Domestic Dispute
"...If more than one amendment be submitted (for referendum), they shall be submitted in such manner as that the people may vote for or against such amendments separately."
Section 1, Article XII, Wisconsin Constitution
"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 marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."
2006 Amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution (Marriage Amendment)
Is the Marriage Amendment quoted above really two amendments? If a separate vote would have been possible for each sentence, I would have voted "Yes" on the first sentence and "No" on the second. Since the two provisions were submitted as a package, I voted "No" on the package; but over 60% of Wisconsin voters approved the Amendment.
While the validity of the 2006 Amendment was being challenged before the Wisconsin Supreme Court on the grounds that separate votes should have been required on each provision, the legislature passed, and the Governor signed, a provision for domestic partnership as part of the state budget bill. Under this law, domestic partners will have about 40 of the 150 benefits available to married couples.
The domestic partnership law is being challenged as violative of the second sentence of the Marriage Amendment. Republican Attorney General J B Van Hollen has refused to defend the constitutionality of the statute, since he contends that domestic partnership is "substantially similar to marriage" and therefore forbidden by the Marriage Amendment. By taking this position, Van Hollen has aligned his office with the social conservatives who dominate the Republican Party.
Although "sex" is not mentioned in either the Marriage Amendment or the domestic partnership provision of the budget bill, the truth is that a fundamental disagreement over sex is at the heart of this dispute. The social conservatives disapprove of straight sex between unmarried couples and all homosexual activity. Although domestic partners may not be sexual partners as well, the cohabitation arrangement facilitates sexual relations between them. Marriage, on the other hand, is a form of state sanction ( if not sanctification) of sexual relations.
The differences between marriage and domestic partnership (as defined in the new law) may be great enough for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rule that the partnerships are not "substantially similar to marriage" For example, a man may not marry his sister or daughter, but may create a domestic partnership with them. Also, a married man is presumed to be the father of any child born to his wife during the marriage (1), but a man in a domestic partnership with a woman who gives birth is not presumed to be the father. As noted earlier, the partnerships convey only about a quarter of the benefits of marriage.
Moreover, the Court may ( in a separate case) rule that the Marriage Amendment is invalid because the two clauses were not presented to the voters for separate votes, in which case the challenge to the domestic partnership provision would be moot. I hope the Court does that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A paternity test can rebut this presumption.
Section 1, Article XII, Wisconsin Constitution
"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 marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."
2006 Amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution (Marriage Amendment)
Is the Marriage Amendment quoted above really two amendments? If a separate vote would have been possible for each sentence, I would have voted "Yes" on the first sentence and "No" on the second. Since the two provisions were submitted as a package, I voted "No" on the package; but over 60% of Wisconsin voters approved the Amendment.
While the validity of the 2006 Amendment was being challenged before the Wisconsin Supreme Court on the grounds that separate votes should have been required on each provision, the legislature passed, and the Governor signed, a provision for domestic partnership as part of the state budget bill. Under this law, domestic partners will have about 40 of the 150 benefits available to married couples.
The domestic partnership law is being challenged as violative of the second sentence of the Marriage Amendment. Republican Attorney General J B Van Hollen has refused to defend the constitutionality of the statute, since he contends that domestic partnership is "substantially similar to marriage" and therefore forbidden by the Marriage Amendment. By taking this position, Van Hollen has aligned his office with the social conservatives who dominate the Republican Party.
Although "sex" is not mentioned in either the Marriage Amendment or the domestic partnership provision of the budget bill, the truth is that a fundamental disagreement over sex is at the heart of this dispute. The social conservatives disapprove of straight sex between unmarried couples and all homosexual activity. Although domestic partners may not be sexual partners as well, the cohabitation arrangement facilitates sexual relations between them. Marriage, on the other hand, is a form of state sanction ( if not sanctification) of sexual relations.
The differences between marriage and domestic partnership (as defined in the new law) may be great enough for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rule that the partnerships are not "substantially similar to marriage" For example, a man may not marry his sister or daughter, but may create a domestic partnership with them. Also, a married man is presumed to be the father of any child born to his wife during the marriage (1), but a man in a domestic partnership with a woman who gives birth is not presumed to be the father. As noted earlier, the partnerships convey only about a quarter of the benefits of marriage.
Moreover, the Court may ( in a separate case) rule that the Marriage Amendment is invalid because the two clauses were not presented to the voters for separate votes, in which case the challenge to the domestic partnership provision would be moot. I hope the Court does that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A paternity test can rebut this presumption.
Labels: "domestic partnership" marriage
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 11:36 AM
0 comments
