Is a domestic partner registry "substantially similar" to marriage?

[zsdersw]

http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/judge-upholds-wisconsins-partner-registry.html

In a strongly worded ruling handed down today, a Dane County Circuit Court judge upheld the constitutionality of the state’s domestic partner registry.

The ruling came in a suit filed by the anti-gay group Wisconsin Family Action claiming that the registry law violates a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions in the state. Former Gov. Jim Doyle enacted the measure, which grants 41 legal protections to same-sex couples, including hospital visitation privileges and the right to take family medical leave to care for a sick or injured partner.

WFA argued that the registry created a relationship status “substantially similar to that of marriage,” which is prohibited under the 2006 constitutional ban adopted by voters. Judge Daniel R. Moeser disagreed.

“The (registry) does not recognize domestic partnership in a way that even remotely resembles how the state recognizes marriage,” Moeser wrote. “Moreover, domestic partners have far fewer legal rights, duties and liabilities in comparison to the legal rights, duties, and liabilities of spouses.”

Moeser said that besides providing only a few of the 200 rights afforded by marriage under state law, registered partnerships differ greatly from marriage in the way they’re legally established. For instance, either registered partner can terminate their relationship simply by informing the county clerk’s office, whereas divorce involves division of property, child custody arrangements and other complex legal ramifications.

“The legal status is very, very different and that’s a very crucial distinction,” said attorney Christopher Clark of Lambda Legal. He litigated the case on behalf of the advocacy group Fair Wisconsin and five same-sex couples who became the lead defendants in the case after Gov. Scott Walker decided not to defend the registry law.

Clark said he was pleased but not surprised by the decision.

“Obviously we’re thrilled, but I have been arguing all along that I did not think this was a close case,” Clark said. “I think this lawsuit bordered on the frivolous. There are lots of states now that have some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples that are not like marriage. To suggest this was substantially similar to marriage was absurd.”

In his ruling, Moeser noted that proponents of the 2006 ban on same-sex marriage had ensured voters it would not legally prohibit arrangements like the one they’re now objecting to, Clark said.

Clark described Moeser’s ruling as “well-reasoned and comprehensive,” which is important to the future of the case. WFA has 45 days to appeal Moeser’s decision, which executive director Julaine Appling says the group plans to do – all the way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Ironically Appling lives with a longtime female companion in a home the two own jointly in Watertown. Neither has ever married.

Fair Wisconsin will continue fighting for the registry, vowed executive director Katie Belanger.

“When we intervened in this case last year, we knew that it could be for several years and we are prepared,” she said. “In the meantime, we are celebrating our victory with a very strong court decision. It’s definitely the strongest decision we could have hoped for.”
Out state Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, said he applauded the decision “for rejecting this mean-spirited and unjust attack on same-sex couples.”

“Hopefully, this will put the fears of not being able to visit your loved one in the hospital to rest,” Pocan said. “Today, I call on Republicans to finally focus on job creation rather than divisive social policies that only result in further disenfranchising people.”

41 out of 200 is 20.5%. Calling that "substantial" seems to be a failure of math, in addition to other failures on WFA's part in this case.

I hope every court in WI upholds this ruling.. giving WFA no more feasible options.

 

[Double Trouble]

Certainly seems awfully similar to a "civil union" to me, in both it's intent and effect. I don't know enough about it one way or the other though, let it work it's way through court and determine where it stands. The initial ruling in these kinds of cases really don't mean a hill of beans, it's ultimately going to depend on what the appeals or state supreme court thinks of the issue that matters.

I'm not sure what WFA are upset about. Are there certain provisions they don't like, or is it just "we don't like gay people together"? I would think they'd be happy that it's not a "marriage".

 

[KB]

I think the same-sex people have it even better than marriage.

"For instance, either registered partner can terminate their relationship simply by informing the county clerk’s office, whereas divorce involves division of property, child custody arrangements and other complex legal ramifications."

I wonder if heteros can get that same deal.

 

[feralkid]

I think the same-sex people have it even better than marriage.

"For instance, either registered partner can terminate their relationship simply by informing the county clerk’s office, whereas divorce involves division of property, child custody arrangements and other complex legal ramifications."

I wonder if heteros can get that same deal.

No. Also the sharing of clothes/shoes is more difficult; perhaps you should consider switching teams?

 

[nageov3t]

I think the same-sex people have it even better than marriage.

"For instance, either registered partner can terminate their relationship simply by informing the county clerk’s office, whereas divorce involves division of property, child custody arrangements and other complex legal ramifications."

I wonder if heteros can get that same deal.

makes me wonder what would happen in the instance of a child that was jointly adopted by a gay couple, a house where both people's name is on the mortgage, etc.

doesn't seem all that simple to me.

 

[Jaskalas]

Eliminate government definition of Marriage, use the other one as the only standard, end of story.

 

[zsdersw]

I wonder if heteros can get that same deal.

Domestic partner registries are not limited to homosexual couples... they're available to everyone.

 

[zsdersw]

I'm not sure what WFA are upset about. Are there certain provisions they don't like, or is it just "we don't like gay people together"? I would think they'd be happy that it's not a "marriage".

I'm fairly certain it's the latter.. if their bringing of this lawsuit in the first place is any indication.

 

[dullard]

Eliminate government definition of Marriage, use the other one as the only standard, end of story.

I've been saying the same thing. There should be no governmental marriage. Marriage is a religion issue, not a state issue.

 

[theeedude]

Sounds like domestic partnership is the way to go even for opposite sex partners.

 

[piasabird]

Marriage is also a legal issue. Many things such as Taxes and pensions and property ownership are all dependent on the legal status of marriage. Try cashing in your retirement plan if you are legally married and you will find your legal wife has ownership of your money under the law.

