DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on May 17, 2011, 10:00:51 PM
-
Walker seeks to stop defense of state's domestic partner registry
By Patrick Marley of the Journal Sentinel
May 16, 2011 |(528) Comments
Madison - Gov. Scott Walker believes a new law that gives gay couples hospital visitation rights violates the state constitution and has asked a judge to allow the state to stop defending it.
Democrats who controlled the Legislature in 2009 changed the law so that same-sex couples could sign up for domestic partnership registries with county clerks to secure some - but not all - of the rights afforded married couples.
Wisconsin Family Action sued last year in Dane County circuit court, arguing that the registries violated a 2006 amendment to the state constitution that bans gay marriage and any arrangement that is substantially similar.
Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen refused to defend the lawsuit, saying he agreed the new law violated the state constitution. Then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, hired Madison attorney Lester Pines to defend the state.
Walker, a Republican, replaced Doyle in January and fired Pines in March. On Friday, Walker filed a motion to stop defending the case.
"Governor Walker, in deference to the legal opinion of the attorney general that the domestic partner registry...is unconstitutional, does not believe the public interest requires a continued defense of this law," says the brief, filed by Walker's chief counsel, Brian Hagedorn.
Hagedorn told Dane County Circuit Judge Daniel Moeser that if he could not withdraw from the case, he would like to amend earlier filings to reflect Walker's belief that the registries conflict with the state constitution.
Even if Walker is allowed to withdraw from the case, the law would still be defended in court because gay rights group Fair Wisconsin intervened in the case last year.
Fair Wisconsin attorney Christopher Clark said the governor's move raises legal questions.
"It's not clear to me that a defendant in a lawsuit... can simply walk away from a lawsuit or withdraw," he said.
Pines said Walker's aides never gave him an explanation when they told him to stop working on the case. He said he was troubled by the latest court filing.
"The governor of this state has an obligation to defend laws he doesn't like. And for that matter, so does the attorney general," Pines said. "This shows an utter disrespect for the rule of law."
Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie disagreed.
"We don't believe it is in the best interest of the state and its taxpayers to spend additional time and resources defending the legislation," he said in an email.
In 2006, 60% of state voters signed off on changing the constitution to ban gay marriage and a "legal status identical or substantially similar to marriage" for same-sex couples.
Wisconsin Family Action advocated for the amendment. The group first sued the state over the same-sex registries shortly after they were created in 2009, taking its case directly to the state Supreme Court in hopes of getting a quick verdict.
The high court declined to hear the case, and the group then filed a lawsuit last year in Dane County circuit court.
The registries allow same-sex couples to take family and medical leave to care for a seriously ill partner, make end-of-life decisions and have hospital visitation rights. But according to Fair Wisconsin, they still confer only about a quarter of the rights associated with marriage, lacking provisions to allow couples to file joint tax returns or adopt children together.
As of August 2010, about 1,500 same-sex couples had registered with counties.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/121956273.html (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/121956273.html)
-
Does the right to cover a family member with a health insurance policy extend to domestic partners under these rules , should it?
-
This is stupid, and so is Walker. A patient has every right to tell the hospital who he wants to be allowed to see him/her.
-
Walker apparently is doing the same thing Obama did. Letting the executive branch decide what is constitutional instead of the courts.
-
uhm,if hospital only allow relative to visit patients. does that means some patients die alone while friends wait outside the room?
-
uhm,if hospital only allow relative to visit patients. does that means some patients die alone while friends wait outside the room?
Put that way , it sounds like it would never be a good policy.
-
Put that way , it sounds like it would never be a good policy.
Is it the states business to decide who visits in hospitals or the hospitals right to limit visitation?
-
I`m not talking about all patients,but when I was hospitalized I totally cherish every single visit I got even when some weird guy who came by to visit some other patient but ended up in my room.
I`ll just say this maximizing a patient alone time can be a bad idea. of course the patient has to give consent for the visitor to enter the room. not all visitors are nice.
-
I do not think that any hospital should prevent access to any visitor that the patient wants to see unless there are health reasons, like the visitor being contagious.
Walker is not a bright guy. He seems to be an ideologue and a dolt.
-
Walker is not a bright guy. He seems to be an ideologue and a dolt.
Is Obama a dolt and ideologue for doing the same thing?
-
Where did Obama try to limit people visiting their loved ones in hospitals?
In any case, it is a dumb thing to do.
