Comments on: Wisconsin Assembly Passes Domestic Partnerships

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:20:05 +0000

Bruno,

I too expect this to end up in court. However, that may be advantageous.

It will be interesting to see how Wisconsin’s Supremes view the argument that gay couples can be excluded from creating a structure under which they can jointly own property or enjoy inheritance laws.

Saying that gay folk are denied even this minor convenience due to the orientation of the members of the partnership may be so aggregious that it could cause their amendement to be thrown out entirely. If gay couples cannot even inherit under Wisconsin’s amendment, then that amendement may be in violation of Romer.

But that’s just my speculation. I’m not an attorney.

I do know, however, that anti-gays are often extemists and absolutists. This works against them.

By: Bruno

Bruno — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:07:22 +0000

w. kevin ware: Wisconsin would be the first state with a law that also specifies rights similar to marriage as well. The first state without that specification would have been Oregon.

By: w. kevin ware

w. kevin ware — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:50:15 +0000

Wisconsin will not be the first. Nevada passed a domestic partnership registry law weeks ago. Nevada has a state constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage. The new law passed over the governor’s veto.

By: Ephilei

Ephilei — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:40:52 +0000

FYI, the WI law is:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

Marriage issues aside, that’s a poorly worded law. “Substantially” is too vague and could be interpreted too many ways. Why couldn’t they simply detail exactly what is outlawed, like, “A legal status granting rights to couples including joint property ownership, custody, insurance coverage…” Then everyone knows where the law stands. Would that really be so hard?

By: Rence

Rence — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:25:20 +0000

Of course the group that insisted that our anti-gay marriage amendment did not ban civil unions is the same group that will be taking this to court because it is “substantially similar” to marriage. It provides less than 20% of the benefits that marriage provides – so that would be like saying that an annual salary of $18,000 is “substantially similar” to an annual salary of $100,000.

By: Bruno

Bruno — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:57:36 +0000

I’m obviously expecting this to head to court if it passes for being “too similar” to marriage. I still can’t believe that law passed in the very first state to provide non-discrimination protections for gays & lesbians (in 1982).