 

[dullard]

Marriage is also a legal issue. Many things such as Taxes and pensions and property ownership are all dependent on the legal status of marriage. Try cashing in your retirement plan if you are legally married and you will find your legal wife has ownership of your money under the law.

That all is easilly changed to "domestic partner". All laws should be marriage neutral. Your partner will have ownership of property, possibly pensions, etc instead of your spouse. Get the government out of religious issues.

 

[theeedude]

That all is easilly changed to "domestic partner". All laws should be marriage neutral. Your partner will have ownership of property, possibly pensions, etc instead of your spouse. Get the government out of religious issues.

I think the government should get out of marriage business too. There is no reason for it. If you want to get married in church, that's your business. If you want to give your wife rights to half of your money, just write up a contract to do so, no need for it to be linked to some marital status.

 

[Lemon law]

To a certain extent there are two problems. Courts still have a sour taste over separate but equal in the former Jim Crow South.

Hetero sexual marriage has legitimacy interstate and even internationally. No one given US State can give or take away rights without the consent of the other 49.

Its just why, IMHO, why separate but equal will never legally fly in the USA.

 

[bfdd]

The government needs to get the fuck out of our personal lives. Marriage or whatever the fuck people want to call it should not be a state sponsored institution.

 

[werepossum]

To a certain extent there are two problems. Courts still have a sour taste over separate but equal in the former Jim Crow South.

Hetero sexual marriage has legitimacy interstate and even internationally. No one given US State can give or take away rights without the consent of the other 49.

Its just why, IMHO, why separate but equal will never legally fly in the USA.

This. "Separate but equal" is never equal, else there is no need for the "separate" part. Government should only have the power to restrict our personal freedom when it can demonstrate a pressing societal need that can only be met by restricting that freedom. A desire to not allow others to do things one finds icky is not a pressing societal need.

 

[Genx87]

This whole debate is an example of what happens when govt gets involved with something it shouldnt(marriage). Why contract law cant apply in this instance is beyond me. Why we need to define marriage is beyond me. Marriage is the domain of religion. If I want to grant life decisions to anybody, why cant a contract be signed and recognized by the state? Would solve this whole issue imo.

 

[zsdersw]

This whole debate is an example of what happens when govt gets involved with something it shouldnt(marriage). Why contract law cant apply in this instance is beyond me. Why we need to define marriage is beyond me. Marriage is the domain of religion. If I want to grant life decisions to anybody, why cant a contract be signed and recognized by the state? Would solve this whole issue imo.

Because of people like WFA... for whom government's place is everywhere except our wallets.

 

[Genx87]

Because of people like WFA... for whom government's place is everywhere except our wallets.

If govt didnt try to define marriage and grant benefits based on that. WFA would have nothing to file lawsuits.

 

[zsdersw]

If govt didnt try to define marriage and grant benefits based on that. WFA would have nothing to file lawsuits.

They don't want government out of the business of defining marriage and granting benefits. They want it defined only a certain way by government and grant benefits only to certain people.

 

[Genx87]

They don't want government out of the business of defining marriage and granting benefits. They want it defined only a certain way by government and grant benefits only to certain people.

I really could care less what they want or desire. Take away the states right to define marriage and these people wont have a pot to piss in.

 

[zsdersw]

I really could care less what they want or desire. Take away the states right to define marriage and these people wont have a pot to piss in.

You probably meant couldn't care less. They won't let you take away that "right".

 

[Mursilis]

This. "Separate but equal" is never equal, else there is no need for the "separate" part.

That's just over-broad to the point of being silly. I'd say the vast majority of people aren't complaining about same-sex only bathrooms.

 

[matt0611]

The government needs to get the fuck out of our personal lives. Marriage or whatever the fuck people want to call it should not be a state sponsored institution.

This is still a good call IMO.
Marriage should just be a religious institution.
The legal parts of marriage should just be a private contract between two people.

 

[Craig234]

This. "Separate but equal" is never equal, else there is no need for the "separate" part.

So, you're saying that men and women's restrooms are 'unequal' - more than just the biology would require?

You're saying that men's dressing rooms and women's dressing rooms are unequal?

You're saying that 'adult' drinking fountains at a higher spot on the wall are unequal from 'childrens' drinking fountains at a lower spot?

You're saying that seats in the back and front of the bus are necessarily different?

I'd say that the larger problem with separate but equal is that it preserves a separation that has a hierarchy to it - one group being separate because they don't want the other group to share the same things with them. The reason behind the 'separate' is generally bigotry.

That often has an 'unequal' aspect, but not always.

For example, imagine two identical drinking fountains, one for white and one for non-whites, side by side.

The reason for that is whites who simply don't want to drink from the same fountain as people they are bigoted against.

In practice, that usually ends up with the non-white fountain inconveniently located in the back, possible a worse model, less well maintained - but even if equal, it's a problem.

Gay Marriage and civil unions are in part like that - heterosexual bigots who can't figure out how to defend denying rights, but just want those gays drinking from another fountain.

This is why "it's just a word" is both an accurate argument - in that many heterosexuals just want the word to be different - and also quite wrong, in that it's that very difference they're demanding that reflects the bigotry behind the demand, like whites demanding their own drinking fountain - which is a public act condoning and legitimizing the bigotry.

It's important the word NOT be different, exactly on order to not give bigots the publicly supported recognition of the 'superior' statues they are trying to keep.

It would be like saying the marriages of mixed race couples can be exactly the same, except they have to use a new name. The only point to that is to protect bigotry.

It really lies in the intent. Men's and women's restroom aren't about bigotry - and they work. Even identical race-based drinking fountains are about bigotry - so they don't.