-
Where did Obama try to limit people visiting their loved ones in hospitals?
In any case, it is a dumb thing to do.
Obama decided the executive branch would no longer defend DOMA, because he thought it unconstitutional. Walker decided the executive branch would no longer defend a law in conflict with the Wisconsin Constitution.
-
Well that is not the same issue and is therefore not the same thing for me.
DOMA probably is unconstitutional. It is also clearly stupid to think that somehow forbidding same sex marriages will "defend" heterosexual marriages in any way. People will not turn into heterosexuals simply because they cannot marry someone of the same sex, at not in our society. If there were a requirement that everyone marry or be shot, then that would perhaps make a difference, but that will never happen.
-
DOMA never pretended to be a way to convert Homosexuals into normal people .
It was only intended to preserve Marrage as it is and always has been. Reserving marrage as an institution of legitimising heterosexual behaviors.
What is the states interest in marrage?
-
What is the states interest in marrage?
===============================
Possibly tax deductions for married couples.
There is NO WAY that preventing Adam from marrying Steve that will change any hetero couple's marriage in any way. DOMA does not defend marriage, it just turns Biblical prejudices into law.
-
actually economics was brought up how it would impact to allow gay to marry,but I kept think if this were true then legally hetro couple had to limited since it`s a numbers game.
any economic data against will impact against marraige overall.
-
If the state gives tax breaks to married couples, then there is am impact on taxes. But the state does not have to give tax breaks to couples. If the state favors families and child-rearing, then it can give tax breaks to parents instead, and allow gays to adopt.
The DOMA does not defend marriage. Nor it Obama's actions about DOMA have a thing to do with Walker's stance on hospital visitations.
-
Nor it Obama's actions about DOMA have a thing to do with Walker's stance on hospital visitations.
They are one and the same. In both cases, the chief executive abandoned defenses of legislation because they believed that legislation to be unconstitutional either federally or in Walkers case, Wisconsin.
Many in here slammed Obama for doing that, which is why i posted the story about Walker, to see if the slammers were consistent. But alas the slammers were silent about this particular paradox.
Oh well.
-
i think it`s my fault for pointing out the dying alone part
-
i think it`s my fault for pointing out the dying alone part
Actually your post reminded me what a ridiculous hospital policy that was.
-
the only reason I thought of it is because I experience what it`s like to be alone in a hospital. I really didn`t see many people visit my neighbors ,when I was allowed to walk I made an effort to visit them .
hospital tv don`t help much
-
What is the states interest in marrage?
===============================
Possibly tax deductions for married couples.
There is NO WAY that preventing Adam from marrying Steve that will change any hetero couple's marriage in any way. DOMA does not defend marriage, it just turns Biblical prejudices into law.
Actually taxes can sometimes penalise marrage.
But what advantage is there to the state for anyone to marry?
-
I do not think that the issue is to please the state or displease the state.
I fail to see any reason not to legalize all gay marriages of any two people. There is no downside to anyone.
-
I do not think that the issue is to please the state or displease the state.
I fail to see any reason not to legalize all gay marriages of any two people. There is no downside to anyone.
Then why is your opinion a minority opinion?
You cannot see why there is any state regulation of marrage at all?
-
The state has an interest in seeing to it that minor children are not married, and that bigamy is prevented.
Otherwise, any two people should be able to get married provided that both are single and willing.
Marriage between "races" was a minority opinion in most of the South until it was overruled by the Supreme Court. It might still be a majority opinion in some states.
This is not an issue that should be decided by the majority, because the majority is unaffected by it. The effects of gay marriage have far fewer visible consequences than interracial marriage, after all. You cannot tell the child of a gay marriage by looking at him, after all. In the case of an interracial marriage, you can at least some of the time.
-
The state has an interest in seeing to it that minor children are not married, and that bigamy is prevented.
Otherwise, any two people should be able to get married provided that both are single and willing.
Marriage between "races" was a minority opinion in most of the South until it was overruled by the Supreme Court. It might still be a majority opinion in some states.
This is not an issue that should be decided by the majority, because the majority is unaffected by it. The effects of gay marriage have far fewer visible consequences than interracial marriage, after all. You cannot tell the child of a gay marriage by looking at him, after all. In the case of an interracial marriage, you can at least some of the time.
So you do or don't favor Brothers and Sisters getting married leagally?
-
Oh, come off it. No, I do not favor this.
I did not say that I was rewriting marriage law. This is about same sex marriage and you know it.
