Friday, May 1

Domestic Partner Registry and Response

Doyle is including a domestic partner registry for those who want to violate the Wisconsin Constitution that protects marriage between one man and one woman. Here is how Wisconsin should respond:

1. Try and block it in the Assembly and Senate. This will be tough however as Democrats control both chambers. Let's be blunt: they don't care about the Constitution or the laws and will try and pass this.

2. Challenge the law through the courts. The constitution and the will of the voters was plain when they passed it was to protect marriage and anything "identical or substantially similar to marriage." This is blatant disregard for our Constitution. Isn't the governor suppose to protect it?

3. Pairs of guys (who are not homosexuals) should apply for the registry if it is enacted. The whole system falls apart if every college dorm roommates can collect partner benefits. This is bluff, so call them on it.

5 Comments:

Rebecca said...

I like option three. It has just enough anarchy to work.

Lucas said...

A bit of anarchy and a bit of simply showing how this law just is not enforceable. I haven't gotten a clear answer on why pro-marriage groups haven't taken this approach.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you should read the bill to determine what "benefits" couples will receive, Lucas. If roommates want to give one another the right to hospital visits, to make end-of-life decisions for one another, and to receive one another's property upon death, perhaps they SHOULD register--the only ones they'd be fooling are themselves.

Lucas said...

Anon. The point is not that my roommate and I want any of the privileges of marriage. The point is that Doyle wants to disobey the Constitution by creating something similar to marriage. One way to protect from this bill is to demonstrate the holes of the bill. If only out of wed lock couples and homosexuals use it then, Doyle wins. If college kids can be part of a partnership with their roommates, then we call Doyle's bluff.

Again, the bottom line is that marriage must be protected for husband and wife for the good of the kids.

Anonymous said...

How ignorant. Do you have any idea what the benefits of marriage actually are? This doesn't even cover HALF of them. It's not SUBSTANTIALLY similar at all!