Appling v. Doyle

Today’s radio commentary:

1.26 million. That’s a really large number. Here are some comparisons for you. 1.26 million is about the size of the entire population of Dallas, Texas, the ninth-largest city in the United States. It’s about the number of abortions performed in the U.S. in 2005.  1.26 million is about the number of charities and private foundations registered with the IRS as of March of this year.

1.26 million is especially significant for me because it’s the number of votes cast for one-man, one-woman marriage in Wisconsin in November of 2006, just four years ago. Almost 60% of Wisconsin voters cast their ballots in favor of an amendment to Wisconsin’s state constitution that protects the definition of and the institution of marriage in Wisconsin. That’s quite a majority.

Read the rest here.

Download/listen to the MP3 file here.


2 comments on “Appling v. Doyle

  1. Gordon Jennings says:

    Please understand: This is slowly becoming a civil rights case, not a “will of the voters” case.

    The will of the voters didn’t stop the Civil War and the end of slavery in the south; didn’t stop Nazis from marching in Skokie, Illinois; didn’t stop interracial marriage, didn’t stop the women’s suffrage movement at the turn of the century; didn’t stop prohibition; and it won’t stop this. As this younger generation comes of voting age, both liberal and conservative young people will see this as a civil rights issue, while your voters, who are stuck in their modes of thinking and the bigotry of the past, will slowly be engulfed. Why keep fighting this?

    Here’s a great example: March 7, 2000: California passed Prop 22 (no gay marriage) 61 per cent YES, 39 per cent NO. That’s a 22 point gap, that’s HUGE!

    (Overturned by the courts, BTW — just as any law that robs citizens of their civil rights should. That’s the job of the courts — to protect citizens against “the will of the voters.”)

    Fast forward to 2008: Prop 8. Once again enough people think we should vote on discrimination that it comes to an election AGAIN. Even with all the stumping from Mormons and religious groups (like the WFC) it only passes by FOUR points — 52 yes, 48 no.

    Guess what? The courts still overturned it, because the minority must be protected from the majority and their votes. But the courts are another story.

    What’s great is that the voters are clearly changing their attitudes. In only 8 years, the anti gay-marriage support in elections has shriveled from 22 to only 4 per cent. Any guesses which way the next vote is going to go? Will you be behind the “will of the voter” when the vote goes against your agenda? It probably won’t be long; time to start thinking about it now. Don’t get caught by surprise.

  2. Mark says:

    I think this clearly shows the hypocrisy and disingenuous nature by which WIFA operates:

    “Four years ago, one of the hottest issues in Wisconsin was the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions. While opponents worried that such a measure would hurt any efforts to grant gay and lesbian couples a minimal amount of legal protections through other means, such as domestic partnerships, supporters pooh-poohed these naysayers.

    “If the state Legislature wants to take up adoption or inheritance rights, it can do that,” said Julaine Appling, head of one of the primary organizations supporting the amendment, Wisconsin Family Action. “Nothing in the (amendment) prohibits that.” Ban supporters avowed they were only trying to “protect marriage” and “protect the family,” not penalize same-sex couples.

    Flash forward to 2010. The governor and the Legislature, taking Appling at her word, passed legislation last year providing for a domestic partnership registry in Wisconsin. This measure gave same-sex couples a mere 43 of the over 200 rights given to married couples, primarily in the area of inheritance rights, hospital visits and medical leaves of absence.

    Appling then countered this measure with an action whose breathtaking hypocrisy was only exceeded by its predictability: She became a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the state to overturn this legislation. And when the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to hear the case last year, WFA returned in August with yet another lawsuit to block the registry.” [Journal Sentinel]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s