Brothers and sisters are strangely always of opposite sexes.
I do not care if two brothers marry or two sisters marry, before you ask. But I really doubt that this would be an issue.
-
Oh, come off it. No, I do not favor this.
I did not say that I was rewriting marriage law. This is about same sex marriage and you know it.
Brothers and sisters are strangely always of opposite sexes.
I do not care if two brothers marry or two sisters marry, before you ask. But I really doubt that this would be an issue.
It isn't unfair and discriminatory to prevent marrage in those who want to marry a sibling ?
Why would anyone be against this?
-
There are some fairly good reasons to avoid incest. Genetic diseases are more likely to be passed to the next generation, though this does not always happen, and not everyone has a genetic disease. The Habsburg family was inbred, usually because of cousin to cousin marriages, and many had hemophilia.
The Egyptian and Hawaiian royalty required brother and sister marriages for a while. The results are sketchy.
The truth is that if two people really want to get married, they will do so regardless of the law by simply disguising an identity.
Gay marriages are exempt from any of the disadvantages of inbreeding for obvious reasons,and the children are generally adopted. So this is unrelated to the issue.
-
The state has an interest in seeing to it that minor children are not married, and that bigamy is prevented.
Otherwise, any two people should be able to get married provided that both are single and willing.
Marriage between "races" was a minority opinion in most of the South until it was overruled by the Supreme Court. It might still be a majority opinion in some states.
This is not an issue that should be decided by the majority, because the majority is unaffected by it. The effects of gay marriage have far fewer visible consequences than interracial marriage, after all. You cannot tell the child of a gay marriage by looking at him, after all. In the case of an interracial marriage, you can at least some of the time.
Why should bigamy be prevented? Child marriages are a matter of state interest because of the state's obligation to protect minors. The state has no inherent interest in preventing bigamy per se.
The only state interest in any form of marriage is protecting the rights of the individual spouses. The division of property and other such aspects of domestic partner relationships become legal issues (especially when those partnerships dissolve). That is the only reason the state should ever be involved in marriage.
This is why I supprt civil unions for all and marriages as a function of the church only.
-
Actually, as I think about it, the state does have an interest in preventing bigamy, if said bigamy is not mutually consentual. if daddy has two families and the one doesn't know about the other, the community property rights of the two clueless spouses and any children are adversely affected. If Daddy and Mommy and other Mommy all live in the same house, then the state has no interest I can see.
I agree with BT that the same principle is in play with Walker's decision to drop the legal ball and Obama's decision to drop the legal ball. It is unfortunate that Obama made the choice he did, given that I was favorably impressed with his original course of holding his nose and defending it. Obama should have let the legislature do its job and the courts do theirs, by making the justice department do theirs. Walker is in the same place. The underlying issues are different but the separation of powers issue is exactly the same - and they (Obama and Walker) are equally wrong.
As to gay marriage not affecting the institution of marriage - that is your opinion. Gay marriage advocates have long used the false premise that since an individual gay marriage does not affect an individual heterosexual marriage (or the analogous collective marriages) the institution is not affected. But that is not true. Marriage as a social institution is, by its nature, a moral issue. The values of most societies have historically dictated that if a couple is to begin to engage in rearing children, commitments must be made to protect those children and to protect the spouses (historically women) from losing their economic rights. It kept the sort of thing that is epidemic today - abandoned women, single parenthood and deadbeat dads - from being the norm.
That social dynamic has, indeed, changed. The family - which is based on the institution of marriage - has been denigrated and children and women are still bearing the brunt of that dissolution. The reason for this decline is not only the selfishness of men, but the general effacement of the principle that marriage is a sacred institution - and the basis of society. Gay marriage would further dilute the importance, sanctity and relevance of the institution - not of any particular marriage. The burden of the effacement of the family is felt in the overabundance of social programs like welfare designed to substitute for proper self-sufficient family structures. So yes, the majority is indeed effected by the erosion of the family.
The same arguments being used to defend gay marriage now were used to defend no-fault divorce and other easy-out methods in the sixties. The jury is no longer out on those issues. Lax views and laws on divorce have, as predicted, badly weakened the family and society. We've already proven that anti-family morals hurt society. This will be just as true as we weaken family structure further by redefining the entire concept.
