Today the governor signed a biennial budget bill that includes limited but important protections and rights for registered same-sex domestic partners.
Wisconsin is the first state in the Midwest to grant recognition to gay families by legislative action. Iowa has marriage by state supreme court decision. So far, there’s no recognition or legal protection for gay families as such in neighboring Illinois (where the state government is unusually dysfunctional) or in Minnesota (where the governor vetoed even a bill limited to hospital visitation).
Wisconsin is also the first state with a constitutional amendment banning SSM and civil unions to create a domestic partnership status for same-sex couples. A state legislative committee concluded that the bill does not violate the state amendment, passed by voters in November 2006, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples and barring any status “identical or substantially similar to that of marriage” for unmarried couples.
That seems right. The Wisconsin law gives domestic partners about 40 rights (out of the more than 1,000 rights given to married couples), including the rights to visit a partner in the hospital, to take leave to care for a sick/dying partner, and to inherit a partner’s property intestate. Thus begins a process by which state legislatures around the country will be testing the reach of some of the recent state constitutional amendments banning SSM and civil unions.
Randy R. says:
It will no doubt vex SSM opponents who thought that a state constitutional amendment would make gay couples go away.
June 29, 2009, 11:20 pmOn the other hand, those who supported these amendments and claimed that they were merely protecting marriage and have nothing against gay people will have no problem with what Wisconsin did.
Anononymous314 says:
It should be recognized that marriage, in its current form, being heavily regulated, is akin to the airlines pre-industry deregulation in the late ’70s. You can have marriage with 1,000+ rights, or you can have ~40 rights with civil union, but the State can and will pick and choose what you do and don’t get. Marriage should be deregulated, and individuals should be free to enter into contracts among themselves, stipulating the scope of their relationships. This bill is an attack upon the right to live free from government interference. Why should anyone have to “register” with the State what their relationship status is to gain the few crumbs of regulated benefits the State is willing to dole out? Why should the State have any knowledge of one’s interpersonal relationships? Guns should not be regulated or registered, lest the State destroy the check upon tyranny as posited by Madison et al. Is there any doubt that the State, regulating and registering marriage and civil unions, could then turn around and use those closest to us as pawns, threatening them harm unless we do X, Y, and Z? It has certainly happened before, numerous times, with other governments, and all government is inherently evil; it would be a mistake to not take precautions due to the seeming remoteness of threats from Leviathan.
June 29, 2009, 11:21 pmOren says:
No one has to do anything of the sort. I know plenty of folks that are married but never made it legal. Of course, if you want the State to consider you married, you have to tell them.
So long as it’s voluntary, I don’t see any reason to go off on hysterics (of course, that won’t stop you).
June 29, 2009, 11:26 pmJ. Aldridge says:
Iowa has marriage by state supreme court decision.
And they say courts don’t make law.
June 30, 2009, 4:48 amHannibal Lector says:
I don’t know whether you intended to strike this tone, Professor Carpenter, but the way you wrote this makes it sound like you are encouraging state legislaors in Wisconsin and elsewhere to “stick it” to their yahoo constitutents rather than suggesting these legislatures develop humane, legal accomodations for people — whether heterosexual or homosexual — who choose to establish domestic unions outside the legal definition of marriage.
June 30, 2009, 8:23 amrick.felt says:
Why should the State have any knowledge of one’s interpersonal relationships?
Although I’m somewhat sympathetic to the get-the-government-out-of-marriage arguments, I’m not willing to destroy the two testimonial privileges enjoyed by married couples. If the state no longer recognizes marriages, will husbands be forced to divulge the contents of conversations with their wives? Will they be forced to testify against them at all?
June 30, 2009, 8:28 amruuffles says:
An instance already started in a couple years back after one such amendment was passed by ballot initiative in Michigan. The public universities continued to offer benefits to domestic partners and the (then dominated by 4 solid conservatives) Michigan SC blocked them.
June 30, 2009, 8:48 amKen Arromdee says:
That seems right. The Wisconsin law gives domestic partners about 40 rights (out of the more than 1,000 rights given to married couples),
I once bought for my computer a small device which lets me access a flash memory card. They support different memory card formats, and you can find 3 in 1, 10 in 1, 20 in 1, and so on up to outright ludicrous numbers. Of course, while a device may claim to be 56 in 1, few of that 56 are formats that anyone will actually use, and the numbers are inflated by counting what’s basically the same format multiple times. The analogy is obvious.
I also recall that some people investigated the 1000 (or some ludicrous number) rights claim and found that they are not necessarily rights, but just places where laws even mention a spouse at all. Do you have a list of those 1000 rights?
June 30, 2009, 8:51 amPJens says:
Referencing the article linked in the post, if this new law is truly a step toward “fairness”, wouldn’t it apply to all couples, not just same sex ones?
Also, everyone needs to know that this new law is actually a provision that was slipped into the massive budget bill that had to be signed before July 1. This issue was not debated in open session on it’s own merits.
June 30, 2009, 9:25 amOren says:
Why not expand it to all domestic partnerships then?
June 30, 2009, 1:07 pmAnononymous314 says:
Re: rick.felt:
I would argue that using violence, or the threat of violence, against a person, attempting to force them to testify, is unconstitutional, as it forces the individual to devote his time and effort to serve the interests of the State, contrary to his own interests, and is a form of involuntary servitude. Testimony should only be compelled against plaintiff parties in criminal cases; if they refuse to testify, and are able to, the criminal case should be dismissed.
June 30, 2009, 1:41 pmSoronel Haetir says:
Oren,
I would think the priviledge is so closely tied with concepts of marriage that extending it would run afoul of state constitutional amendments limiting marriage.
June 30, 2009, 1:53 pmPutting Two and Two... says:
A case of willful ignorance. Of course this law violates a ban on civil unions. Pretending that it doesn’t does the gay rights movement no good, though it may benefit some gay citizens of WI in the short term.
June 30, 2009, 2:05 pmMikeyes says:
I think I am correct in saying that Wisconsin does not have a law for domestic partnerships of opposite sex couples. At least Wisconsin does not recognize common law marriage and many of my patients who have children and have lived together for years but are not married never mentioned to me a Wisconsin domestic partnership law (nor have the social workers who work with them.)
How can it be “fair” if it only covers certain domestic partnerships?
It has been reported that the French law allowing domestic partnerships, aimed at gay couples, resulted in the majority of partnerships being opposite sex couples. Apparently it is easier to get out of this contract than the marriage contract.
June 30, 2009, 4:28 pmMikeyes says:
It looks like the domestic partner regulations are not for same sex couples only:
“The Governor recommends establishing a domestic partner registry maintained by county Registers of Deeds to allow for the registration of domestic partner relationships. Registered domestic partners would be extended certain dependent or survivor benefits for employee benefits, health and mental health and after-death decision making, probate matters, property matters, and motor vehicle titles.” (From the budget as posted by Wisconsin)
June 30, 2009, 4:47 pmMyrtle Beach Attorney says:
obtainable via a direct download web link apply for our no fax payday loan today holding 00 s fiddlers green cirenglewood co 0111tel no teletrack
December 2, 2009, 11:04 pm