He Just Got A Letter, He Just Got A Letter! But What Would You Do?

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:

• Two distinct audiences: one is for opposite-sex couples, the other for same-sex couples.
• Different sets of rights:
  • Mathematically, 43/1200+ is less than 4%.
  • The declaration grants 43 rights from the state and no federal rights.
  • The license grants 200+ rights from the state and 1000+ federal rights.
  • Unlike marriage, the declaration does not grant adoption rights, legal support obligations, and comprehensive property rights.
• Unlike marriage, divorce law is not required to end the domestic partnership.
• They cost the same to obtain.
• Both have the same qualification criteria.
• Both are granted by the same process and same government officials.
• A member of clergy is not required for both.

I'm forced to ask: when it comes to any legal construct which would grant rights to same-sex couples in Wisconsin:

• Should it cost a percentage of the charge for a marriage license? In other words, should the domestic partnership declaration cost 4% that of a marriage license? In Waukesha County that would be $3.7625 instead of $105.
• How long should they be together before they can become eligible for basic rights and protections?
• What process should they follow and how should the process be administered?
• From whom should they obtain the documentation for said legal construct?
• What words should be spoken when granting the documentation?

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:

• What will it take for you to allow and to work towards establishing a legal construct to grant rights and protections for same-sex couples, instead of using law to eradicate access to those rights?
• What makes those rights special to opposite-sex couples?

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

Hello.. my name is Leonel.. and I'm a minion..

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.)

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!

To Define or To Protect..

Someone help me out here, did Julaine Appling just suggest that the 2006 amendment contained two questions?

Supporters of the ban feel it's about only one topic. The first part was about the definition of marriage.

"The second part of it was whether or not we're going to protect the institution of marriage," said Julaine Appling of Wisconsin Family Council. "Really, if we didn't have the second part of that, the first part is of very little value because then you can have marriage by another name, call it domestic partner, call it a civil union, call it whatever you want. But it is marriage by another name."

Judging from this statement, the amendment which bans civil unions and marriage for same-sex couples appeared to pose two questions to the voter.

1: Shall we define marriage?
2: Shall we protect marriage?

Oh, I get it. The single question posed to the voter was "shall we further regulate (religious) marriage?"

http://www.wkowtv.com/global/story.asp?s=10366389

Two Men From An Ice Shanty Walk In To The Courthouse..

Are you kidding me? Appling has made an ice shanty comment which sounds like the start of a bad joke. A fairly recent Madison Times article just showed up in my Goggle Alerts. The article states the following:

As for Doyle's plan itself, Appling says it's broad and vague.

"One of our concerns is that this kind of partner registry could be available to two guys sitting in an ice shanty somewhere."

First off, now she is the one crying down the broad and vague river. Funny.. there's an amendment out there that is rather broad and vague. But I digress: that's an old story.

Seriously, folks. Two men in an ice shanty? According to the general provisions, only if:

• each individual is at least 18 years old and capable of consenting to the domestic partnership


• neither individual is married to, or in a domestic partnership with, another individual


• the two individuals share a common residence [even if only one of the individuals has legal ownership of the residence or one or both of the individuals have one or more additional residences not shared with the other individual, or one of the individuals leaves the common residence with the intent to return]


• the two individuals are not nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood or by adoption


• the individuals are members of the same sex.

The application must contain the social security number of each party who has a social security number. It requires that each party must present satisfactory, documentary proof of identification and residence. The individuals who register as domestic partners must swear, or affirm, to the application before the clerk who is to issue the declaration of domestic partnership.

So I suppose if the two do own the ice shanty and can prove ownership, they can register. Which reminds me. There's no way an opposite sex couple would ever just shack up and obtain their marriage license inevitably leading to divorce, right? That has never happened.. except maybe Brittany Spears?

Oh, what do I know as a gay male with a same-sex partner of 10+ years. No matter. I'll continue to do what I can to educate against Appling's.. misconceptions.



