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&

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

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/

Milwaukee's Protest Of The California Ban On Gay Marriage

Unfortunately I was unable to attend Milwaukee's protest of Proposition 8. In part because I've been domesticated, which isn't the worst thing.. ;) Seriously: Steve and I had family obligations for a good part of the day.

For those of you living in a cave or crawling out from under a rock, Proposition 8 is an amendment to the California Constitution which eradicated the right for same-sex couples to marry. This horrible amendment is one which even Governor Schwarzenegger opposed and has expressed hope that his state's Supreme Court will be able to overturn it.

This year's election may have brought more people of all colors out to vote, but one unfortunate consequence, possibly due to the turnout, is that gay marriage is now banned in more states than before.

Click here for a video of the Milwaukee protest.