The fact is, societies have the collective right to determine their moral value system. If the majority of people in a society wish to allow gay marriage then it ought to be allowed. But if, as has been clearly demonstrated time and again in this society, the majority wants to retain traditional marriage then it ought to be the law of the land - and the government of, by and for the people has no right to overrule the people.
-
Gay marriage would further dilute the importance, sanctity and relevance of the institution - not of any particular marriage.
I question this premise. Any attitude toward marriage is an INDIVIDUAL decision, NOT a collective one.
Gay marriage has no effect because 99.9999999999999999999% of all heteros would have no knowledge of which gays were married and which were not. Nor would most of them even care. In fact, there are ALREADY a number of married gays.
It has had no effect whatever.
-
upon further thought if gay marraige dilute marraige I can`t see that as a bad thing due to the high amount of divorces. divorce MUST be seen as a indicator that marraige is flawed to begin with. I previously stated in other post I`ve seen toxic relationship and how it effects children.
this is not news its normal life. the bread and butter of most talk shows.
and talking about immorality of gays, I can`t feel much, since people complain about the gays in san francisco,but not the crime and drugs.
seems to me 2 dads are more capable of protecting a family than the normal set. remember the majority of gays in s.f. are ex-military.
the very reason gays are in san francisco is because it`s used to be a naval port.
-
kimba you are arguing a different point. I am not talking about a gay marriage affecting a heterosexual marriage. I am talking about the institution itself. Divorce ALSO effaces the institution - and again I am referring to the social significance of marriage itself. Because divorce is far more easy to obtain than it once was, marriage is no longer taken seriously by a large portion of society. If you aren't happy with a partner you just dump her and get another. There is neither any incentive to work on marriages nor any stigma associated with walking away from one.
Redefining the relationship that God ordained - that of heterosexual union for procreation and remaining faithful for life - makes marriage just a way of declaring your love. It's like sending flowers. Flowers are a lovely expression of love, but they are only temporary. Marriage is more than just a way of telling someone that you REALLY REALLY LIKE them. It is a committmemnt to begin a family, to remain faithful to one another and to make sure that your children have a stable, secure home. As it stands now, when infatuation cools either partner just moves to the next thrill. There is no need to let love develop, as it does over the course of a long marriage. I just celebrated 34 years of marriage yesterday and I am married to a different woman, yet the very same one, I married in 1977. I know that adultery happens, but it used to be discouraged - in fact scandalized - by society. These days it's just another partner change.
Our society has denigrated marriage and tried to replace it with counterfeit institutions and uncomitted relationships. The rights of children to a stable, secure home are unrecognized and unconsidered. Further dililuting marriage by doing away with the basic purpose and order of marriage is inevitable, and it is one more nail in the coffin of our society. Anyone who calls this particular spade a spade is ridiculed as a religious fanatic or a moral Pharisee. And you tell me over and over and over again, my friend, you don't believe . . .
-
In fact, there are ALREADY a number of married gays.
It has had no effect whatever.
Then what is it for?
If it has no effect whatsoever then why fight to have it?
In times past Marrage legitimised a dangeerous activity and provided a bond that was usefull to the bonded individuals and to the greater society. It insured children would have parents and that parents would have social approval.
What is it supposed to do now?
What gays want is to be legitamised , and the way to do it is a direct attack to take over the institution of marrage.
It won't work whether they succeed or not.
What happened to the word "gay"?
It was supposed to substitute for opprobrious words and be absent of criticism when said, but in the common usage it is becomeing a synonym for .... what?
Makeing Marrage leagal is supposed to place the blessing of social approval on gay relationship, since society is not legality it wpon't work quite that way, rather than gaining the sought approval, it will instead weaken the value of the already weakened institution.
-
Actually, as I think about it, the state does have an interest in preventing bigamy, ....
How did and how do states that allow multiple marrage cope with problems of inheritance and fair division?
I wonder if divorce is really empowering for women , makeing divorce difficult was for the womans sake in the old days, now they need civilization instead of needing a man.
Sometimes I do feel like a fish's bicycle.
-
I am talking about the institution and divorce is easier but thats not the problem. marraige is too easy. remember britney married twice. the term "not to be entered lightly" is long gone. even the bloodtest gone and thats a medical issue that doesn`t really deny people masrraige. personally marraige is hardly even voluntary . pressure from families to marry somebody you don`t like is very strong.
-
Then what is it for?
If it has no effect whatsoever then why fight to have it?
===========================================
Why fight to defeat restrictions on people's rights?
