Friday, May 15, 2009

To Define or To Protect..

Someone help me out here, did Julaine Appling just suggest that the 2006 amendment contained two questions?

Supporters of the ban feel it's about only one topic. The first part was about the definition of marriage.

"The second part of it was whether or not we're going to protect the institution of marriage," said Julaine Appling of Wisconsin Family Council. "Really, if we didn't have the second part of that, the first part is of very little value because then you can have marriage by another name, call it domestic partner, call it a civil union, call it whatever you want. But it is marriage by another name."

Judging from this statement, the amendment which bans civil unions and marriage for same-sex couples appeared to pose two questions to the voter.

1: Shall we define marriage?
2: Shall we protect marriage?

Oh, I get it. The single question posed to the voter was "shall we further regulate (religious) marriage?"

No comments:

Tornado Rainbow Triangle