Posted in News, Wisconsin

WI domestic partnership law enacted, world doesn’t come to an end!

   August 3, 2009

Same-sex couples lined up early today at the offices of county clerks around the state to sign up for the state’s new domestic partnership registry, and shockingly, the world didn’t come to an end. What’s more, the institution of traditional marriage as we know it (defined as being between a man and a woman) didn’t come to an end either. I know of no one who decided to divorce their spouse as a direct result of Wisconsin’s domestic partnership registry, and in talking to many of my friends, all said their marriages are just as good as they were yesterday. The new law, enacted with the passage of the most recent state budget, provides some (roughly 40) of the 200-plus benefits to same-sex couples that are afforded married couples, such as allowing them to take family and medical leave to care for a seriously ill partner, to make end-of-life decisions and to have hospital visitation rights.

Predictably, some conservatives are lamenting the new domestic partnership registry, while others are trying really hard to justify their opposition to a measure that would provide same-sex couples with some of the same legal rights afforded to heterosexual married couples.

I’m particularly fond of the argument that allowing same-sex couples will somehow lead to a breakdown in traditional family values, as if our country doesn’t already have a divorce rate that’s roughly 50%. Same-sex marriage won’t lead to a breakdown of traditional family values, because that breakdown’s already happened. Largely gone are the days of a single-income household where dad worked while mom stayed at home and took care of the kids, and the sooner some conservatives come to that realization, the more in tune with reality they’ll be.

Oh, and for the record: I asked my wife if she felt our marriage was threatened because same-sex couples could now have some of the same legal rights we have, and she wasn’t, so there’s at least one marriage that won’t break down because of the domestic partnership law.

Share:

Related Articles

22 thoughts on “WI domestic partnership law enacted, world doesn’t come to an end!”

  1. I think a church marriage should be whatever the church says it is. I think that a legal union of two persons is whatever the State says it is. And I think the Federal government should butt out of both.

    1. PB, I’m just shocked…SHOCKED that families all across Wisconsin haven’t started to disintegrate because same-sex couples will be allowed to have a few legal rights.

  2. What I like to know is why are people complaining? The same sex-couples aren’t using the word “marriage” so what’s the problem?? Don’t tell me all the opposition really wasn’t over the word “marriage”…

    1. Anon, the issue here is that folks don’t want homosexuals to have the same rights as heterosexuals.

      Sure, opponents of same-sex marriage may try to gussy up their rationales for opposing it, but ultimately their collective reasons all boil down to denying homosexuals the same rights as the rest of us, because if we give them the same rights, we must be condoning that kind of behavior.

    2. I agree with your comment, Anon. Someplace along the way Christians came to believe that marriage was invented by the “People of the Book”. Enshrining the Book into all things American is important to them. Ergo, if the Book does not support gay marriage then gays may not marry, cohabitate, have legal rights, medical rights, or anything else.Sinners should not have rights like other people, you know. (wink, wink)

      A colleague of mine noted the other day that all equality movements in the US have started in the northeastern US, from Abolition to Suffrage to Civil Rights and now to gay unions.I don’t know if that is completely true but I can agree that they have played a signifcant role in many of these movements. Perhaps others have more information on this.

  4. Two things I don’t like about this:

    It was in a budget bill. It had nothing to do with the state budget and should have been debated and passed on its own.
    It seems counter to the will of the people as expressed in the constitutional amendment.

    I can get over my problem with the latter since, I was disappointed it passed and it was problematic at best. Both the state and US Constitution should be there to limit government and reserve/establish rights for the individual, not take away rights of the individual.

    I think worst of all, is how much effort and money has been wasted on this issue already, and with all the lawsuits that are going to crop up because of the latest change to the law (how does it not violate the amendment?) it’s only going to get worse. But as PartiallyBlue said right off the top…get the state and feds out of the marriage business – that’s a church term & their business. If two people want to commit to each other in order to get the additional legal protections, let ’em. Call it civil union or whatever, so long as it’s not called marriage they should have the right.

    1. Locke-

      Only 43 of the rights given to married couples are afforded by the domestic partner registry. Married couples in Wisconsin have approximately a little more than 200 rights given to them via marriage. This does not include the over 1300 federal rights provided by marriage.

      The second part of the amendment says “that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.”

      I propose that 43 of over 200 state privileges & none of the over 1300 federal privileges is not “substantially similar”. Therefore not in violation of the amendment.

      As for not being debated and voted on separately, a Jeffersonian premise comes to mind…it is the duty of the state to protect the minority from the majority when it comes to civil rights.

