Comments on: Wisconsin’s Domestic Partnerships

By: Robguy

Robguy — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:30:41 +0000

I could tell it was Wisconsin when they felt they needed to specifically list boat inheritance.
I gave up waiting for Wisconsin to come around, I still hope they get there one of these years.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:41:56 +0000

Occono,

In what way are Oregon’s DPs inferior to California’s?

By: occono

occono — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:07:57 +0000

Oregon’s DPs aren’t as good as California’s.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:46:01 +0000

Duncan,

I was bothered by this step also until I reviewed the variations in anti-gay marriage amendments presented to and voted on by states. There are three:

The first category reserves the word marriage for heterosexuals only. California and Oregon are good examples. Each of these states provides virtually identical rights, responsibilities, and obligations to domestic partners that they do to married couples.

The second category bans marriage and “substantially similar” structures. Wisconsin falls in this category.

The third category, Virginia and Michigan, bans the granting of any rights accompany marriage to any other union.

It would seem that because Wisconsin does not ban all rights whatsoever, that they can grant some without flouting the constitution. The question is where they cross from being specific and limited rights and become “substantially similar”.

By: Duncan

Duncan — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:14:36 +0000

Whilst I approve of this first step towards marriage, I am nonetheless worried to see legislators flouting their constitution. It would be much better to challenge the amendment directly in referendum.

By: Lindoro Almaviva

Lindoro Almaviva — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:13:12 +0000

Of course it does, but it needs to be challenged in court and taken to the District Court of Appeals so the whole amendment is sent to the trash and the people of the state learn once and for all that the “will of the people” does not count in matters of law.

By: Jake

Jake — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:39:54 +0000

I’m worried this falls within the “substantially similar” category.