You have this bass-ackwards. Gay marriage is a right gay people should have had since forever.
-
Then what is it for?
If it has no effect whatsoever then why fight to have it?
===========================================
Why fight to defeat restrictions on people's rights?
You have this bass-ackwards. Gay marriage is a right gay people should have had since forever.
Why do you call it a right , if you can't even call it usefull?
Presumably there have always been some Homosexuals , why do they need this right now?
They are trying to gain social approval , and they are browbeating the society for the trappings of social approval.
At the same time that young men and women are hooking up caring less and less for the stamp of societys approval, homosexuals covet it more and more.
This is a two pronged attack on the credability of Marrage when homosexuals finally get it it will be nothing, and they will not understand their own role in its devaluation.
-
Homosexuals are indeed useful, I never said they were not. Why not approve of them? What is gained by not doing this?
I do not believe gay marriages have ANY effect WHATEVER on any other marriages.What is wrong with just letting them do their thing. We do not have to watch.
-
Homosexuals are indeed useful, I never said they were not. Why not approve of them? What is gained by not doing this?
I do not believe gay marriages have ANY effect WHATEVER on any other marriages.What is wrong with just letting them do their thing. We do not have to watch.
So you agree that homosexual marrage is not in any way usefull?
By the way I didn't mean to imply or refrence the usefullness of homosexuals themselves, but since you bring it up , what makes a person more usefull as a homosexual than the same person would vbe otherwise?
-
in my towm thier very useful
tourism and very helpful to the community.
the castro is the cleanest and fairly crime free area of San Francisco. for some reason gangs don`t like to hang out there.
-
They are a tourist attraction and a street gang repellant?
Ok that is usefull.
-
it`s a funny thing criminals tend to avoid that areas. not totally crimefree though
-
Gay men are the advance guard of urban renewal here in Miami. They buy elegant old homes in disrepair, and of course, the gays that do this are those who have the youth, strength and skills to do the restoration. They tend to be pretty territorial if approached by drug gangs. Once the area is renewed, some of them move on, as property values have usually soared. The entire bayfront area from Biscayne and 20th to 85th street was restored and gentrified in this way.
-
lets just say property value rarely go down when gays move in your neighborhood.
-
I can go along with this.
Gay men are a generally positive influence, Gay women are pretty much neutral, depending on the money they use to fix things up.
I do not see how Adam & Steve could be a greater threat to anyone if they had a marriage license. If one were to request to SEE their marriage license, they should tell him to take a flying leap, just as any married hetero couple would do.
-
I If one were to request to SEE their marriage license, they should tell him to take a flying leap, just as any married hetero couple would do.
So the lisense isn't actually usefull to them?
-
It is useful to them for the sake of insurance beneficiaries, and hospital visitations rights, and income taxes, and of course it is a sentimental thing, just as it is for hetero couples.
-
Are Hospitals so stupid?
Tax benefits are nil for two income couples.
The sentiment for marrage between the same sex is entirely new.
-
Yes, hospitals are often so stupid.
Not all gay people are two-income people,and there are advantages in even if they are not.
There is no good reason NOT to permit gays to marry. NONE.
-
Yes, hospitals are often so stupid.
Not all gay people are two-income people,and there are advantages in even if they are not.
There is no good reason NOT to permit gays to marry. NONE.
How about a small reason?
It will become a fact that we will never be able to make peace with any conservative Muslim nation.
-
I do not think that this is true. Their polygamy does not present any major problems for us.
And gays can marry in Canada and much of Europe now.
-
I do not think that this is true. Their polygamy does not present any major problems for us.
And gays can marry in Canada and much of Europe now.
Oh?
How many move here with wives?
-
That is not a problem.
The US has no reason to send gay couples to the Middle East. They certainly could hide their gaiety more easily than a sheik could hide three excess wives. If gays go to Saudi Arabia, they can go on their own, but they would need Saudi visa approval. It is hard to get a Saudi entrance visa, by the way. Unless you are on a Hajj, they don't let you in unless you have a corporate sponsor and have a job already.
I do not think that the US should allow Saudi prejudices to determine our domestic policy towards fairness and equality for all Americans.
-
It isn't even.
What doesn't bother us can indeed bother them, have you ever cared that someone in Packistan might be drawing a disrespectfull cartoon of a historical figure that you respect a lot?
But you are right , I also don't want our choices made for us by our enemys , even when the result is a bunch of dead people I don't consider this a strong argument for my side.