The many untruths and bald lies of Wisconsin Family Action

Wisconsin recently became the first state with a standing constitutional ban on gay marriage to go ahead and enact same-sex domestic partnership rights. Gov. Doyle worked the provision into his 2009 budget, and after a memo from the Legislative Council Staff confirmed that the rights did not give "comprehensive, core aspects of the legal status of marriage to same-sex couples" (and thus did not violate the constitutional amendment), the legislature went ahead and voted it into law.

It's a big step in the right direction, and a most welcome advance after the depressing amendment vote in 2006.

Of course, not content to abide by their own promises or common decency, Wisconsin Family Action decided to file a lawsuit challenging the provision, arguing that it does, in fact, violate the ban by creating something "substantially similar to marriage."

This is funny (not "ha ha" so much as "oh c'MON!") in that several WFA spokespersons, including everyone's favorite closet case Julaine Appling, took great pains to assure the public that the amendment would not negatively affect domestic partnership benefits.

I quote:

Appling also said that the amendment would not jeopardize domestic partner benefits or other legal protections for gay couples and their children.

"That's a smokescreen," she said.

(OWN points out a few other gems of this nature here)

I do not think she knows what that word means. Either that or, gasp! she lied. It's almost as though she and the rest of the WFA cadre were desperate to hide from middle-of-the-road voters the fact that they were simply out to institutionalize discrimination against a particular group of people, rather than just "saving traditional marriage" and all that soundbite-y goodness.

Of course, I doubt very much they really understand much about "traditional marriage," or the great variety of traditions all over the world and throughout history that have governed what marriage is. Heck, Appling herself hasn't ever been married - what does she know about it?

There's all kinds of mind-warping nonsense in this current lawsuit, though. Think about it: Not only does it fly in the face of their repeated statements that the amendment wouldn't be used in exactly this way, but it also makes clear the fact that said amendment was illegal in the first place, in that it contained two separate clauses: one banning gay marriage, the other civil unions, etc. I can only hope that Bill McConkey's lawsuit addressing that very issue is successful.

And there's one other issue here--the WFA is arguing that, as signed into law by Doyle, these domestic partnerships are...

... prohibited by Art. XIII, sec. 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution by creating and requiring recognition of a legal status substantially similar to that of marriage....Such domestic partnerships are entered into by same-sex partners and are officially created and acknowledged in essentially the identical way that marriages are entered into by a man and woman and are officially created and acknowledged.

As far as I can tell, though, couples registering for these benefits will be given only 40 of the 200 main rights enjoyed by straight married couples in Wisconsin. And come federal tax time, the differences will become all the more stark. How in the heck are they identical, then?

They aren't, and gay marriage or domestic partnerships don't harm a soul, but that's not really what the WFA and folks like Appling are really up in arms over. They're ignorant and scared and flailing out against positive change in any way they can conjure up. It's discrimination and disdain at its most ridiculous. Plain and simple.

Further reading: A remarkably thorough run-down of the whole debacle via an AP writer.
Further further reading: A lovely, insightful post about the issue from someone whom it effects directly.

Koschnick and the anti-abortion fringe

Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick wants to be a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Problem is, incumbent Justice Shirley Abrahamson is in his way, so he's launched a campaign to unseat her in the elections this spring (the primary is Feb. 17 and the general election is April 7).

I've been having nasty flashbacks to the campaign between Michael Gableman and Louis Butler ever since I heard Koschnick was running. Were we in for another round of scurrilous attack ads placed by obnoxious interest groups like WMC? Would Koschnick start misstating case law and twisting the record of his opponent?

Pretty much yes. Call it a case of deja vu all over again - the only difference being the name of the players. Several of the more powerful conservative interest groups have curiously opted to sit out of this election cycle, including WMC, Club for Growth Wisconsin, and Coalition for America's Families.

Why? That's a damn good question, but their decision may be based on a combination of the massive amount of scrutiny and criticism WMC came in for last year, and perhaps a perceived lack of a real chance at winning. After all, they've already achieved getting one under-qualified conservative hack (Gableman) onto the bench, and two potentially easier-to-win seats will be coming up in the next few years as Justices Prosser and Roggensack come up for re-election.

But never fear! Several other right-wing interest groups have taken up the cause and are endorsing and campaigning for Koschnick. One of these noble citizen's groups is Wisconsin Right to Life, the same group currently backing efforts to stop a new abortion clinic in Madison. Another group that's backing Koschnick? The NRA Political Victory Fund. Yep.

It should be noted that Koschnick has also been speaking with the Wisconsin Family Council, run by the notoriously homophobic crusader Julaine Appling, one of the loudest proponents of the anti-gay marriage bill passed in Wisconsin in '06. Thanks to an open records request, it's possible to note that a call to the WFC was placed from Koschnick's desk phone back on Sept. 22 of '08. Whether or not the group will publicly endorse his run, it's certainly worth noting their interactions. I should add that the records request also revealed phone and email conversations, both from Koschnick's state offices, with Patti Chmielewski, the Jefferson County contact for WRTL.

