How many more examples do we need to prove just how dishonest the “values” crowd is willing to be? Who can forget how they were pushing the anti-gay amendment in 2006 and saying that the second sentence wouldn’t endanger domestic partnerships and civil unions? At that time a poll was released showing that the majority of Wisconsinites did not have a problem with domestic partner-type benefits. Even some conservatives voiced their discomfort with the second sentence of the anti-gay amendment. Groups like Fair Wisconsin repeatedly warned that things like domestic partnerships would be attacked after the amendment’s passage.
Only a few months after enshrining discrimination into our state constitution, fringe Representative Steve Nass attacked the idea of domestic partner benefits for state employees. He used the anti-gay amendment as his main talking point. Now that Governor Doyle has made a proposal that would allow same-sex couples to form domestic partnerships, the extreme right wing is once again howling about the anti-gay amendment. This argument is being made even though many of the amendment’s supporters claimed that it wouldn’t endanger the possibility of domestic partnerships and civil unions.
In what appears to be some sort of a sick obsession, gay-hater Julaine Appling insists on injecting herself into the discussion. This recent proposal has her frothing again, and threatening to take legal action if the Governor’s proposal is enacted. Legal action based on the anti-gay amendment that supporters insisted would not prevent civil union and domestic partnership benefits. It should also be noted that during the debate on the anti-gay amendment, Appling actually commented, that "the language of the amendment is such that it will actually prevent the need for extensive litigation on the marriage issue." Yes, and naturally that is why she is now threatening legal action, right?
In 2008 the Michigan State Supreme Court ruled that their state universities and other state entities couldn’t offer domestic partnership benefits because of the anti-gay amendment that their voters had passed. If this good and decent proposal is challenged in court how sure can we be that it will survive? If it finds its way to our state Supreme Court, it will face a conservative majority. Thanks to a recent Capital Times story, we also know that Randy Koschnick holds these kinds of anti-gay and extreme views. Thanks to The Lost Albatross we also know that he actually called Appling’s organization (among others) from his courthouse phone. Did he talk to her? Was it about how he would rule on such matters?
Exactly what many on the right said would not happen as a result of the anti-gay amendment is exactly what seems to be coming to pass. Apparently dishonesty and deception is acceptable to them as long as they get the result that they want. In this process one thing has become clear. Many of these self described “values voters” apparently don’t put much of a value on honesty. At least not if it gets in the way of their extreme agenda.