Tax Breaks For Pets, Not For Domestic Partners

Unreal. There are a couple of Republicans out there who would like to setup a tax break for pet owners. As some of my friends on Facebook have commented, whatever happened to giving tax breaks for domestic partners?

Looks like to at least two individuals, man and his best friend are more entitled to this benefit compared to two men in a long-term committed relationship. Hasn't it been the rule for some conservatives to be staunchly against domestic partnerships and gay marriage because of a slippery slope argument? You know the one: it includes spewing rhetoric that on recognizing gay couples, domestic partners, civil unions, look-alike marriage, etc. we'll eventually be forced to allow people to marry animals.

Wait a minute: my partner of 11 years and I each own a cat, so if this bill gets passed we're eligible for double the credit.. hmm..? ;-)

NPR Article:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113791908

Bill information on Thomas Library Of Congress:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03501:@@@L&summ2=m&

Yes, It's A Legal Option For Same-Sex Couples

Fascinating:

“While we disagree with the constitutionality of the registry, we understand it’s a legal option for these folks,” said (Wisconsin Family Action President) Julaine Appling. The group chose not to have its members protest outside courthouses, she said.

http://www.madison.com/wsj/topstories/460646

Wisconsin's Domestic Partner Status Is Not Substantially Similar To Marriage. Period.

It is done. Wisconsin has redeemed itself and its progressive history. It is the first state in these United States which bans marriage for same-sex couples and also grants them basic legal protection. Opponents of basic rights for all couples are going to have a field day and have been working to eradicate basic rights for same-sex couples ever since the conception of Wisconsin's domestic partner status.

It should be an interesting situation to watch. When considering the constitutionality of domestic partners there is something else these.. challengers.. will need to push beyond: their own words. Why? In Wisconsin, legal process includes a test for legislative intent.

The state already recognizes that State Representative Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin and amendment author, intended to prohibit look-alike marriages and not prohibit domestic partner benefits. The leaders of the campaign to pass the disgusting ban via constitutional amendment have expressed that the ban would not affect domestic partner benefits.

From the state summary itself:

There is evidence of intent ... to support the position that it is reasonable to conclude that the provision does not prohibit the domestic partner proposal included in (the state budget). The intent of the second sentence ... was discussed in a 2006 memorandum prepared by (Gundrum's) office.

Further down in the state summary is Gundrum's own explanation that the proposal:

.. does not prohibit the state, local governments or private entities from setting up their own legal construct to provide particular privileges of benefits, such as health insurance benefits, pension benefits, joint tax return filing, hospital visitation, etc. as those bodies are able and deem appropriate. As long as the legal construct designed by the state does not rise to the level of creating a legal status 'identical or substantially similar' to that of marriage (i.e., marriage, but by a different name), no particular privileges or benefits would be prohibited.

Then there is the recorded media account, again accounted for in the state summary:

Note, too, that media accounts of statements from supporters of the constitutional amendment that created (the same sex marriage ban) would be relevant in determining intent. In order to determine not only the legislative intent behind a constitutional amendment but also to determine the intent of the electorate in approving a constitutional amendment, a court will review expressions made in the media.

http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/2009-11Budget/Budget%20Papers/391.pdf


I wonder if that review of media would include..

Journal Sentinel
Appling said she has "no plans to be involved in litigation." She added "the government is free to give benefits to unmarried individuals on a basis that does not approximate marriage."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/29180609.html

Wisconsin State Journal
State Attorney General Van Hollen "..agreed with Lautenschlager's recent opinion that a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would not prevent local governments or private employers from providing health benefits to the same-sex partners of employees."

http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/wsj/2007/01/13/0701130011.php

Marriage Equality New York
"If the state Legislature wants to take up adoption and inheritance rights, it can do that" if the amendment becomes law, Appling said. "Nothing in the second sentence prohibits that. Nor does it in any way affect existing benefits given by local governments or the private sector."

http://blog.marriageequalityny.org/2005/12/wisconsin-anti-gay-amendment-passed-by.html

Capital Times
When critics of Wisconsin's proposed ban on gay marriage and civil unions warned it would threaten domestic partner benefits, supporters of the measure said they were crying wolf.

"That's just an absurd argument," Julaine Appling of the Family Research Council told The Capital Times in February 2006.

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/CTstaging/440370

Need I say more? Not really, except to end with stating what the new legal status does not include:

• The mutual obligation of support that spouses have in marriage.
• The comprehensive property system that applies to spouses under the marital property law.
• The requirements of divorce law for terminating a marriage.

The new legal status grants a limited set of 43 benefits, rights, and protections to same-sex couples.

Would someone PLEASE explain to me how, exactly, is the legal status of domestic partner identical or substantially similar to that of marriage? At least the intent of the amendment is pretty clear to me with regards to basic legal protection for same-sex couples. Thank you, Wisconsin!