I don't think there's much question as to what Koschnick's political affiliations are. And though the apparent use of his official phone and email to conduct conversations with interest groups now actively backing his campaign may or may not be legally suspect, this does serve to beg several important questions.

Would Koschnick really be an objective voice on the court, one that adhered to the actual law of the land and displayed thoughtful understanding and interpretation of its trickier aspects? I sincerely doubt that.

For further proof that that's not likely to be the case, the illustrious Illusory Tenant lays out Koschnick's shaky comprehension of the law here, and Super Id has a pretty good take on the issue, too.

What it all boils down to is this: Randy Koschnick appears to be nothing more than a partisan, far-right conservative hack with poor judgement and suspect interpretation of the law. I would say we need not worry about so weak a contender against the established and knowledgeable Abrahamson, but then again, Gableman did manage to win his bid - so it's important to get educated on the real issues here, spread the word, and decide what kind of person you'd rather have sitting on the bench of the highest court in the state: a political ideologue, or a proven and thoughtful judge.


P.S. Blogger informs me that this is my 500th post! Woo! Honestly, I'm not sure whether to be proud or mildly horrified...maybe both. :)

(EDIT: Changed the date of the WFC phone call - records were misinterpreted)

The world is filled with boobs

I'm glad to see that cooler heads (eventually) prevailed in this whole debacle...

In a decision that clears CBS of any wrongdoing for airing the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show that featured Janet Jackson's infamous “wardrobe malfunction,” a federal appeals court overturned the $550,000 fine that the Federal Communications Commission levied against the station, calling the fine arbitrary and capricious.

...because 1) it really did strike me as a case of the FCC being a tad overzealous under pressure from a few particularly loud objectors, and 2) it was a friggen boob! Seriously, what is our obsession with so-called "indecency"? The media can show and/or glorify violence, ED drugs, and ridiculous gossip, but allow a split second shot of a woman's half-exposed nipple? End of the world as we know it.

I suppose I could go and blame the Puritan heritage of our country, or Queen Victoria, or the likes of good ol' Anthony Comstock - and I'm sure all of that and more has played into our country's overall aversion to the naked human body. But it's 2008, and we've had plenty of time to get reacquainted with the idea that nudity (and sexuality) isn't inherently sinful. And yet, we still have ridiculous incidents like this one, where one moment of exposed breast becomes more outrageous, more offensive to us than, say, the blood and gore of most modern crime dramas, or the thousands of dead and wounded coming home from war, or our civil liberties and basic freedoms being systematically stripped and given away.

None of that seems to matter so much to the Julaine Appling's of the world, who would ban women from even breastfeeding in public--so uncomfortable (and tingly) does the sight of a bared bosom seem to make them.

Really, though, our collective hysteria over the human form has gone to such extremes that I'm almost inclined to believe that it's partially a knee-jerk reaction to distance ourselves as much as possible from those dirty Europeans, who don't take nearly so much issue with what Americans would deem "obscenity."

Here's an idea: maybe if we stopped making such a big deal out of it, it would become less of a big deal. Maybe we should spend more time saving the children from violence, hunger, oppression and environmental destruction, and less time attempting to shield them from boobs. Well, the kind attached to adult females, anyway.

Can I get a rim shot, please?

Bizarre old laws and the homophobes who love them

Oh Julaine Appling, you are Wisconsin's biggest homophobe. You are so crazy about the gays, in fact, that I have seriously begun to suspect that some cute girl once broke your heart, and/or that your family life was terribly repressive, and you've never quite been able to recover. I think we could all sympathize with that more if, as a result, you hadn't become such a massive tool.

Last week, newspapers began reporting on an old, seldom-enforced Wisconsin law that says residents of this state cannot obtain marriages in other states that are illegal here. The penalty for breaking this law is a fine of $10,000 and up to 9 months in jail.

Yeah, it's pretty crazy.

I can only assume that the law was originally intended to be used in cases of incest and/or polygamy, but rabid anti-gay activists like Appling have a hard-on for seeing it applied to any Wisconsin couple that goes to California to get hitched and then returns.

While it's (thankfully) unlikely that any attorney would take up the issue to prosecute some unsuspecting gay couple, Appling and her ilk still seem intent on pressing it: ""If [the law] were challenged and the courts decided to basically wink at it, and refused to enforce the law, we have a problem."

Because 1) gay people getting married at all will destroy the world! and 2) Wisconsinsites getting married in California will destroy the world! Yeah, OK, whatever.

Hopefully, this particular chapter of the gay marriage debate in this state will turn out to be a relative non-issue. Unfortunately, however, there still remains a great deal of work to do to educate about and advance the cause of true equality for all. One of the biggest, craziest enemies of this cause is Appling and groups like the Wisconsin "Family" Council. Fingers pressed firmly into their ears and over their eyes, they seem hell-bent on conducting a self-righteous crusade against something that harms no one. All this while all manner of real problems are currently being faced by their friends and neighbors. A world of shame on them.

Please, would someone do us all a favor and tell Ms. Appling that those tingly feelings she has about other women are not wrong? This has gone on long enough.

(Case and point)


h/t: Illusory Tenant