Domestic partner registry opponents' words could block their challenge

Conservatives seeking to strike down the state’s same-sex domestic partner benefits registry could face an unlikely obstacle if their case moves forward, legal experts said: their own words. The lawsuit by Wisconsin Family Action contends a 2006 state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions prohibits the benefits registry. But in 2006, members of the group and other supporters of the constitutional ban said the measure would not affect domestic partner benefits, according to public statements reported in the media and on their Web sites.

[DNF]

I had a feeling their lawsuit might backfire. I hope this explodes and creates more problems for other bans around the country.

Imagine.

Religious people standing for morality and "truth" turning around and getting caught in a lie?

What IS this nation sinking into?

[Gaybriel]

I like this line:'When proponents of the amendment said in 2006 the measure would not prevent the state or private employers from offering partner benefits, they were talking about benefits “in the abstract,” he said.' In other words, it's okay to talk about such things, as long as they aren't real, just "in the abstract".

As for "sinking", DNF, this country sank a very long time ago, we're still trying to raise the shipwreck back above water.

[Spider]

Religionists manipulate people by lying to them.

Always have; always will.

[DNF]

Gaybriel wrote:

I like this line:'When proponents of the amendment said in 2006 the measure would not prevent the state or private employers from offering partner benefits, they were talking about benefits “in the abstract,” he said.' In other words, it's okay to talk about such things, as long as they aren't real, just "in the abstract".
As for "sinking", DNF, this country sank a very long time ago, we're still trying to raise the shipwreck back above water.

I don't think it's sunk yet. Politicians have always underestimated the voters. And voters are getting better at understanding politicians and bureaucrats.

And yes I loved that "in the abstract" logic as well. I can't decide if I feel sorry for the judge or not. On the one hand, I can almost hear Cheech and Chong saying "BAILIFF..." Then again I can't help thinking of the amount the judge may need to spend on aspirin for his headaches and blood pressure.

[Kyra]

"But in 2006, members of the group and other supporters of the constitutional ban said the measure would not affect domestic partner benefits, according to public statements reported in the media and on their Web sites."

They did this in Oregon, too---reassured everybody right and left that their "protect-marriage" amendment wouldn't affect civil unions, and then when it passed they argued against civil unions by pointing to the amendment and saying "The people have spoken, they don't want this, they passed the amendment, no civil unions!"

High hopes for it backfiring on them in Wisconsin.

[Inquisitarian]

Kyra wrote:

"But in 2006, members of the group and other supporters of the constitutional ban said the measure would not affect domestic partner benefits, according to public statements reported in the media and on their Web sites."
They did this in Oregon, too---reassured everybody right and left that their "protect-marriage" amendment wouldn't affect civil unions, and then when it passed they argued against civil unions by pointing to the amendment and saying "The people have spoken, they don't want this, they passed the amendment, no civil unions!"
High hopes for it backfiring on them in Wisconsin.

Same thing in Michigan, where we lost the court case. I likewise hope it backfires on them in Wisconsin, but wouldn't hold my breath.

[Sir Andrew]

I do so love irony.

[DNF]

Kyra wrote:

"But in 2006, members of the group and other supporters of the constitutional ban said the measure would not affect domestic partner benefits, according to public statements reported in the media and on their Web sites."
They did this in Oregon, too---reassured everybody right and left that their "protect-marriage" amendment wouldn't affect civil unions, and then when it passed they argued against civil unions by pointing to the amendment and saying "The people have spoken, they don't want this, they passed the amendment, no civil unions!"
High hopes for it backfiring on them in Wisconsin.

Here in Florida the used the "activist judges" ploy to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban something already banned!

They even used the slippery slope claim of child molestation, polygamy and bestiality.

I had a great laugh when a few months ago it came out that a State Senator became worried about "animal husbandry" (she misunderstood what the 4H club is about) and discovered that here in Florida sex with animals was legal.

Yes folks, it's illegal here in Florida for me to be married to the man my church will join me to, but if I felt a desire for a cow ,goat or whatever, well.....like I said. I got a great laugh about that "OOOPS".

Oh and as far as I know animals are now protected here in Florida. My marriage isn't legal but farm animals can rest easy now.

[Westcoaster]

Revenge may be a dish best served cold, but irony is best served smeared all over your opponents face.

[tomas]

These fundamentalist religionists are quite frankly little Nazis. They want to rule the world as a theocratic domination of minorities. I do hope we have guts enough to stand up to these fascists.

[fuzi]

Religionists lie. That's just what they do best, and often.

[SSracing]

DNF wrote:

I had a feeling their lawsuit might backfire. I hope this explodes and creates more problems for other bans around the country.
Imagine.
Religious people standing for morality and "truth" turning around and getting caught in a lie?
What IS this nation sinking into?

You hope? This nation is sinking into the filth that you are helping to create for it. For you to be offended by "truth" and "morality" is the real problem. Religion hasn't a thing to do with it. Your community just needs a scapegoat. But as you can see, it's not working.