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!

It's About Time Government Controls Tobacco, Not Behavior!

So I've been biding my time on expressing an opinion about the smoking bans which seem to be fashionable these days. Believe it or not, I have mixed feelings about them. On the one hand, I can see the health benefit for non-smokers. On the other hand, I do NOT like to see government using law to eradicate personal choices.

Government is finally doing what should've been done years ago: regulate the tobacco industry. Obama has signed legislation to give the FDA sweeping power over it. It's about time government takes that type of action. Now that's the way to go. Confront smoking by dealing with the source, not by legislating behavior.

This whole situation reminds me of advertising I've seen in Mexico. Yes, in Mexico. Look around and you will find posters on bus stops that essentially say, "smoking will kill you." No beating around the bush there like we do in the States: "smoking may be harmful to your health" indeed.

Reuters Article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55I4TG20090622

Legislation Fact Sheet:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Fact-sheet-and-expected-attendees-for-todays-Rose-Garden-bill-signing/

Don't Forget, It's Ok To Discriminate! Right..

So, now Republicans and the media have found a new sensational issue to focus on regarding Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor. It seems that her participation in an all women club, The Belizean Grove, is considered to be a violation of judicial ethics. Not knowing all the facts, I disagree.

And here is why, even though I do not know the mission of this organization. My disagreement is because of a pretty simple question, really. According to their written mission statement, what group of people does this organization serve?

If the written mission statement for Belizean Grove clearly states that it exists for all women, then the answer should be obvious.

If it states that it exists for everyone and in practice excludes men, then the group is discriminating.

In other words: the bottom line is about who the group states that it serves. It discriminates when it excludes within the population served. For me, the answer to this type of question is simple: look to a group's written mission statement. I do not know the mission of Belizean Group, but it helps to have learned that the group appears to serve women and may exist in response to the all-male Bohemian club.

From an article which appeared in the New York Times:

The Belizean Grove bills itself as women’s answer to the 130-year-old all-male Bohemian Club in California. The men’s club owns a 2,500-acre camping area in Northern California called the Grove.

I cannot help but notice the irony here. Wasn't it about ten years ago that conservatives rallied behind the Boy Scouts, an organization whose stated mission appears to serve an entire group and publicly excludes gays within that group? Let us not forget that the Supreme Court sanctioned their discrimination. Funny that their website is not clear about eligibility.

Ironic and definitely not surprising that conservatives are now crying discrimination.

At any rate: once again the media and conservatives are focusing on one side of the issue. Very few people are talking about the all male Bohemian Club. I wonder why..?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/us/politics/20grove.html?ref=politics

Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes.. Take 2..

So.. after a month or so, I have found that posting status updates and microblogs here might not have been the best decision. I didn't quite like how they appeared alongside the main entries. My blog archive was just looking way too messy in the end.

I've moved them off to a separate blog. This is mainly for family and friends who would like to see what I'm up to, yet not have to go setup accounts on the social sites like Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, etc.

Sorry for the confusion and inconvenience, everyone!! :-)

http://overload74-mini.blogspot.com/

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/