True Honor

This week’s radio commentary:

This week we honor the sacrifice and service of our veterans, and it is our privilege to do so not just on Veterans’ Day but every day of the year as we enjoy the freedoms they’ve defended for us.

Quite honestly, we have a very real duty to our veterans, a duty to do our part, here at home, to preserve the freedoms they fought for, the freedoms they sacrificed for, the cause they lost their comrades and years of their lives to. It is not enough to honor them with our praises and gratitude; we need to honor them with our time, efforts and action.

In the last year, our freedoms have been attacked with a speed and a fervor never before seen in the history of our country, from the local school board, to the state capitol, to Washington D.C. Unfortunately, we’re experiencing the very real truth that elections have consequences.

Read/listen to the rest here.

US House passes PelosiCare on 220-215 vote

Here’s a good summary of what happened in the historic debate and vote today and tonight on PelosiCare.  Our friends at Americans United for Life did an extraordinary job in securing a pro-life amendment–the Stupak/Pitts amendment that restricts federal funding for abortions (with some exceptions) in this bill.   Unfortunately, even with the amendment, this is a disastrous piece of legislation and has more to do with a seismic shift in who we are as a people than it does with “reforming” health care.

Bottom line:  Liberal Democrats received two more votes than the minimum required to move this socialist approach to health care forward.  It passed 220-215, with one Republican voting for it.  Now the attention will shift to the Senate. 

Wisconsin Family Action did extensive Facebook/Twitter updates, as well.

Passage of “Unhealthy Youth Act” not the end of the story

Last night at 7:30 p.m., the State Assembly passed AB458, the so-called “Healthy Youth Act” by a 48 to 43 vote.  Click here to see how your Representative voted.

Three Republican members were absent (two on military tours of duty), as was one Independent (Rep. Jeff Wood–Bloomer) who normally votes with the Democratic caucus.  The bill passed on party lines with one Democrat, Rep. Robert Ziegelbauer, voting against the bill.

Although we (families, parents, students, pro-family organizations, etc.) lost this “battle,” we made some significant advances in the “war” for the immediate and future health, happiness and success of our children.  Right now, we do not have a majority of elected officials in either chamber of the state legislature that is friendly toward pro-family, pro-life, pro-marriage values.

During the debate on this bill, it’s become very apparent that the legislators involved, and most of the organizations and individuals lining up on either side of the debate, have the same good intentions–the health and success of our kids.  The problem comes in the difference in ideology and approach to a solution.  That is precisely why your help has been so important, and so pivotal, in this debate. When you made the phone calls and sent the emails to your state legislators, you let them know that there are a lot of people in this state who do not believe that comprehensive sex ed and handing out condoms is the magic answer to the problem of teen sex, pregnancy and STD’s.  Interestingly, while this debate was going on yesterday, this report was released by the CDC on the effectiveness of abstinence education.

Without those calls and emails, the debate last night would have been meaningless.  Instead, the constant flood of emails and phone calls into every Representative’s office put the bill’s supporters on the defensive.  Suddenly, they had to defend their “cure-all” bill; they could not make the claim that “everyone” wanted their mandated solution.  Your voiced opposition to AB458 put the bones on the speeches Rep’s Kleefisch, Vukmir, Ballweg, LeMahieu, Strachota, Spanbauer, Gottlieb and Davis gave on the Assembly floor against the bill–because they were speaking not just for themselves, but for every Wisconsinite that opposed AB458.

The Representatives opposed to AB458 put up a good fight.  For the first time this session, on a highly controversial bill such as this, the Assembly actually voted on some minority party amendments and even passed two of them!  Don’t miss the significance of that. The majority party has the power to throw out any amendment they want to, and they frequently do.  But because of the pressure you put on your Representatives, they had to do something.  So they passed a few Republican amendments making minor, but not insignificant, changes to AB458.

Even though the bill passed the Assembly, the Republicans managed to stall it a little longer and at the moment it looks like the Senate won’t be voting on the bill until mid-January at the earliest.  So there’s still time to contact your State Senator and ask him/her to vote NO on AB458.

Your Representative needs to hear from you again on this bill, either to thank him/her for the no-vote or to hold him/her accountable for a yes-vote. Click here to send a thank-you message to your State Representative or here to let your Representative know you are disappointed with their yes-vote on AB 458.

