From the desk of Wisconsin Family Action president Julaine Appling:continue at Wisconsin Family Action
The debate went something like this, Attorney one: “If the people of Wisconsin want to change the definition of marriage, they can do that if they want to. But right now they’ve made a decision, and it’s a wise decision to promote both sexes, the diversity of mothers and fathers in our families. That’s not an unreasonable thing at all, recognizing that kids have mothers and fathers. That’s the decision they’ve made, and they’ve made since the beginning of their statehood; and the Supreme Court has affirmed that that is constitutional for them to do.”
Attorney 2’s response: “How long do we ask people in loving, committed relationships, raising children together already, to wait for fair treatment for recognition of their loving relationships? Do we ask the legislature, this legislature in Wisconsin which is very unlikely, to put that to the voters? Do we ask them to wait for two separate sessions of the legislature, two-year sessions of the legislature and another vote….?”
That was a virtually word-for-word repeating of the debate I listened to last week about the lawsuit that the ACLU has filed on behalf of four homosexual couples. The lawsuit was filed in Wisconsin’s Western District Federal Court and alleges that the Marriage Protection Amendment that nearly 60% of the voters approved in 2006 violates the US Constitution.
Can we change that sign to read "Natural Marriage: Yes"? Homosexualists are not interested in the traditions of men if they think they are unjust. But yes, the ACLU intends to usurp the process.
By the way(and I don't mean this sarcastically), has the WCC issued a statement? If not, wouldn't you think they would? They argument I always hear is that Church support has the opposite affect, rallying enemies against good causes. I suppose the MN Marriage Amendment maybe "proves" that, but here this is not something that is decided by popular opinion but by the judicial system.