Op-Ed: Ban Hurts More than Gay People

In last weekend's Capital Times, Jim Slattery, a retired physician, wrote a great op-ed about the "substantially similar" clause of the proposed ban.

He writes:
So anything "substantially similar" to marriage would be banned or subject to legal challenge - things like civil unions, domestic partner benefits, health care benefits, pensions, hospital visitation and medical decision-making. These and more legal protections would be denied or seriously jeopardized for all unmarried couples - gay or straight.
In her press release, Appling took issue with Fair Wisconsin's claim that the amendment "bans rights for all couples not married." To support her argument, Appling cites the fact that in Kentucky, where an identical ban has been in place since 2004, there has been no challenge to those rights. What she doesn't say is that in Kentucky, only a few private companies offer domestic partnership benefits. The state of Kentucky, the municipalities of Louisville and Lexington, counties, and all public institutions of higher learning currently do not.
Today, Julaine Appling responds to what she calls an "attack on my character, saying that my statements about protecting marriage in Wisconsin 'may even be outright lying.'"


At 9:20 AM, Blogger Communitygal said...

Julaine Appling is living in what I call a "faith based reality." She wants so bad for this amendment to pass, she would be willing to deny the existence of the nose on her face if that is what it took.

No rational person can deny the fact that the moment a similar amendment passed in Michigan, domestic partner benefits that were about to be granted to employees of the state of Michigan were suddenly removed? The employees did not even have the chance to defend the benefits in court: the government just caved without a fight.

This is what is referred to as the "chilling effect" of these amendments: once they pass, governments, and even private employers, are "chilled," or intimidated away, from offering DP benefits.

At 9:39 AM, Blogger Kevin said...

Once again, Ms. Appling is showing her ignorance. Here is a good example, "Hardly any will say they think that unmarried individuals having sex should be treated, in essence, just like they are married, thus emptying the term "marriage" of significance. But that is exactly what many opponents believe. With the law, the facts and the people of Wisconsin against them, they "pound on the table."

Don't straight people who have sex act like a married couple? What is emptying the term of marriage is the divorce rate rising, mothers have kids from multiple fathers, people who get married because they don't feel safe living in a society that accepts you for who you are and they get married to hide themselves.

If Ms. Appling is going to go around calling this a "marriage protection amendment" I think her efforts should be done to protect current marriages from failing.

I have spoken to a lot of people regarding this amendment and many are voting no because they don't see this as a problem and many frankly don't care how people want to live their lives. Many want everyone to enjoy the same freedoms and happiness.

But, sadly, Ms. Appling wants to open more Mercy Houses like the one in the movie "Saved."


Post a Comment

<< Home

A Fair Wisconsin Votes No
Add this banner to your website