Author Topic: hmmm  (Read 9505 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
hmmm
« 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

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: hmmm
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2011, 10:29:15 PM »
  Does the right to cover a family member with a health insurance policy extend to domestic partners under these rules , should it?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: hmmm
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2011, 11:27:21 PM »
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.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: hmmm
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2011, 12:17:54 AM »
Walker apparently is doing the same thing Obama did. Letting the executive branch decide what is constitutional instead of the courts.

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7945
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: hmmm
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2011, 01:38:39 AM »
uhm,if hospital only allow relative to visit patients. does that means some patients die alone while friends wait outside the room?

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: hmmm
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2011, 02:11:31 PM »
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.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: hmmm
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2011, 02:37:12 PM »
Quote
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?

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7945
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: hmmm
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2011, 02:57:04 PM »
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.


Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: hmmm
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2011, 06:13:50 PM »
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.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: hmmm
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2011, 08:06:16 PM »
Quote
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?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: hmmm
« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2011, 08:17:45 PM »
Where did Obama try to limit people visiting their loved ones in hospitals?

In any case, it is a dumb thing to do.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: hmmm
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2011, 12:30:26 AM »
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.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: hmmm
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2011, 01:10:20 AM »
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.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: hmmm
« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2011, 03:55:37 AM »
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?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: hmmm
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2011, 10:29:45 AM »
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.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."