For example, I personally do not approve of same-sex marriage unless a church says it is acceptable. The state, in my opinion, has no say in this matter whatsoever; and I certainly would not approve the use of the constitution to limit the freedom of churches to practice their religion, as they see it. Make no mistake; that’s what this amendment would do.

Federally, such an amendment would never pass muster with the Supreme Court. The very First Amendment of the Bill of Rights clearly states, "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Such an amendment nationally would do that very clearly. We wouldn’t put up with that as Americans, so why would we as Badgers in this state?

I would warn church leaders to be very resistant to inviting the government into your tents. If you let the camel’s nose in, the hump will surely follow.

Now let me move on to the term "civil union." Actually, all of us who are married before an altar of God signed on to a civil union as well. Do you remember that after the wedding you both probably went into the cleric’s office and signed some papers? That was the civil contract aspect of marriage, and the state has granted the power to execute such a contract to both clerics and judges. You may call that your marriage license, but it is actually a union recognized under civil law.

Why do we do this? Because it is in the best interests of society and of the common welfare to do so. It is beneficial to give tax advantages, property rights and tax deductions for children so that men and women are encouraged to live together, be responsible for each other and produce the next generation of citizens. That civil contract is quite binding and requires an involved legal procedure to undo it.

Now what about those couples who do not wish to or cannot physically produce children? The state covers them in a civil contract as well. The church also gives them the sacrament of marriage if they are a male and female.

The question remains: What if the couple are the same sex who obviously can’t produce children but will do everything else, such as share a domicile, care for each other and share property and wealth? They deserve the same civic benefits as the usual male-female couples, and for exactly the same reasons.

When I was president of the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, I had quite a few female couples who lived together, committed to each other, shared everything including property ownership and they were NOT gay, as far as I knew. As it stands today, one of them could not even receive hospital information about the other in the event of a usual physical crisis that occurs in the last period of life. That’s not right!

If you can separate civil union from the concept of marriage and keep the former as a function of government and the latter as a function of churches, then you will understand my position. I know that neither the gay organizations nor the conservative right is happy with my position because it threads right down the middle. With both groups unhappy, I’m probably where I should be. That’s why I hope people would not support amending our state’s constitution with this ban.

(Lee Sherman Dreyfus is a former Wisconsin governor who lives in Waukesha. His column runs Thursdays in The Freeman.)