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.