought it wasn’t going to go through and then it would be done.  It is not going to happen overnight, it is going to happen when people decide to unite like they have historically and it’s going to take unity of everyone.

Q: How do you think the general public would react if the amendment were reversed?  

A: According to the vote I could see some conflict occurring, but if you’re not willing to fight for something then it wasn’t important enough.  Citizens who voted no on the ban are going to be there to put up a fight.

Q: How would the reversal positively affect the gay community?

A: Reversal would be the first step in recognizing the LGBT community as human beings.  By the ban being reversed it would give faith to the LGBT community that we are not fighting a brick wall, we are taking a stand and we are not going to back down.

Article Tools