PS: Apparently my link to the general provisions does not work. Try cutting and pasting the following link into your address bar to see them.

http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/2009-11Budget/Governor/general%20provisions.pdf

Flip-Flopping At The Expense Of Taxpayers Regarding Same-Sex Couples

I wasn't quite sure how to remark on an old, unmarried, closed-minded, religious heterosexual woman leading a crusade to protect the religious institution of marriage.

Julaine Appling was interviewed for this week's Eye To Eye on CBS 58. During that interview, she made something perfectly clear. She is ready and willing to legally challenge the proposed statewide domestic partner registry which would grant 43 basic protections to same-sex couples in Wisconsin.

Appling has made it clear in the past that the absurd, disgusting, and far-reaching amendment which bans civil unions and "look-alike marriages" was not intended to affect benefits. Now she wants to challenge the 43 protections should the budget be passed with the registry intact. I wonder if she considers these protections to be benefits..

If she thinks of the protections as benefits, then she has in effect flip-flopped her position. I have a vague recollection of her stating to the residents of Waukesha back in 2006 that she would not do that. How many people crowded the UW-Waukesha campus and witnessed that?

What the hell?

Regardless this change in attitude is no surprise, whatsoever. But there's another thing: she gripes about the expense to the taxpayer for extending domestic partner benefits to state employees. On the other hand, she wants to put the government through the cost of a legal battle over her apparent flip-flopped position.

Again: what the hell?

The point is this. Wisconsin opposite-sex couples have the choice to enter a civil contract which automatically grants 200+ legal protections for their relationships and if applicable for their families. Same-sex couples do not have that choice.

Yes, its true that all couples have the choice to spend hundreds if not thousands on strong legal protections. Not everyone is blessed to have that kind of money. Especially now during a struggling economy. Same-sex couples which do not have the financial means to purchase strong legal protection are in effect -- I hate how this sounds -- out of luck.

I don't want my tax dollars going to a legal battle over an old, unmarried, closed-minded, religious heterosexual woman's belief that some couples do not deserve basic legal protection and that the constitution should be used to eradicate their choices and rights.

Do you?

Thank You Governor Doyle For The WI Domestic Partner Registry!

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?)

Appling: Domestic Partner Benefits And Redefining Marriage

First, she leads a campaign which gets Wisconsin on the Ban Gay Marriage Bandwagon with a confusing, vaguely worded amendment. Now she's speaking out against domestic partner benefits to state employees. She believes it is the state's attempt to redefine marriage and that local government employees are essentially state employees.

Umm.. right.

Is her next step to declare domestic partner benefits unconstitutional because of the amendment?

And why am I giving this woman -- who rumor has it happens to be unmarried and lives with a female roommate of many, many years -- any energy anyway?

You decide. Listen to the story here. Be sure to have RealPlayer installed.

From the NPR web site:

Court Holds Hearing for Same Sex Partner Rights
By Gil Halsted
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
(MADISON) The State Supreme Court will hear arguments today (W) in a lawsuit demanding same-sex domestic partner benefits for state employees.

A group of cities, villages and school boards are trying to intervene in an ACLU lawsuit filed two years ago on behalf of six lesbian state employees. The suit claims the state is violating the Wisconsin Constitution’s equal protection clause by denying health care benefits for the same-sex partners of the employees.

Julaine Appling of the Family Research Council of Wisconsin says although the suit targets state employees, local governments have a legitimate concern about its outcome. She says every employee of a local municipality in this is also ultimately a state employee, and she says she doesn’t think any local municipality wants to have the state make a determination about what kind of benefits they are going to pay or not pay.

Appling, who led the successful campaign for the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Wisconsin says the ACLU lawsuit is an effort to redefine marriage. But ACLU attorney Larry Depuis disagrees. He says providing of domestic partner benefits doesn’t constitute marriage and he notes that all of the sponsors of the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage repeatedly said it was not intended to deny domestic partner benefits to government employees.

That issue isn’t before the court this week; instead, the Justices will hear arguments for and against allowing local governments to intervene in the lawsuit.

State legislators could play a role in the final outcome of the lawsuit. Domestic partner benefits for state employees is one of the many issues still in play in the state budget impasse. Money for the benefits is in the Democratic version of the budget, but not in the Republican one.