Marriage Equality Can Be Achieved By Separating Church And State

This is nothing new. Nevertheless, it is good to be reminded of the need to separate church and state with regards to marriage. Religious institutions should not be used as a clearinghouse for legal rights, privileges, and protections for any given couple and their family.

And, I learned something new today. France and other countries already make the clear distinction between church and state:

This is the way it's already done in countries such as France. "A priest or an imam, or whoever's responsible, they can't legally make a wedding or marriage if the person had not previously been married by a representative of the mayor in a city hall," said Jacques de Noray, spokesman for the French consulate in San Francisco. "Since the French Revolution, there is a clear separation between the state and church." The church ceremony, he adds, "doesn't have any legal significance."

http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-06-03/news/domestic-spouses/

The Power Strangers Have On The Right To Marry

I haven't been quite sure how to put my thoughts on California's Proposition 8 mess into words. Until now. Actor David Hyde Pierce pretty much summed it up as best as anyone really could.

Angered by the ruling, Hyde Pierce said Thursday: "It's like, `Oh great, we made the cut.'"
He called it a "very odd thing" that strangers have a vote on his private decision to marry.

The power that complete strangers have given themselves over this particular individual choice is disgusting. They have the power to dictate who gay people can be united with in the eyes of the law. They have the power to dictate which people get the automatic right to hospital visitation, end-of-life decision making, and family leave for their companions.

Very odd indeed.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iIORzimXc-VxxD5V2GIpjieNk0SgD98G06VO0

Congratulations, Iowa Same-Sex Couples! Regarding Wisconsin..?

Will you look at that..! Iowa has become the third state in the union to legalize same-sex marriage. It is awesome to see a state away from the coasts take this bold, forward, progressive step.

From the unanimous Iowa Supreme Court decision:

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination."

"We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2 denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by the Iowa Constitution."


I've already been asked. What does the Iowa ruling mean? Doesn't civil marriage only grant a handful of protections anyway? Can a same-sex couple from Wisconsin go to Iowa, get married, and be recognized as married in Wisconsin?

Having been involved in the community for some time now, the second question is easy for me to answer even though I don't know all the fine details. Each state grants different sets of protections when a couple obtains their marriage license or enters a civil marriage. A religious ceremony is not required to obtain a marriage license. I have no idea what Iowa grants to its married couples. Wisconsin grants 200+ protections with its license. On top of that, the federal government grants many protections and privileges, the most commonly known being the ability to file a joint tax return. No matter how you look at it, a marriage license grants basic legal protection to a couple and their family.

Regarding the first question, the way I see it is this. I am definitely not an expert. Iowa had legislation which defined civil marriage. That state's Supreme Court determined that the civil marriage definition did not comply with their equal protection clause. So, the court reasoned logically that civil marriage must be changed to include same-sex couples in order to comply.

Then there's that third question. If only it were that easy. Wisconsin has an obscure law which states that Wisconsin residents are prohibited from marrying in another state if that marriage is prohibited here. Apparently we have the stiffest law of that kind, according to JSOnline.

In any case, civil marriage is quite the big deal. No offense to anyone, but I find it fascinating, intriguing and not surprising how some straight couples don't realize just how "big a deal" civil marriage really is. Some don't realize the cost of the marriage license alone compared to the rest of the ceremony if they choose to have one.

Anyway, this is what equal protection clause in Iowa's Constitution states:

All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

Pretty clear stuff.

Now compare that to Wisconsin, where equal protection is determined by interpreting Article 1 of our state Constitution and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and by going through a bunch of legal tests. From a quick Google search, the tests include heightened scrutiny and rational basis. Heightened scrutiny is further broken down as strict or intermediate. Somewhere along the way I found a reference to legislative intent and compelling governmental interest. If Wisconsin's equality clause sounds familiar, it should be: I understand it was based on the Declaration of Independence.

Wisconsin Constitution Article I:
Equality; inherent rights. SECTION 1. [As amended Nov. 1982 and April 1986] All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982; 1983 J.R. 40, 1985 J.R. 21, vote April 1986]

U.S. Constitution Amendment 14:
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Don't even ask me to explain or figure out the legal mumbo-jumbo. Dammit, I'm a queer mexican trekkie, not a lawyer! I found the following page which seems to cover it pretty well. One thing is certain: it has suddenly become even more clear why Wisconsin is forced to go to the separate and unequal route of enacting a domestic partnership registry which grants 43 out of 200+ protections for same-sex couples.

www.legis.state.wi.us/LRB/pubs/consthi/02consthiII03.pdf

No matter. In the grand scheme of things, its always just a matter of time. There are always possibilities..!