On the night of November 7, 2006, we watched the returns come in from across the state, and saw with great joy and thanksgiving that Wisconsin had chosen to defend traditional one-man/one-woman marriage. Even then, however, we knew that the battle wasn't over. We knew that even though we had won, opponents of traditional marriage would not simply disappear.

Regardless of the 59 to 41 per cent margin and the loud public statement that the people of Wisconsin made regarding the importance of one-man/one-woman marriage to a healthy society, opponents of the amendment began immediately, and are still, creating forums to criticize its passage. From the op-ed pages of major newspapers to the boards of our universities to the state legislature, the attacks are relentless.

The latest form of opposition serves not only to show how out of touch these people are with Wisconsin voters and values, but could be illegal at worst and at best is reprehensible. Last week, the Madison Common Council, the capital city's governing body, announced it would vote on a measure that would provide people elected to public office or those who serve on city boards and commissions with a way to officially protest the Wisconsin Marriage Protection Amendment through their oath of office.

The optional phrase would read: “I take this oath of office today under protest to the passage of...article XIII, section 13...I pledge to work to eliminate this section from the constitution and work to prevent any discriminatory impacts from its application.”

Granted the zany antics of the City of Madison could fill a book or two, but the idea that any city government would allow those elected to public office or those serving on city boards or commissions to pick and choose which parts of the state constitution they’ll vow to support and defend, flies in the face of the very foundations of our democratic society. Regardless of the topic, injecting that kind of personal politics into the swearing-in would establish a dangerous precedent, and the notion itself damages the concept of the rule of law in a democratic system.

While this is not intended today to be a lecture on the roles of city government or the separation of powers, it is not a stretch to say that it should be obvious that a city government, Madison or not, does not have the privilege of choosing which laws they will enforce, which they'll ignore or which they will encourage others to protest.

Our state constitution and other laws make it very clear that officials taking such an oath of office are to swear to uphold the Wisconsin constitution. The constitution and the laws regarding oaths do not, however, state that officials may pick and choose which parts they will affirm to uphold and defend.

You would think that with a public announcement that some level of government is going to completely disregard the law that there would be some sort of public out cry, but here in Madison, there hasn't been much word at all about the council's announcement. In fact, the Madison mayor has gone on the record commending the idea and stating he would like to see the practice spread across the state.

Let’s suppose an equal rights amendment were passed in this state. What do you think would happen if a conservative wanted to protest that while taking an oath of office? Do you think there would be an outcry? That’s putting it mildly. There’d likely be excoriating in the papers, demonstrations and threatened legal action. Now, however, it appears that only our organization is expressing outrage and concern.

You see friends, if the council does go forward with its plan, this time they'll be letting officials and appointees protest article 13 of section 13 of the state constitution, the newly created marriage amendment. But with the precedent set that oaths of office are now officially the place to air grievances with established law, what section will be protested next?

Nearly 1.3 million Wisconsinites took a stand for traditional marriage last November, proudly declaring it best for the state, best for our children and best for our future. And even though Dane county, home of the city of Madison, was one of only two counties that voted no, in Madison alone just under 26,000 voters said “yes” to marriage. Will the city ignore those 26,000 citizens? Will your town choose to do the same if Madison sets the precedent? We’ll see. Until then, it is important for us to realize the fight to preserve traditional values in our communities and across the state is a never ending one, and we must always be ready to stand up for what is right.

This is Julaine Appling for The Family Research Institute of Wisconsin reminding you the Prophet Hosea said, “ My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”