Appling Admits Lie in Campaign:

Today in the MJS:

Amendment opponents raised fears that the amendment might affect domestic partner benefits offered to public employees or short-circuit domestic abuse laws in cases involving unmarried partners.

"Will there be legal challenges? I don't know," Appling said. "Where will they come from? I don't know."

Appling said she has "no plans to be involved in litigation." She added "the government is free to give benefits to unmarried individuals on a basis that does not approximate marriage."

In a wide-ranging interview at her Madison office, Appling spoke in general terms about plans for her organization.

She said the amendment was "just the first piece" of an effort to build a "culture of marriage in Wisconsin."

"We want to see marriage rates increase, cohabitation decrease, divorce rates decrease," she said, adding that she's interested in "stopping the bleeding of no-fault divorce."

However, in her previous statements:

State Rep. Mark Gundrum (R-New Berlin), an author of the amendment, and Julaine Appling, President of Vote Yes for Marriage, have argued in public debates, in the press, and on radio talk shows that benefits for unmarried heterosexual couples aren’t jeopardized by the amendment, and that this is an allegation designed to confuse voters or distract them from “protecting marriage.” Appling and her allies frequently refer to Kentucky, where an almost identically-worded amendment passed in 2004 and where, to date, no efforts have been made to strike down domestic partner benefits.


Cheryl Hentz said...

Not content with its victory Tuesday night, the very group that fought to pass the so-called "gay marriage" amendment apparently now plans to mount a new challenge: changing the marriage and divorce laws in the state of Wisconsin. It looks like no group of people is safe where this group is concerned. It will be an interesting study in human nature to see how those who supported the just-passed amendment will react to the group's future proposed changes to our marriage and divorce laws.

Anonymous said...

Good. I hope they do take another look at No-Fault divorce. I am loosing count of the good men I know who had to give up half of their assets and pay ridiculous alimony to Kupcake once she decided she "wasn't in love" anymore, and shacked up with some criminal from work who she finds more exciting.

Reverse the role. Could a man walk away from his wife and kids because he feels he's "not in love" anymore, and decides to shack up with his secretary? AND, get full custody of the kids, keep the house, and get alimony from the mother? Show me ONE example of that.

These are extreme examples, obviously. But people never seem to mention Men's rights anymore.