Without a pro-family, pro-life, pro-marriage-friendly majority in the legislature, we have to do what we can to win some of the policy battles by keeping the pressure on our state legislators until we can give them a proper report card in the form of a ballet vote in November 2010!

WI Supremes Deny Original Action for Same-Sex Registry Case

Wisconsin State Supreme Court declines
Original Jurisdiction in Appling v. Doyle
Statement by Wisconsin Family Action
Attorneys Richard Esenberg and Michael Dean

Yesterday the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an order denying the original action petition filed in July by Wisconsin Family Action board members. The petition alleges that earlier this year, the domestic partnership registry created as part of this year’s budget bill violates Article XIII, Sec. 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

It is always difficult to invoke the Court’s original jurisdiction, which is rarely exercised. We filed our petition directly with the state supreme court instead of the trial court because we believed it was important to quickly address the legislature’s disregard of the Wisconsin Constitution and the will of the 1.25 million voters who approved the Marriage Amendment on a nearly 60% to 40% margin. While we are disappointed, we know that the court’s decision to decline original jurisdiction can be based on any number of factors and implies nothing about the merits of the constitutional challenge. We are confident that Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen was correct when he concluded that the registry is unconstitutional and that he could not defend against the petition. The action may now be brought in circuit court, and we are preparing our next steps to protect and uphold the constitution and the will of the voters.

Click here for the PDF of this media statement.

The unique and historical status of marriage…

New! Click here to watch the McConkey hearing this morning. The link will take you to WisconsinEye’s video archive of the oral arguments.  Click on “Watch” to view the video.

This morning’s hearing on McConkey v. Van Hollen was interesting, to say the least.  It was the State Supreme Court’s first hearing of the day and it became very obvious all of the seven justices were on their toes, and expected the two attorneys to be as well.

Atty. Lester Pines was the first to present his case to the Court, and was generously allowed to exceed his 1/2 hour allotment.  On behalf of Prof. McConkey, Pines argued that Wisconsin’s Marriage Protection Amendment encompasses two subjects, and is therefore in violation of our state constitution.

McConkey claims he has standing to bring the case because some people would have voted for the first sentence but not the second (the first sentence defines marriage as between one man and one woman and the second sentence protects that definition by prohibiting any legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage.).

Therefore, Pines claimed this morning, since people could have voted differently for the two sentences, McConkey should have standing to challenge the amendment, really on behalf of those people.  However, as Justice Roggensack pointed out to Pines during the hearing, McConkey has already admitted in public that given a chance to vote on the two sentences separately, he would have voted no on both.

During his arguments, Assistant Atty. General Lewis Beilin brought up this point again, claiming that McConkey was not harmed by this amendment because he would have voted no anyway, and therefore does not have standing.

Atty. Pines also asked the court to adopt a new rule for determining the purpose of an amendment (whether it’s single purpose or not) that is extremely restrictive and perhaps oversimple, as some of the Justices and Atty. Beilin pointed out.

Atty. Beilin explained how the Court’s precedent, existing standard for interpreting the purpose of an amendment, if applied to this case, would affirm that amendment is single in purpose–the preservation of marriage as between one man and one woman.  We couldn’t agree more!

All seven justices participated in the hearing with questions, comments and quips throughout the oral arguments.  Now we wait for a decision from the Court, and no, we do not have a time schedule for when that may happen.

Marriage in the balance

This week’s radio commentary:

When Wisconsin voters passed the Marriage Protection Amendment in 2006 by an almost 60% super majority, little did we know we’d have to defend our own amendment on two different fronts less than three years later. It’s a sad commentary on our times.

But when the will of the people and the rule of law interfere with certain agendas, some people will stop at nothing to force their will on the citizens of this state. Currently, we’re involved in two lawsuits before the State Supreme Court defending against attacks on our Marriage Protection Amendment.

Read/listen to the rest here.

Updates: McConkey oral arguments & AB458 vote today

This morning we attended the oral arguments before the State Supreme Court on McConkey v. Van Hollen, the procedural challenge to Wisconsin’s Marriage Amendment passed in Nov. 2006 by almost 60% of Wisconsin voters.

The hearing went well over 1 hour, with both sides exceeding their 1/2 hour limit.  Atty. Lester Pines spoke first, representing Prof. Bill McConkey and urging the Court to:
1) grant Prof. McConkey standing to bring the case and
2) declare the marriage amendment consists of two subjects instead of one and is thereby in violation of the state constitution.

