Late last year, Milwaukee County Executive (and Republican gubernatorial candidate) Scott Walker vetoed a measure that would have studied the impact of granting domestic partnership benefits to Milwaukee County employees, citing the fact that domestic partnership benefits for County employees would be too costly during tough economic times.

It seems Walker hasn’t wavered one iota in his position on domestic partnership benefits, telling those in attendance at the Milwaukee Press Club’s Newsmaker Luncheon on June 11 that he’d work to overturn the state’s domestic partnership benefits:

Appearing at the club’s June 11 Newsmaker Luncheon, Walker said he objected to the way Gov. Jim Doyle inserted the measure creating the registry into the state budget in order to get legislative approval. Doyle also used the maneuver to extend employee benefits to the same-sex partners of state workers, including those in the University of Wisconsin System.

“I vetoed a similar measure in Milwaukee County, and I would hold the same position as governor,” Walker said.

As I wrote earlier, Walker cited budgetary concerns in rejecting the study of domestic partnership benefits for County employees, saying it would cost taxpayers as much as $4 million annually, but according to City of Milwaukee officials, domestic partnership benefits for City employees has only cost the city $216,000. Considering the City of Milwaukee has a larger workforce than Milwaukee County, it would seem Scott Walker’s math was more than a little off.

The reality here is that even if the economy wasn’t still recovering from the economic downturn, Scott Walker would find another reason to oppose granting domestic partnership benefits to employees, because Walker seems fundamentally opposed to equality for same-sex partners.

8 Responses to Walker reiterates opposition to domestic partner registry

  1. MadCityMan says:

    What you have is a tale of two parties – one that is reactionary, backwards and lacking in imagination, creativity or understanding of what drives economic development and what supports human & family values. The other, is a party that is stumbling towards providing equal rights for all citizens, while supporting the infrastructure and industries of the future.

    Walker represents the first, and as such doesn’t deserve a right to govern, given that his ideas are all about cutting taxes, reversing rights and impeding economic progress. His ideas on mass transit, on stem cell research, on higher education, on GLBT rights are all antediluvian and reflect a lack of analysis, grounding, perspective and vision on the future of our great state and nation.

    The choices are becoming more and more clear – a vision for the future, an understanding of human rights or a regressive, tax cutting return to the past.

  2. Urban Pioneer says:

    Actually Mad Man what u have is one party that is trying to change the course of govt. growing out of control. I don’t care if you want to embrace your Domestic Partner or mine. If your private business wants to provide you with Dom Part Benefits I don’t care. But when you expect the Govt. which is broke to provide excessively generous benefits to it’s employees AND their Dom. Partners. is not forward thinking at all. We are seeing already that there is no more money in the taxpayers pockets to pay for your social engineering.

    Do what you want with your Dom. Part. but leave the Govt. and the taxpayer out of the equation.

    • MadCityMan says:

      As a taxpayer, I see no reason that I should pay taxes that allow straight married people to have the benefit of health care coverage for their married partner and for their many children should they have these. I’m subsidizing this coverage through my taxes without having the benefit of getting this same coverage for my partner (should I have one) or for out kids (should we have them). It isn’t about social engineering it is about fairness.

      If you want to slice government or stop it from getting out of control, make it a level playing field by eliminating coverage for all but the government employee. I bet you’d see some of the “cost cutting” tea party folks who are benefiting from coverage from their government-employed spouses suddenly changing their tune on this one.

      The solution is tiered coverage a.) employee only, b.) employee and one other adult, c.) employee and up to two children, d.) employee and one adult with up to two children, e.) excess children coverage.

      • Urban Pioneer says:

        MadMan I think we can agree on this on one. I think all Govt gobs should be changed to provide insurance coverage to the Employee only! The independent private insurance companies could then provide optional coverages to the families, spouses, children domestic partners etc. at whatever rates and rules they might choose. That way there would be an equal playing field. (I would further privatize all insurance plans if that choice were offered.)
        This would save millions of dollars in overly generous benefits currently offered to our Govt. employees.

        MadMad I DO know many TEA Party folks, (some Md. to or even employed by Govt.), who have expressed these feelings and realize that the public trough is empty. For those who wish to use the Govt. employee benefit’s program as way to “Social Engineer” and take taxpayers money to create ever more unfair competition to private employers.

        Make no mistake if you own a private business and want to afford those benefits to whoever you want I DON”T CARE. Just keep your policies off of my tax dollars. Reducing the number of people living off the Govt. dole..including spouses and children of Govt employees is not a bad place to start. The avg. govt employee get’s paid 30-50% more than the same job in the private sector. They are seldom fired. Work less hours than their private counterparts, retire earlier and have extremely generous retirement plans compared to the private sector.

        • MadCityMan says:

          Sorry to disappoint you, but we don’t totally agree. If I had my way we would have national health insurance.

          Insurance companies shouldn’t be allowed to charge whatever they want given their monopoly status. My arguments were that in a society like ares where insurance and insurability are based on employment status, at least until HCR reform is instituted fully, then employee-based benefits, be they from government employers or private employers, need to be equitable. If you’re offering a subsidized insurance program for a wife or husband of an opposite sex partner, then you should offer the same coverage for a same sex partner. You also should consider tears of insurance rates based on family unit size, so that small families don’t subsidize large ones.

  3. MSNDem says:

    Urban, I assume you were also opposed to the Constitutional Amendment in 2006? Because that was government stepping into the bedroom in a big way.

  4. Urban Pioneer says:

    MSN Dem Here’s the text of the proposed C.A.

    “Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

    It makes no mention of anyone’s Bedroom or the choices made in that room or any other room in the house. It merely for the first time would put the word “Marriage” into the US Constitution.As I’m sure you know the word is NOT currently mentioned and thus gives no special Rights to anyone. It is silly to me that codifying a word/ practice that has meant one thing for thousands of years or longer, would irritate any group of folks.
    To reply to your question…I would support that Amendment, since Courts across the country are finding ways to ignore the intent of the Original Constitution including it’s Amendments. What happens in your bedroom or mine is NONE of your business, or the Govt. Assuming it’s consensual.

    You will notice the Proposed C.A. Does not prohibit other forms of “union”. It merely refers to “Marriage”.. as it applies to Govt. I see no harm in that proposal.

    • Ed Heinzelman says:

      I have to object to your proposed Consitutional Amendment on a number of grounds. First, government should get out and stay out of the marriage business, let religion have their institution back. Second, the Constitution shouldn’t remove rights, only protect them. Third, this is stepping on state’s rights in a big big way.

      BTW: are we going to finally define what a man and a woman is for these laws and/or amendments? Are we going to add genetics tests to marriage license applications? Let’s see your application, social security card, birth certificate, and drop your pants? Is it ok for a man who has been surgically re-assigned as a woman to marry a biological man? Is it ok for a man who has been surgically re-assigned as a woman to marry a woman who has been surgically re-assigned as a man? After all they are a man and a woman at one level or the other. How do we deal with individuals who are chromosomally challenged and don’t quite pan out as man or woman? Prevent them from marrying? Let them marry the opposite of the gender they have been socially/culturally raised as? Do you let someone like the African sprinter who was raised as a woman to marry a man or a woman since ‘she’ is genetically closer to a male?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *