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.
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.'"