Zac Schultz:

Not everyone was pleased with the federal court rulings this year, and conservative groups are hoping the Supreme Court will return the power to regulate marriage back to the states. Joining us now is Julaine Appling, president of Wisconsin Family Action. Thank you for being here today.

Julaine Appling:

Thank you, Zac. I appreciate the opportunity.

Zac Schultz:

Do you think the Supreme Court will eventually overturn these lower court decisions on gay marriage?

Julaine Appling:

You know, my position on that is, who can read the heart and mind of a Supreme Court justice, whether at the state level or federal level? That said, I always remain on this side of a decision from a Supreme Court, cautiously optimistic, especially given the makeup of our US Supreme Court. I think we have at least a shooting chance of seeing the Supreme Court do the right thing and return the authority to determine what marriage will be to the people at the state level. So I’m cautiously optimistic.

Zac Schultz:

Now, they needed four of the nine to take the case last fall and they didn’t get those votes. Recent comments attached to some other cases indicate Justice Scalia, maybe Justice Thomas wanted to. Where were the other votes? Where were the other conservatives?

Julaine Appling:

Well, you know, there's a lot of ways to look at that. One of the ways is that perhaps Ginsburg was giving us a clue when she said the court is a little bit reluctant to step in when all the cases coming through the courts of appeals are determined the same way, are on the same side of the issue. And that was the case with the seventh circuit court and the 10th and the other circuit courts that had filed in that. Now they have the sixth circuit court having filed with a different opinion saying that, yes, states do have this right and state governments have a compelling, even a reasonable interest in keeping marriage between one man and one woman. And so I think that probably played into the decisions of all the justices on whether or not they were going to take the case.

Zac Schultz:

You've said before that allowing gay marriage will have repercussions. What are those repercussions and when will we see them?

Julaine Appling:

Well, first of all, there are numerous repercussions, and I would put them in the category of harms, all right? But secondly, the ones I’ll talk about really quickly are both short-term and long term. We’re looking at that because we’ve seen it already happen in other states. Very shortly after Massachusetts went down this path of redefining marriage by judicial fiat one of the first things that happened is adoption agencies were suddenly closing their doors, because they were told, either you place children with same-sex married couples or you don’t get to place children at all. And that was Catholic Charities there in Massachusetts. They closed their doors. Same thing has happened in Illinois. That’s one of the harms. Another harm that we have is basically we’re sending the message to the next generation that gender is absolutely meaningless, that children don’t need both a mom and a dad, even biologically every child ever born has both a male father and female mother. And we’re saying that that is immaterial and doesn’t make a difference. That’s a biological reality, first of all, and it is a harm to our children. I also think one of the things you’ll see right away, or shortly, is a– in the cross hairs will be individual conscience rights and religious freedom issues.

Zac Schultz:

Let’s talk about the children. You talked about the children raised in same-sex families. Will they be worse off than other kids raised by single mothers or split families, or any other make-ups of today’s families?

Julaine Appling:

We definitely believe so. Because two women, no matter how hard they try, can not be both a mother and a father to a child. The same is true for two men can’t be a mom. Those who advocate that this is just going to be fine and that kids don’t need both a biological mother and father in their lives are denying the reality of the differences in parenting between male and female. There's huge differences. When you take one of those away and say you don’t need that, which is what Rosie O’Donnell said to her little boy, Parker. You know, if you want a daddy you can't have me as a mommy because I want another mommy. What you're saying is, kids, it doesn’t matter what you need, it’s all about what I as the adult want. And that’s the message that we’re really sending here is that this is all about adult desires trumping what is truly in the best interests of Wisconsin’s future, her children.

Zac Schultz:

Let’s talk about the big picture and how we got here. Just a few years ago President Obama and Hillary Clinton, they weren’t willing to come out in support of same-sex marriage. Now, it’s come so far the other way that even this fall Governor Walker really didn’t want to make same-sex marriage an issue in his election. How did the change come about so quickly?

Julaine Appling:

Well, there has been a massive education effort on the part of those who want to redefine marriage and deconstruct this foundational societal institution. They've utilized the school districts. Every school district in this country probably has felt the impact of the homosexual agenda, the marriage equality effort. Certainly they have been heavily involved with the media, they've been involved with the government, they've been able to push that agenda. And quite frankly, they found friendly courts. And that has been, I believe, a lynch pin in all of this. And by the way, to redefine marriage in this state they had to completely go around the people because they still don’t think the people would vote with them, otherwise they would have gone through the same process we do amend the Constitution to protect marriage. Instead, they went to a friendly court. When you do that what happens is you send a very powerful message to the masses, to the public at large and to elected officials, that the courts bring down the heavy hammer. And I don’t think the courts are reflecting where the American people are. It becomes then a politically unpopular topic, even though the people are saying more and more, by the way, hey, we believe marriage really is between a man and woman.

Zac Schultz:

Let’s get onto the next battlefield out there that people are talking about in transgender issues. We’re already seeing it in schools having to deal with a transgender student. What facilities do they use, what locker room do they use? Where does your group work with schools on this?

Julaine Appling:

Well, we work with the grassroots on this. In fact, we just worked with a grassroots group over in Baraboo just this week on this. Now unfortunately, we lost that one on a 4-3 vote on second reading. First reading, 6-1 had supported it, so the community work did have an impact. We believe that this is very dangerous. And what's particularly concerning to me about this is we’re beginning to see the Minnesota model brought to Wisconsin, which is using the athletic association of WIAA to kind of force school boards into– I’m a former school boards member, I understand what it means when a governing body of the athletic programs in our state starts pushing on school districts. It’s very hard for school boards to say no.

Zac Schultz:

Very quickly, do you expect legislation to deal with this?

Julaine Appling:

I hope we’ll have legislation to deal with this.

Zac Schultz:

All right. And another very quick question. Do you think it’s inevitable that we're going to go from same sex to polygamous marriage issues? You've talked about that is some of the releases as well.

Julaine Appling:

Seventh circuit court of appeals judge, Posner, asked that question of the ACLU counsel for the plaintiffs from Wisconsin. The plaintiffs didn’t have an answer. And the judges, the three judges there basically said, we don’t see any way to stop it. It’s the natural flow. If marriage becomes all about loving and committed, how do you tell the next group who are saying they’re in loving and committed relationships, regardless of configuration, that they can’t have what the people in same-sex relationships have? I don’t see how you do that.

Zac Schultz:

More issue to follow. Thank you very much for your time today.

Julaine Appling:

Thank you.