Three-Part Series on the Ban

Madison’s local CBS affiliate, WISC-TV Channel 3, aired a three-part series this week about the civil unions and marriage ban. They focused on the personal impact of the debate, the grassroots campaigns on both sides, and the far-reaching consequences of the ban.

On Tuesday, a lesbian couple discussed their fears about the amendment and their hope for equal treatment. In support of the ban, a non-gay couple claimed gay families threaten marriage and children. They also claimed gay people have the same right to marry as everyone else—the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. (Nice, let's encourage marriages without love.)

Here’s the transcript and video for part one.

Wednesday’s focus was efforts by both sides to educate and mobilize voters. Julaine Appling, the executive director of the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin, talked about the DVD they mailed to 4,000 Wisconsin churches. The coverage of our campaign featured volunteers who are part of the Orchard Ridge United Church of Christ phone canvass.

Here’s the transcript and video for part two.

Finally, last night reporter Colin Benedict examined the far-reaching consequences of the ban. Madison City Attorney Michael May said the ban would likely overturn Madison’s domestic partner policy, which allows city employees to extend health insurance to their committed partners (whether gay or non-gay). Rep. Mark Gundrum admitted that the second sentence of the ban is designed to block attempts to create civil unions. But he also tried to obfuscate the reach of the amendment.

Here’s the transcript and video for part three.

A lively discussion has been unfolding in Channel 3’s online forum if you’re itching to engage with people about this. As always, feel free to post your comments here on our blog.

Tags:, , ,


At 1:01 PM, Anonymous Keith said...

I have mixed feelings about this coverage.

On the one hand, I applaud WISC for the 3rd installment. It is crystal clear that this amendment would open the door to activist judges. And that it is really about tangibles like health benefits. That's a message that is helpful to us with the broad center of the voters, who will easily vote AGAINST an amendment that invites activist judges to define who can and cannot have access to health care.

On the other hand, WISC maintains the annoying habit of insisting that the amendment is about "defining marriage." That's dangerous language to the same center votes who, like in so many other states before Wisconsin, will vote IN FAVOR of keeping marriage as traditionally defined.


Post a Comment

<< Home

A Fair Wisconsin Votes No
Add this banner to your website