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.
On 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.
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).
And they say courts don't make law.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Why not expand it to all domestic partnerships then?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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)
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.