Julaine Appling's lengthy interview with Pat Snyder from WSAU concerning the lawsuit against DOYLE regarding statewide domestic partnership registry.
LISTEN HERE!
_________________________________________
"The domestic partnership registry is substantially similar to marriage", Appling stated in her interview.
As a state, "we passed that amendment (one man/one woman) to our state constitution."
She further said, "Here's the governer putting a provision in the budget that is essentially an end-run around the will of the people and the constitution."
"It creates a new legal status for couples of the same sex..."
Registration provisions are exactly the same legal requirements as marriage requirements, so the reason for the suit is justified as unconstitutional.
"This isn't about equal protation. This is about preserving the institution of marriage."
I applaud Appling's fine interview today and her firm and knowledgeable platform for this interview.
15 comments:
Mike,
Your comment here is inappropriate. This would belong under another topical heading, but has nothing to do with the Appling vs. Doyle issue. Therefore, I am deleting your comment.
For the record, I am aware of this "challenge." I have responded to the blogger.
I agree that it has nothing to do with the post at hand. I did not know where else to put it.
In other news, I checked out censorfreelib and there is no comment on the blog from you. where is this reply you claim to have made.
According to http://censorfreelib.blogspot.com/2009/08/hear-me-out.html#comments , you declined to respond. Is that true?
Yes, I respectfully declined.
Respectfully, why did you decline? He appears to bring up valid points that this particular book doesn't contain any sexually explicit content. Why are you not willing to explain your reasoning?
Honestly, you often seem to shy away from engaging in any actual discourse about these matters. I've asked you numerous questions (in a reasonable, non-hostile manner) over the past weeks, and rarely get a direct reply.
MLIS: I try not to be redundant. Begin at the beginning. Read from the start of this blog in the archives. You probably have not followed this blog for that long. Everything you need answers for are found within the context of this blog at one point or other. My time is limited.
Post a Comment