Exhibit A: “The proposed constitutional amendment would not prohibit state or local governments or a private entity from setting up a legal construct to provide privileges or benefits such as health insurance benefits, pension benefits, joint tax return filing or hospital visitation to same-sex or unmarried couples.”—Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, Dec. 16, 2005
Exhibit B: “They [same-sex couples] can go to an attorney to get a will drafted, buy joint land, get a judiciary power of attorney, hospital visitation and guardianship for children. These benefits are not directly tied to marriage. They are free to enter into them regardless of legal status of marriage.”—Julaine Appling, Wisconsin Family Research Institute CEO, Oct. 16, 2006
But flash forward two years and you’ll find Exhibit C: “From property transfers to inheritance to health care coverage, the plan gives people in ‘committed relationships’ the same benefits heretofore reserved for married couples, which by law in Wisconsin is restricted to one man and one woman.”—Julaine Appling, Wisconsin Family Action, Feb. 18, 2009
So before the vote to create a discriminatory amendment to the state constitution, the leaders of the Vote Yes for Marriage movement tried to reassure voters that banning same-sex marriage would not prevent the state or any other entity from setting up domestic partnerships and related benefits.
|
|
Yet when Gov. Jim Doyle announced his plan to set up a domestic partnership registry that provides very limited benefits for committed-but-not-married partners, Appling cried that “it is not the right step for Wisconsin to take, particularly in a time of financial crisis.”
Unfortunately for Appling and Fitzgerald, those fighting the good fight remember the duo’s words.
“The leadership of the organizations that put through that despicable amendment in 2006—Julaine Appling and Scott Fitzgerald—at the time that they were persuading people to vote their way they made statements that their clear goal was only to ban gay marriage and the amendment would not affect domestic partnership benefits,” said Ray Vahey of Center Advocates.
“For them to change their party line now, it indicates that they would have a severe case of situational ethics-itis. They ought to go get some therapy.”