  5. Thanks for the response – 43 vs. 200 I guess I can buy that. I’ll have to do some digging, I’m really interested in seeing what actually makes up that list (let alone 1300 federal rights). Ultimately I don’t know that I really care, but find it amusing. Something tells me I’m not taking full advantage of my marital rights 🙂

    I do tend to agree with your last sentiment. Like I said, I was a little torn on the amendment. I didn’t agree with it at, but at the same time, felt the voters conveyed a clear message. That said, Tocqueville called it tyranny of the majority – and I can’t see why that wouldn’t apply.

  6. My bad….there are not 1300 federal privileges in marriage, but only 1138. (When you add the state marriage privileges & the federal privileges you get the 1300.)

    To save you some time & work Locke…I have provided some links to the information about what is afforded in marriage (federally & state) and what is afforded in Domestic Partnership. 😉

    In 1997 the GAO did a study to determine if there really was a difference between “marriage” and “civil unions” and “domestic partnership’.

    Most are inheritance rights and later-life benefits; i.e. social security, and death benefits.

    To add to that information the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) did a report in 2004 documenting the “cost” to same-sex couples who are not able to be married.

    Again, many of the privileges/rights are taken for granted, but are not given to same-gendered couples.

    To see what privileges/rights marriage gives a man and a woman in Wisconsin:

    Take a look at the 43 WI privileges given to same-gender couples when they register for domestic partnership and if you are interested I linked in the DP provisions in the state statutes.

    (I hope the hyperlinks work…the system would not take the website links, because it thought I was spam.)

  8. One interesting point that should be addressed is the cost/benefit of gaining these “40 rights”. Under the law, gays and lesbians applying for a domestic partnership license, pay a fee that is the same as that charged straight couples applying for a marriage license giving them 200 state rights and subsequent 1,138 federal rights. Somehow the $115 charge for either license (Dane County fee) doesn’t equate. On a per rights basis, it is costing married straight people 8.5 cents/right while gays and lesbians get screwed yet again with a charge of 34.8 cents/right. Now if we calculate the actual value of the rights that straights get with their enhanced package of 1,198 rights of varying value/right we’d see that the cost/benefit return to gays and lesbians would be even smaller.

    As taxpayers, gays and lesbians deserve equal rights and equal economic benefits to those of the straight community, both in the fees that they are charged and in the benefits that they receive.

    1. …I’m thinking if you really want to get into the cost/benefit of licenses, fees and taxes, then you’re headed to the dark side 🙂

  9. I’m glad that Wisconsin was the first to let gay couples have benefits that are protected under law. And all you people who quote the bull about the vote about same sex mirage law that wasn’t passed. You did get your wish it’s not a marriage in the “christian” term. This is one union that is not blessed by the Christan church but is allowed and finally so by the government. If two people love each other it doesn’t matter who it’s to. Love is love and that is the best thing about the world.

    1. (I’m playing a little devil’s advocate here since on principle, I agree that gay couples should be able to commit themselves to each other and the same rights afforded to them as heteros)…

      One of the complaints is that while you talk about two people who love each other…most often the domestic partnership legislation is broad enough that two siblings/friends/roommates would be able to have the same benefits extended to them as married couples. I don’t think this would be some sort of huge problem by any means – but it could very well lead to some…strange situations. One of my brothers just bought a house. My other brother is going to move in with him. Does the current DP law allow them to get rights and privileged they couldn’t on their own? Should it?

      The rights and legal issues surrounding marriage are much more complex than most people realize. Under no circumstances should we allow discrimination due to sexual orientation. Untangling the mess to rectify the marital legal issues in an anti-discrimination context ain’t easy and is going to take awhile to get right – and that’s not even considering the emotional (and in some cases bigoted) side of things.

      1. First:

        To qualify for a domestic partnership, two individuals must:
        *be at least 18 years old
        *be members of the same sex
        *share a common residence, with one partner having resided in the county for at least 30 days
        *not be nearer of kin than second cousins
        *not be married or in another domestic partnership

        For more details…page 2
        http://www.fairwisconsin.org/downloads/DP_Reference_Guide.pdf

        Second:

        What is preventing a man & a woman who are roommates who just want to have the benefits of healthcare, etc. from marrying? These types of arrangement have been happening for centuries. Family sees a benefit for the two to marry and so it is arranged….no love.

        And Third:

        I believe that the majority of people do not want to abuse the system….straight or gay.

Comments are closed.