Politicians in Madison, Wisconsin will soon be able to add to their oath of office, but also reject the parts of the state and federal constitutions they don't agree with.

The idea began when the state amended its constitution to ban gay marriage and civil unions. This ban resulted in a member of the city's Equal Opportunities Commission resigning because he opposed the traditional oath.

The members of the Equal Opportunities Commission are in charge of protecting civil rights and they feel compromised in promising to uphold laws they feel are discrimantory against gay and lesbian citizens of Wisconsin.

The City Council in Madison voted 13-4 on Tuesday to allow elected officials and city appointees a way to add to their oath of office a rejection of the new constitutional ban that passed in November by 59% of voters.

The resolution was passed after 45 minutes of debate and includes a supplemental statement showing their protest to the ban.

Alderman Cindy Thomas of Madison's 20th District voted against the proposal claiming the council's action sets a dangerous precedent.

"You can't weasel your way out of your oath," she said. "When people from afar hear about our vote on this, we will become a laughingstock."

It is Wisconsin law that public officials must take an oath pledging to uphold the state and federal constitutions. Those who oppose this debate are concerned that this has become a way for politicians to only uphold the laws they agree with, rather than the laws as they are.

Madison's City Attorney Michael May says the "anti-oath" is voluntary and given in addtion to the formal oath of office and is constitutional.

"We are not violating the state law," said Ald. Mike Verveer, 4th District. "We are not modifying the oath of office. ... Many of us will breathe a lot easier if we are allowed to make this additional statement."

Wisconsin prides itselt as a lab for progressive ideas, but customizing the Constitution may not be one the rest of the country wants to embrace.

The Wisconsin State Journal states in an article:

The Madison City Council was wrong to invite city officials to modify their oath of office by adding a protest against Wisconsin's new constitutional ban on gay marriage. It's now up to officials to correct the mistake.

They should not sign the anti-oath.

The Wisconsin State Journal editorial board is proud of its record in support of gay and lesbian rights and in opposition to the ban on gay marriages and civil unions. But as we explained in an editorial on Sunday, the anti-oath is anti-democratic, arrogant and shortsighted.

Good As You writes:

The measure is believed to be the first of its kind anywhere in the nation, a fact that makes the uber-progressives in Berkeley wonder where they went wrong.

Other Wisconsin politicians and officials believe it's a slippery slope to future debate: What other laws will they protest against and choose not to uphold?

Mike's Anti-Dissertation Blog writes:

I'd been hearing lately that certain government officials were going to add something to their standard oath of office that was against the stupid ban on gay marriage. As much as I hate the ban, and find it incredibly mean-spirited and unconstitutional, I was against a new oath that picked out one thing the electees may not like.

Of course, I assumed the oath was something like "but I will not respect the ban on gay marriage." It's a good sentiment, in my eyes, but dangerous. As a representative of government, one has to enforce and adhere to the laws, regardless of their stupidity.

Engulfed Cathedral writes:

What can we learn from this? Well, when elected officials are willing to violate the law on principal and they make no effort to conceal that fact, indeed, when they publicize it, perhaps such a stance indicates that, statewide referendums or no, there are just some issues that aren't a matter for legal regulation, and if one tries to regulate them, one is simply ignored. Maybe any attempt to legally mandate bigotry, even when it's supported by a thin democratic majority, is one of those things that thinking people have absolutely no problem ignoring.

Well, Wisconsin residents are still wondering what other laws their representatives will choose to ignore.

Contributing Editor Dana J. Tuszke also blogs at The Dana Files and Watch Blog.