Monday, August 24, 2009

Appling vs. Doyle - Today's interview with Pat Snyder/Tom King

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:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  4. According to http://censorfreelib.blogspot.com/2009/08/hear-me-out.html#comments , you declined to respond. Is that true?

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Comments that contain inappropriate language will be removed. Removal of commentary is up to the discretion of the blog owner. Posting personal blog links is not acceptable without the express permission of the blog owner.