Assistant Atty. General Lewis Beilin spoke next, representing the Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen for the state, urging the Court to:
1) deny Prof. McConkey standing and
2) recognize that the marriage amendment consists of one subject: “the preservation of the unique and historical status of marriage.”  Basically, Atty. Beilin asked the Court to affirm Circuit Court Judge Richard Niess’ holding in favor the amendment’s constitutionality.

More on that later…

In the meantime, the State Assembly met for a few moments today before going into partisan caucus.  They did not vote on the “Unhealthy Youth Act” (AB458) before going into caucus so we still do not know the fate of that unfortunate and dangerous bill.

Stay tuned for more details.
Follow us at www.facebook.com/WisconsinFamilyCouncil and/or www.twitter.com/WIFamilyAction

Wisconsin Family Council: Welcomes new allies in McConkey v. Van Hollen

Wisconsin Family Council issued this press release this afternoon

10/29/2009

Contact: Julaine K. Appling, CEO
608-256-3228 (Madison); 888-378-7395 (toll-free)
Email: media@wifamilycouncil.org

WI Supremes Accept Community Leaders’ Friend of the Court Brief in Case Challenging Marriage Amendment

Madison – “We welcome the addition of this new friends-of-the-court brief in this critical case involving Wisconsin’s Marriage Protection Amendment,” said Julaine Appling, President of Wisconsin Family Council.

Until the last few months, Wisconsin Family Council (WFC) had been the only amicus (Latin for “friend of the court”) in this case since it began at the trial level in July 2007. McConkey v. Van Hollen is an attempt to sabotage Wisconsin’s marriage amendment, approved by nearly 60 percent of Wisconsin voters in November 2006. Professor Bill McConkey, who brought the case, alleges that the amendment deals with two subjects, rather than one as required by the state constitution.

Last month, after Wisconsin Family Action board members filed an original action petition challenging the constitutionality of Governor Doyle’s newly enacted statewide, marriage-like, same-sex-only domestic partnership registry, two different amici groups filed briefs in McConkey, supporting the allegation that the amendment is unconstitutional. Fair Wisconsin, a pro-homosexual organization, Lambda Legal, a major national homosexual litigation firm, and the ACLU of Wisconsin filed a brief arguing for an extremely narrow application of the Amendment. Separately, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, which also opposed the Amendment, filed a brief supporting McConkey’s claims.

Click here to read the rest of the press release.

Unlimited discrimination

This morning the Assembly Committee on Children and Families held an executive session on Assembly Bill (AB) 453, a measure that would entirely remove the statute of limitations on civil lawsuits involving childhood sexual abuse–more on that here.

In the executive session, Rep. Steve Kestell (R-Elkhart Lake) offered two amendments (which both subsequently failed) to restore some equity to AB453.  The first amendment would have removed the caps on government liability in a lawsuit.  Thanks to sovereign immunity, it is next to impossible to successfully bring a civil lawsuit against a government entity in the first place; and if you are lucky enough to actually win the suit, current law limits financial liability for municipal governments to $50K and state government to $250K.

There is no cap, however, on the amount of money awarded in a case against a private entity, such as a church, private school, camp, or other not-for-profit organization.  All five Democrats on the committee voted against this proposal, Republican Richard Spanbauer (Oshkosh) voted with the Dems and Reps. Kestell and Pridemore (R-Hartford) voted for the amendment.

The second amendment, offered because the first one didn’t pass, would have created a monetary damages cap for private entities (think church, private school, YMCA, etc.) at $250K, the same cap for state government.

All five Democrats, again, voted down the amendment, claiming that this “wasn’t about money.”   This time, all three Republicans voted for the amendment.

In the end, the Committee passed the bill without any fix for the gross discrimination inherent in the provision.  All 5 Democrats were joined by Republican Richard Spanbauer, making the vote 6-2 in favor of passage.  If this “isn’t about money,” then why discriminate against churches, religious schools, camps and other non-profits by absolutely refusing to any level of equity with public entities?

And the police looked on…

On Monday the Alliance Defense Fund filed a lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee on the behalf of pro-life advocates who’ve been harassed, unlawfully jailed, threatened and physically assaulted.

In the lawsuit, ADF documents cases where police

• did nothing when an abortion clinic employee kicked a pro-lifer outside a clinic
• threatened to arrest a pro-life, sidewalk-counseling couple for child abuse and neglect when they brought their 4-month old son with
• failed to provide equal protection for pro-life advocates

Click here to read more.