Flip-Flopping At The Expense Of Taxpayers Regarding Same-Sex Couples

I wasn't quite sure how to remark on an old, unmarried, closed-minded, religious heterosexual woman leading a crusade to protect the religious institution of marriage.

Julaine Appling was interviewed for this week's Eye To Eye on CBS 58. During that interview, she made something perfectly clear. She is ready and willing to legally challenge the proposed statewide domestic partner registry which would grant 43 basic protections to same-sex couples in Wisconsin.

Appling has made it clear in the past that the absurd, disgusting, and far-reaching amendment which bans civil unions and "look-alike marriages" was not intended to affect benefits. Now she wants to challenge the 43 protections should the budget be passed with the registry intact. I wonder if she considers these protections to be benefits..

If she thinks of the protections as benefits, then she has in effect flip-flopped her position. I have a vague recollection of her stating to the residents of Waukesha back in 2006 that she would not do that. How many people crowded the UW-Waukesha campus and witnessed that?

What the hell?

Regardless this change in attitude is no surprise, whatsoever. But there's another thing: she gripes about the expense to the taxpayer for extending domestic partner benefits to state employees. On the other hand, she wants to put the government through the cost of a legal battle over her apparent flip-flopped position.

Again: what the hell?

The point is this. Wisconsin opposite-sex couples have the choice to enter a civil contract which automatically grants 200+ legal protections for their relationships and if applicable for their families. Same-sex couples do not have that choice.

Yes, its true that all couples have the choice to spend hundreds if not thousands on strong legal protections. Not everyone is blessed to have that kind of money. Especially now during a struggling economy. Same-sex couples which do not have the financial means to purchase strong legal protection are in effect -- I hate how this sounds -- out of luck.

I don't want my tax dollars going to a legal battle over an old, unmarried, closed-minded, religious heterosexual woman's belief that some couples do not deserve basic legal protection and that the constitution should be used to eradicate their choices and rights.

Do you?