Report Shows Amendment Supporters Change Tune
Yesterday, Fair Wisconsin released a short report (PDF) detailing how amendment backers in other states said one thing before their elections and then after the election they took actions that directly contradicted their words.
The pattern is clear: write constitutional bans on civil unions and marriage, assure voters that these measures aren't about limiting benefits, but then after it passes use that language to guarantee all sorts of far-reaching consequences. Ban supporters don't just want to outlaw civil unions and marriage. They oppose any measure of legal protections or recognition for gay families--or any unmarried couples for that matter.
Here's just one example from the report:
Ohio - Before Election
Pro-Amendment Group Pledged Not To Become Involved In Lawsuits Regarding The Legal Arrangements Of Unmarried Couples: During the 2004 debate on the Ohio amendment, the Citizens for Community Values (CCV) said it would not become involved in lawsuits related to legal arrangements for unmarried couples. (Business First, 11/26/04)
Ohio - After Election
CCV Filed “Friend-Of-The-Court” Brief In Support Of Man Accused Of Assaulting His Girlfriend: In 2006, CCV filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Ohio Supreme Court in support of a man accused of assaulting his girlfriend. The man was being prosecuted under Ohio’s domestic violence law. CCV argues that the amendment means courts cannot treat unmarried couples as if they are in a marriage-like relationship, even for the purposes of domestic violence protections. Amendment author David Langdon co-wrote the CCV brief. (People for the American Way, 8/29/06, CCV amicus brief)
Here's the full report.