Feingold Announces His Gay Marriage Position

In a totally expected move, Russ Feingold announced that he supports gay marriage.

This guy is no maverick. He has become completely predictable.
WBAY-TV reports:

Feingold tells The Associated Press today that he decided to express his support for gay marriage now because of the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage which will appear on the Wisconsin ballot in November. The Democratic senator says the amendment is mean spirited.

Feingold says presidential politics has nothing to do with his position.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force says Feingold is the fourth U-S senator to take that position.

Feingold's claim that his announcement has absolutely nothing to do with his presidential campaign is absolutely ridiculous. He is kowtowing to his supporters, the radical Left. He's giving them what they want by saying exactly what they want to hear.
Read the text of the gay marriage amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 53.

[Article XIII] Section 13. Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

Fair Wisconsin provides a sampling of the range of opinions on the amendment among Wisconsin conservative bloggers.

Clearly, there is no consensus. There are legitimate arguments to be made, pro and con.

Read Feingold's press release on Wisconsin's amendment and his support for gay marriage.

Responding to a question posed at his Kenosha County listening session over the weekend, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold said he strongly opposed the proposed civil unions and marriage ban facing Wisconsin voters this November. He also expressed his support for the right of gays and lesbians to marry...

“The proposed ban on civil unions and marriage is a mean-spirited attempt to divide Wisconsin and I indicated that it should be defeated,” Feingold said. “It discriminates against thousands of people in our communities – our co-workers, our neighbors, our friends, and our family members. It would single out members of a particular group and forever deny them rights and protections granted to all other Wisconsin citizens. It would also outlaw civil unions and jeopardize many legal protections for all unmarried couples, whether of the same or the opposite sex. We shouldn’t enshrine this prejudice in our state’s Constitution.”

Without question, Feingold is engaged in political posturing. He's positioning himself to appeal to the radical Left that has embraced him and further solidify his place as their favorite. Such maneuvering is not without consequences.

I think by labeling the amendment as mean-spirited and an effort to be divisive, Feingold labels the amendment's authors and its supporters as hatemongers and bigots. I view that as unfair.

Actually, one could say that Feingold is being rather mean-spirited and divisive by considering supporters of the amendment to be prejudiced.

Yes, the amendment defines a "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman and excludes other relationships. But in terms of societal consensus, it should be noted that in state after state, when that definition has been put to the voters, it is overwhelmingly approved.

The second sentence of the Wisconsin amendment is more problematic for me. It could be interpreted as eliminating the option of recognizing any sort of union for legal purposes other than that between one man and one woman.

However, the way I read it, I don't think it necessarily outlaws civil unions, as Feingold suggests. It states that marriage has a specific legal status, but it doesn't state that any other form of union would be illegal. Although any such unions would not be identical to marriage as defined in the amendment, they would not be outlawed.

The aim of the amendment is to provide constitutional protection for the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Under the amendment, other "unions" could not be deemed to be "marriage."

In effect, what the amendment does is call for the current law of Wisconsin to be written into the state constitution as an amendment.

For Feingold to say that the amendment would "forever deny [gays and lesbians] rights and protections granted to all other Wisconsin citizens" no doubt pleases the Left, but the statement isn't true. I suspect that the reason he's being disingenuous and overly dramatic is to score political points with his Left fringe base of support.

Are single Wisconsinites denied the "rights and protections granted to all other Wisconsin citizens"?

Are widows and widowers denied the "rights and protections granted to all other Wisconsin citizens"?

Are divorced individuals denied the "rights and protections granted to all other Wisconsin citizens"?

Of course not. They have rights and protections under the law even though they aren't married.

It's telling that Feingold does not mention any of these citizens as being discriminated against.

He talks as if the only way one has rights and protections is through marriage. That's not reality.

The press release continues:

“As I said at the Kenosha County listening session, gay and lesbian couples should be able to marry and have access to the same rights, privileges and benefits that straight couples currently enjoy,” Feingold added. “Denying people this basic American right is the kind of discrimination that has no place in our laws, especially in a progressive state like Wisconsin. The time has come to end this discrimination and the politics of divisiveness that has become part of this issue.”

I would like to ask Feingold if polygamy should be recognized. Does he believe that only monogamy is acceptable in a "progressive state like Wisconsin"?

If Wisconsin is so progressive, has the time come to end discrimination against polygamists? How about unions that involve bestiality?

The question:

Why does the debate on redefining marriage revolve solely around the inclusion of same-sex monogamous relationships?
There are many other unions, probably loving ones, in our society. Is it right to discriminate against "our co-workers, our neighbors, our friends, and our family members" involved in alternative relationships that are not same-sex?

Feingold noted that removing the prohibition against gay marriage would not impose any obligation on religious groups. He indicated that no religious faith should ever be forced to conduct or recognize any marriage, but that civil laws on marriage should reflect the principle of equal rights under the law.

Following Feingold's reasoning, if civil laws on marriage are to reflect the principle of equal rights under the law, then there is no justification for banning polygamy or other sorts of unions.

As a society, do we want to offer married status to virtually any conceivable sort of union between consenting adults?

If Feingold wants to legalize only gay marriage without including other relationship structures in the legal definition of marriage, then he's being discriminatory.

Let's be honest.

Feingold's announcement that he supports gay marriage is less about equal rights under the law for all, and more about appealing for votes for Russ in 2008.