“Open Season” Call
Changed Hansen’s Amendment Vote
Madison - If the
amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution banning legal recognition of
all unmarried couples’ relationships is defeated, either in the
Assembly or by voter referendum next year, Republicans pressing for the
measure may be able to point to a

single answering machine message as the reason
the bill was killed.
The message was left by an amendment supporter who felt
comfortable enough in his opinion to identify himself on the answering
machine in Senator Dave Hansen’s (D-Green Bay) office, according to
staffers. The message suggested legislators create a new Constitutional
amendment creating an “open season” on gays and lesbians, an implicit
reference to the state’s recently concluded gun deer hunting season.
The message, in full, said: “We, we, gotta stop these queers,
Ron. There’s no question in everybody’s mind that this can not go
through. Uh, we, we - this is gettin’ ridiculous. We gotta, we gotta
stop this. There’s no such thing as, as queer marriages. We gotta stop
it. In fact, you know, I think we should have an amendment - uh - put
on the ballot, a referendum. Maybe we should have an open season on
those people and just let ‘em know how we really think. Okay? Bye.”
Hansen, who had voted for the amendment on its first passage
last year, cited the phone message in remarks he made on the Senate
floor as he offered an amendment to eliminate the second sentence of
the amendment that would invalidate any “legal status identical or
substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals.”
“In fact, I received a voice mail from a constituent who
believes the next amendment we should pass is one that creates an ‘open
season’ on ‘those people’ so we can show them what we really think
about them,” Hansen said, after pointing out that “it has become
increasingly clear that this Act is not about celebrating marriage as
we know it.”
In offering his amendment Hansen had made it clear he supported
a traditional definition of marriage. “A year ago I cast my vote in
favor of the Defense of Marriage Act as an extension of my firm belief
that traditional marriage should be defined as a union between a man
and a woman,” Hansen said. “In these turbulent times of moral
uncertainty, we need to affirm our commitment to the fundamental family
values that made our nation and our state strong.”
Hansen then charged the bill’s supporters of political
demagoguery. “It has become increasingly clear that this Act is not
about celebrating marriage as we know it,” Hansen said. “Instead, it
has been usurped by those who would use it instead for political gain
in the upcoming elections and to spread fear and foment hate. It
is the crassest of political strategies. And attempting to turn
our Constitution into a campaign document is a dangerous tactic.”
Hansen’s amendment was defeated on a party line vote. However,
Hansen’s later “no” vote on the second passage of the amendment bill,
along with that of Senator Roger Breske (D-Elderon), robbed the
Republicans of the “bipartisan support” of the bill, touted during the
debate by lead sponsor Scott Fitzgerald (R-Beaver Dam).
Hansen staffers also told
Quest
the senator was comfortable voting against the measure since it
followed Hansen’s often repeated promise for his votes to reflect the
will of the voters in his district. Staffers reported that in the
final days before the vote, callers opposing the amendment outnumbered
supporters by more than fifty.
Staffers also noted that information about the harm to same-sex
and other unmarried couples provided by amendment opponents in the year
since the first vote swayed Hansen on the issue. However, it was the
hatred of gays and lesbians expressed by a significant number of
amendment supporters - particularly the “open season” call - that
finally changed the senator's vote.
The bill will taken up by the Assembly in early 2006, where the
Republicans hold a 59-40 majority. After the expected passage, the
measure will be on the November 2006 ballot.