The Marine Corps commandant believes that "changing this policy this way would cause distraction among the Marine Corps to the point that he is worried about increased casualties." Which policy? Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).
Yes, I can see it now: "LOOK! A missile is heading RIGHT FOR US! We're under ATTACK! More importantly, is Adam trying to get into Steve's pants?!? Into MINE?"
Get real, folks.
I've read with interest the diverse opinions people have about the inevitable repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I find it intriguing how so much focus is placed on who and what this is about. For example, some might say:
During a combat situation, "the last thing that one would want then and there is a romantic attachment between any of those men, even if it is unexpressed in overt sexual conduct." (emphasis added)
Now substitute the emphasized phrase in that statement as follows:
During a combat situation, the last thing that one would want then and there is a romantic attachment between any of those men and women, even if it is unexpressed in overt sexual conduct.
The only difference in the two statements is who is involved. Excuse me, but during a combat situation lives are at stake. Sex and romance should be furthest from anybody's mind. I would agree that the last thing people should be thinking about is the romantic interest or sexual attraction between any two people.
In the wake of an increase of sexual assault reporting -- presumably among heterosexual people -- should heterosexual women be allowed to serve if men fear that they will be sexually attracted to the men, and vice versa? Is unit cohesion only an issue when politically unpopular groups are involved? Does it make sense to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation within military ranks?
Hundreds of military careers have been destroyed since this discriminatory policy was enacted; destroyed for no apparent reason. To focus on the "what" and "who" is to miss the point of the need to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
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&
So there has been quite the chatter about Attorney General Van Hollen's decision to not defend the domestic partner registry legislation. Now, we're being informed that he has written a letter to Governor Doyle to explain his decision. Apparently he will not defend the legislation because he believes it is flawed and that a domestic partnership may be substantially similar to that of marriage.
Well.. I'm curious about the full contents of that letter. So far the news hasn't revealed much more which hasn't been revealed before. Except of course that the AG believes the law is flawed.
I, for one, am wondering if religious conservatives are capable of putting their beliefs aside and constructing a legal status which grants rights to same-sex couples.
Our governor believes that all couples deserve legal protection. Up until now, not all couples have had that the ability to receive protections through the government. No matter how you look at it, the solution now in place has the best of intentions: to provide basic protection to same-sex couples. Some such as the Journal Sentinel's Patrick McIlheran would have you believe that this is not about legal protection, but only about sanctioning love or the right to love. Believe what you want because we're all free-thinking individuals. Just don't remind me that all couples have the option of purchasing legal protection. That suggests that opposite-sex couples have had TWO options for legal protection -- one a fraction of the cost of the other -- while same-sex couples only have had ONE EXPENSIVE option. And this doesn't even include the cost of the commitment ceremony or wedding, for those couples that choose to have a celebration.
I will go out of my way, however to say this. I agree: the domestic partnership declaration and the marriage license are identical in many ways except in who each is for and which rights are granted.
A quick side-by-side comparison of marriage licenses and domestic partnership declarations (based on my understanding) shows:
I'm forced to ask: when it comes to any legal construct which would grant rights to same-sex couples in Wisconsin:
I seriously doubt a casual definition to determine who is eligible, as McIlheran suggests, would fly with Joe the Voter. Might as well include Julaine Appling's "two men in an ice shanty" statement as a qualification to register.
So to all these people who are basically complaining about this small taste of equality that Wisconsin gay couples now have, I dare you to answer the following questions:
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
I'm proud to be among them! The law-abiding, decent ones that is. After all, I have a good paying job, a great family, the best friends anyone could ever have, a nice home, and a partner of 11 years.
Yes, I cannot help but draw attention to Yankee transplant Julaine Appling. During her quest to eliminate and eradicate equal access to particular rights for people of different sexual orientations, she has referred to us as minions of a certain demonic figure. Hey -- these are her words, paraphrased of course, not mine! She'll do anything to prevent same-sex couples from obtaining equal access to basic rights and protections.
I'm catholic and I find it embarrassing and humorous to hear someone use Christ's name to use language like "Satan and his minions" to describe decent people. Wouldn't any reasonable person?
http://www.wifamilycouncil.org/Media/Radio%20transcripts/2009/764_010509.htm
(8/12 Supplemental - Julaine Appling has updated her Twitter profile and removed the Yankee reference. Forgive me folks for not giving credit where due. See for yourself what her profile once read here: http://foxtrot-echo.blogspot.com/2009/07/julaine-appling-carpetbagger.html. That is where I first heard about her use of the Yankee reference. I believe within a week after the article appeared, she changed her profile.)
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 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!
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/
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
In a big "huh?" moment, supposedly a spokesperson for the Focus On The Family organization says its ok for a justice to be gay. He says it has no impact on the ability to judge (duh!). But - what would happen if we ever did get a gay justice nominated to the Supreme Court? If you think this group would speak out against the nomination, please raise your right hand..
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/05/focus_on_the_family_gay_justic.php
Governor Doyle has included in this year's budget a provision for setting up a statewide domestic partner registry. This is great news for the thousands of same-sex couples living in Wisconsin. According to Fair Wisconsin, the statewide domestic partnership registry will grant access to 43 rights, protections, and privileges to same-sex couples who choose to register.
In his address, Governor Doyle stated:
If we want our economy to flourish – if we want to help attract and retain talented workers – it is also time to make sure our state takes some basic steps toward fairness and decency. First, we can make sure that domestic partners who work for the state have access to benefits. We can also make sure that a committed couple has visitation rights at a hospital, and the right to take the appropriate leave if one has a serious illness. This isn’t an issue of being gay or straight – we are not judging people’s lives here. But I don’t want the state to stand in the way of someone being able to care for their long-term partner. And I don’t want the state to be less competitive at our university and other institutions because we don’t treat people fairly.
When you break down that absurd second sentence of the amendment which bans civil unions and marriage for gay couples.. never mind the debate whether or not a registry (in other words a list) creates a legal status. It goes without saying that the "legal status identical or substantially similar" clause is far-reaching and meant to include "civil union." In fact Appling herself has made it quite clear that the amendment was intended to ban gay marriage and not to limit domestic partner benefits.
Take into consideration Webster's definition for the word substantial. Mathematically, 43 out of 200+ is not even close to a majority. I cannot see how 43 rights, privileges, and protections are considerable in quantity or significantly great compared to the 200+ that can be granted to heterosexual couples automatically at the stroke of a pen. This is far from substantial.
Nevertheless:
In simplest terms its about equal treatment under the law. 43 out of 200+ may fall short of full equality, but its far better than having nothing. Besides: government should be granting rights, privileges, and protections and not eliminating them. Among the protections the new registry will grant are requiring hospitals to allow visitation of domestic partners and requiring businesses with 50 or more employees to allow family leave in the event of the death or serious illness of a domestic partner.
These are issues that we should not be worried about in times of emergency, and I cannot wait to find out more about the other 41 rights, protections, and privileges.
Thank you Governor Doyle for several things. You've given us the choice to register our long term relationships if we desire to do so. You've eased the burden we face in order to establish legal protections for our relationships. You've freed up time, money, and energy which we can now spend elsewhere.
Most of all -- thank you Governor Doyle for granting rights, protections, and privileges for the same-sex couples of Wisconsin!!
(but first the budget has to pass.. hopefully the beancounters out there can see the potential new revenue source here, no?)
