Monday, June 9, 2014

On Gay Marriage Decision, Walker Contradicted By Earlier Words, Vote

Scott Walker told media a few days before the court ruling Friday that struck down the state constitution's 2006 ban on same-sex marriage that he'd found out four years later during a news conference that the constitutional ban existed, and still knows little about it.

I think it was, you know, passed in 2006 by the people of this state, by a significant enough margin at that time, but whether it’s upheld in federal court, again, that’s not my area of expertise."
Question: What’s your feeling on if that same vote were held today, where do you think that would go? 
Walker: "I don’t know, it’s hard to say. Polls are one thing on any of these issues, but votes are completely different oftentimes. So I don’t know what I think." 
The only question I got in the 2010 election came in a forum by one of the members of the media, and I find out it was in the Constitution and it didn’t really have a bearing on who the governor was. And to me I don’t think anything’s changed since then."
The claims are preposterous and the record shows otherwise.

Note this June, 2010 Journal Sentinel story that ran during his primary race with Mark Neumann reported a) Walker voted for the 2006 ban, and b) reported that Walker was quite familiar with how the constitutional ban was working because he had already vetoed related legislation in November, 2009 as Milwaukee County Executive:
Walker and Neumann have taken different stances, with both saying they voted for the constitutional amendment in 2006. 
Walker said at a Milwaukee Press Club event this month he thought the domestic partnership registry contradicted the state constitution because it bans arrangements substantially similar to gay marriage. 
"I differ from the governor on that; I differ from Mayor Barrett on that," he said. 
He noted he vetoed a county resolution in November that would have allowed the same-sex partners of county workers to get benefits. The County Board upheld the veto by a one-vote margin. 

No comments: