Few couples register for domestic partnerships on first day
Photo
Jen, left, and Rose Wehrli-Mead affirm that their statements are true Monday as they apply for domestic partnership at the county clerk's office at the Racine County Courthouse. Domestic partnerships also became available in Rock and Walworth counties Monday, but few couples took advantage of the opportunity on its first day.
JANESVILLE — Domestic partnerships entered Rock and Walworth counties with more of a squeak than a roar Monday.
Four Rock County couples signed up for the domestic partnership registry Monday, the first day the state program was offered.
County Clerk Lori Stottler said she wasn't surprised by the low turnout.
"I think, eventually, word of mouth will travel, and we will get some consistent flow," she said.
Only one couple registered in Walworth County.
Walworth County Clerk Kim Bushey said her staff had no idea what volume of people to expect, so they set up overflow seating in case there were several same-sex partners wishing to register.
"Should there have been an overflow, I think we were pretty well prepared," she said. "We have additional forms printed, our full office staff was here today, no one on vacation."
Things were a little busier in Dane and Milwaukee counties, where couples waited in line to sign up when the courthouses opened.
But even there, activity slowed later in the day. Dane County had taken about 50 applications and Milwaukee County had taken about 20 as of mid-afternoon.
The registry, signed into law as part of the state budget, provides about 40 benefits to same-sex couples of the more than 200 that are afforded married couples, such as allowing them to take family and medical leave to care of a seriously ill partner, make end-of-life decisions and have hospital visitation rights.
Already, it is being challenged in court.
Wisconsin Family Action—which as the Family Research Institute in 2006 helped pushed through a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage—in July asked the state Supreme Court to invalidate the new domestic partnership registry.
Gov. Jim Doyle and lawmakers "created a legal status that is, according to the constitution, not legal," said Julaine Appling, the group's president. "(In 2006), 1.25 million voters went to the polls and said they want marriage to be between one man and one woman and they didn't want marriage by a different name."
The high court has not yet said whether it will take the case. It has agreed, however, to hear arguments in a case challenging the gay marriage ban.
A Dane County judge ruled last year the amendment was properly adopted.
Couples who signed up for the registry said they were pleased lawmakers created the registry this summer after being disappointed with the 2006 gay marriage ban.
"I feel like we're scrambling for the crumbs at the back of the bus," said Peppin Karras, 29, a teacher who signed up for the registry in Dane County with her partner of six years, Maureen Donahoe, 30.
"It still feels good, but it's not the recognition we want," said Donahoe.
Joseph Beagan, 63, and Gordon Hansen, 66, said they already had written wills and prepared legal documents giving them visitation rights, but that they wanted to have their 2-year-old relationship recognized.
"It really is more the idea … of having a partnership," said Beagan, of Madison. "It's the idea of standing up and being counted. It's about having numbers."
The measure makes Wisconsin the first state with a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions to provide domestic partnerships for gay couples.
Wisconsin is also the first Midwestern state to legislatively enact protections for same-sex couples, according to advocates. Iowa's Supreme Court approved gay marriage in April.
Doyle's budget also provided insurance and other benefits for same-sex couples who work for the state, which the UW-Madison has said will help attract and retain top faculty and researchers. The added benefits are expected to cost taxpayers $4.7 million to $6.7 million a year, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.
A couple must live together to be registered, Stottler said. They should bring their birth certificates, driver's licenses and Social Security numbers to sign up. If they've been married, they most show proof of divorce.
The cost is $90 in Rock County, same as a marriage license.
After a five-day waiting period, the couple return and the declaration is notarized, then filed with the register of deeds, Stottler said. No ceremony is required.
Though the process might seem similar to the process for getting a marriage license, there are lots of little quirks that make it different, she said.
For example, a couple can terminate a partnership at the clerk's office. They must wait 90 days before entering into another domestic partnership, as opposed to the six-month waiting period after a marriage. But there is no waiting period if one of the partners wants to marry someone of the opposite sex.
"They have all these little things that we're just trying to wrap our heads around," Stottler said.
Aug 8, 2009 at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
"A hundred years ago you could actually __LEGALLY__ buy and sell a human being. Sometimes laws are wrong and need to be changed."
-
Um, just for the sake of being correct... you can still buy and sell people. Trafficking in human slaves is on the rise, in fact. Nothing has changed in the world. Sorry, I like to nit-pick...
I added the one word that will kill your nit to pick...and it is, I believe, what was intended by the comment
Aug 8, 2009 at 8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Since we're picking nits... just a reminder that government does not grant "rights". Rights are what we human beings enjoy in the absence of government. Government can only take them away. (This may sound trivially pedantic, but it really isn't.)
Aug 8, 2009 at 4:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Christianity has nothing to do with promoting peace and kindess. Just take a really close read of the bible and you see genocide, rape, and slavery being encouraged. Then take a really close read on history and see that christianity like the other irrational sky god cults, has a history bathed in blood and division. Then look at current history and you see that they continue on in those traditions.
.
Live and let live is something they just can't do. Convert, control, and "save" well now - thats a noble cause.
Aug 8, 2009 at 3:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
By the way, I'm quite confident that this won't be repealed. It doesn't resemble marriage at all since marriage grants over 200 rights and domestic partnerships only grant about 43 basic, decent, human rights. In addition, if you're so concerned about the amount of taxpayers' money being spent, how about talking to the Wisconsin Family Council, who is challenging it. Or, as I like to call them, the Wisconsin Family - you better believe in our hateful, bigoted, right-wing, so-called Christian family - Council.
Aug 8, 2009 at 2:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Christians - How can anyone be against such basic, decent, human rights? Even if you don't agree with homosexuality and can quote Bible verse after Bible verse, how can you not see that these are human rights that will help protect fellow members of the human race? This is why I question you so-called Christians. You are so wrapped up in hating and judging others based on a few Bible verses that you lose sight of the universal, timeless scriptures like "Love one another as I have loved you."
Aug 8, 2009 at 2:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hmmmm...I wonder if a lot of those marriages were just based on "physical pleasure"?
Aug 8, 2009 at 2:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
By the way, check out the number of divorces in Rock County next time it appears in the paper. Also, check out the number of months or years that some of the straight couples have been together. Then, compare it to that lesbian couple who have been together for more than twenty years. Straight marriage is SO stable and such a model for everyone.
Aug 8, 2009 at 2:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeoBartly - In reference to your comments, there have been cases where legal documents were in place to insure protection for same sex couples, but they were ignored or challenged. Google "Langbehn" to check out one such case. Regarding procreation, I think we all get it - a man has to be with a woman to reproduce. Regarding your comments about same sex couples, it seems to me that you are implying that they are only together for "pleasure" as you put it. Wow! That must be shocking to the lesbian couple in Madison who registered after spending 20 some years in a loving, caring, committed relationship. Boy, that must be some sex!
Aug 7, 2009 at 9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Funny Sarah...Truly a good chuckle from here.
...and to those whom are about to be disapointed by the repeal; It isn't small mindedness to view beyond the finacial gains that we could use to educate ourselves, to earn and provide ourselves with proper insurance coverage. It isn't a protection by feds issue that is in question here/ nor is it racial.(So that tid bit of the past does not count.) It's not an issue that cannot be legally handle and bound by the system for any purposes such as designation of Power of Attorney.( I mean seriously folks, use our brain.)
I am not small minded, nor did I throw out the biblical implications card to be frowned upon, or irradicated. I simple stated Nature, for those whom do not understand the purpose of Creation? Get back to basics. Let me clarify, it takes opposite sexual genders to create by natural laws, thus furthering the survival of the species.( Don't give me invetro~ please, I said natural law.)
Because we do not feel something is directly influentual upon our own selves. Because we can say, 'I'll look other way and ignore it.' Because I can say it doesn't indirectly effect me. Or because what others do is condoned or admonished; holds little relavance to the direct point in something being wrong.
The seven deadly sins may bring about a new view.(Do substitute this matter with all the other points atleast once for a clear thought process.) What if we were not speaking of same-sex-consideration? Implicate the point not the average minded individuals. Attempt to instill negative emotions upon those whom know the natural laws, yet that probably won't effect us though because we use our brain.( Not our...er um never mind that, I don't dig-on people for their lack of self restraint or unreasonabilities.)
When this is repealed, then come back at me and belittle me for being something that I am not, thank you.
Aug 6, 2009 at 3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
displacedworker- If best friends pretend to be gay to get health coverage... is that such a crime to begin with? I'f rather have someone covered by a health plan than see them, the hospital, and us pay for a huge catastrophic bill.
Aug 5, 2009 at 10:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Well, my partner of 11 years and I went down yesterday to register! I think it's a good start! Now if only I could get my partner covered under my insurance benefits, that are much better than hers. It makes me feel better though knowing we at least have a little more protection than we had before. Thank you Gov Doyle!
Aug 5, 2009 at 6:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
This whole topic is sooooo gay.
Aug 5, 2009 at 2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
futurerichguy- I think she left the pool a while ago, that is if she ever was in the Janesville pool. The caption says the picture was taken in the Racine County Courthouse.
Aug 5, 2009 at 12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'm not sure what they are requiring for this particular domestic partnership, but for insurance you need to meet 5 of 7 specific criteria to qualify, whether same sex or not. I don't know them all, but the ones I do know are; a rental or mortgage in both names, life insurance policies with the other partner as the beneficary and/or a joint checking account.
Aug 5, 2009 at 12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
The shame in this is that Jen is being taken out of an already shallow dating pool here in Janesville for hetero men.
Aug 5, 2009 at 12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Does it really matter if someone is gay or straight? We are all human and love is a wonderful thing if you can find it. Who cares if it's 2 men or 2 women in love, or 1 man and 1 woman? It is not a crime to be gay, nor is it a crime to be in love. Same sex couples should get the same treatment as opposite sex couples, legally. Isn't that what this article is about?
Aug 5, 2009 at 11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Janesvillean: Thanks for the correction. For some reason, I thought Batman was Robin's uncle in the old TV series that I watched as a child. But, then, I thought SpongeBob on here was a contraceptive ... maybe his parents thought so too. Also, evansvillehousewife: Not all church-approved sex is boring.
Aug 5, 2009 at 11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
And who is "we"?
Aug 5, 2009 at 11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hey, I'm just asking. By the way, to the best of my knowledge I have never had sex in a church. Unless you count the Jimmy Carter kind.
Aug 5, 2009 at 11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Also, Gary, I have seen straight weddings where the bride and groom are dressed like stormtroopers/ goths/star trekkies... why should we stop at Batman and Robin?
Aug 5, 2009 at 11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Garyprimer- Are you pushing for heterosexual couples to prove their straightness before marriage? Perhaps we should, it would have saved poor Larry Craig and Ted Haggart such horrible "misunderstandings"
And don;t ask to require proof from gays that you aren't willing to give up. We don't want to see your boring church approved sex life; we don't care and we just assume you and your wife have one. So give gays equal respect and leave them alone. You are one of the many Xtians that think that just by gays and gay unions existing they are 'shoving their lifestyle down your throat."
Aug 5, 2009 at 11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
I am actually quite shocked that the comments are mostly positive! I think that is great; bout time Janesville wasn't so narrow minded.
At the place that I work we have offered health benefits for domestic partners forever but they are also available to people living together of the opposite sex. There is a number of things that you have to provide to show commitment and the establishment of a relationship though.
I personally don't understand why gay couples can't marry. Why should the government care? I guess the only benefit that could cost the government money is the tax credit you get.
I know this is a small victory for gay couples and I want to wish you all a congratulations and keep pushing for equal rights!
Aug 5, 2009 at 11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
No, none of the Robins were related to Bruce Wayne, SarahB1. But Dick Grayson was his ward, so it probably would have triggered a child-services investigation.
.
garyprimer, the entire point is that the law does not care what people do in their bedroom, which seems to be of very high concern to you. I wonder why that is.
Aug 5, 2009 at 11 a.m.
Suggest removal
I don't believe in special classes of people. if the institution of marriage is to exist then it needs to exist for everyone.
Aug 5, 2009 at 10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Batman and Robin would have been incest.
Aug 5, 2009 at 10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Is it required that both partners be homosexual? How do they determine that both partners are homosexual? Are they required to participate in sex with each other in order to qualify? How do they determine that this occurs? Can brothers or sisters or first cousins apply? What about BFF's? What about tag-team wrestlers? What about Batman and Robin?
Aug 5, 2009 at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Neobartly-
Yeah, it's all about the money... remember after Brown Vs. Board of Education? And all the money wasted on protecting those little girls as they walked into a school and had to be protected by the National Guard?
THink about it... our country has the most military spending... and the military is there to protect freedom.
I know it's cliche', but freedom isn't free. It costs money to insure ALL get their rights, not just the rich. if you don't throw in your Buck Oh Five, who will?
Aug 5, 2009 at 10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
"But I don't believe the constitution needs revamping because one chooses to go-by-the-wayside and decide that their form of sexual pleasure deserves the same rights"
Our state constitution was revamped when the marriage definition referendum passed...
I think it is funny that you narrow this argument down to pleasure, when what its really about is equal rights. I am sure you would feel differently if you belonged to a minority that suffered discrimination, and you would be yelling the loudest to be treated equal. What it boils down to is equal rights. Don't try to embellish the discussion with any religious/moral implications to make yourself feel better. At the end of the day, you just wish to impose discrimination on a group of minorities that you don't agree with...
Aug 5, 2009 at 10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
How much money has been "burnt" up by a select group OPPOSING these unions. Why do people feel so threatened by this type of COMMITTED relationship?
Aug 5, 2009 at 9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Can anyone guess how much money this select group has burnt up in the legal system?" - Burnt up? I think it's money well spent. Everyone deserves to have the same rights regardless of gender, race, age, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. I know it's hard for you to wrap your antiquated brain around, but they don't "decide" to be gay. They are born that way. They should not be punished or have rights taken away because of who they are. Fifty years ago it was illegal for interracial couples to marry. A hundred years ago you could actually buy and sell a human being. Sometimes laws are wrong and need to be changed.
Aug 5, 2009 at 9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Let them suffer like the rest of us married couples. I bet the lawyers want gay marriage legalized.
Aug 5, 2009 at 8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Neo:
very hipacritical..you believe that it is alright for same sex couples to be in a relationship but not for same sex couples to have the right to get married or have benefits. What is the difference. Is their relationship hurting you in some way? And let's just see...how long ago was the constitution written? How many other laws written around the same time have been changed due to the changing world and economy?? Would I choose their life...no. Do I object to it...no. It is their choice.
As far as the wills go, have you ever been in a situation when you were young and something very unexpected happened to your wife/husband? Didn't think so. There is not always the thought of a will at young ages, especially that concerning what would happen for medical circumstances. You are just being ignorant about the whole thing. Sounds more like to me you can't make up your mind on what you want to believe.
Aug 5, 2009 at 8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
cute couple
Aug 5, 2009 at 4:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ok. Someone has to do this, may as well be me.
'People let me tell yah 'bout my Bestest Friend,' singing fades off into the night.
What persons desire for sexual pleasures is to each their own. Living wills take care of medical arguments, where the money goes if so be it a death, any of the multitude issues that could arise to be questioned can be handles legally way before they become an issue for same Friends couples. Most of the arguments are lame or simply can be made mute.
I do not believe that parents, society, or the simple natural laws forbode the individuals knowledge of whats procreationaly-correct. If one gets their kicks from same gendar, so be it. Have at it. But I don't believe the constitution needs revamping because one chooses to go-by-the-wayside and decide that their form of sexual pleasure deserves the same rights as, forever has been known Nature Supported Creation Rules.
Funs fun, if that trips their trigger fine. But to change the natural order of Life, and force it upon all tax payer, as it will eventually scoop up moneys as these things do; is wrong in so many ways. Can anyone guess how much money this select group has burnt up in the legal system? How much time has been wasted on this private issue, not civil correctness. Whether you care about this matter or feel so what let them have civil unions, we all know right from wrong. This is just wrong. And when I asked a couple, they too knew and said in harmony;' yes this is wrong, but it is our choice.'
Nuff said for this issue.
Aug 5, 2009 at 1:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
momof5: suppose they did. That would be wrong because ... ?
.
Statements like that really make it crystal clear that this is about controlling other persons' lives.
.
sannio: a guide can be downloaded at the Fair Wisconsin website.
http://www.fairwisconsin.com/
.
There is also a list at Wikipedia, although it appears to be partial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition...
.
For a full list you'll probably have to work through the Act itself starting at S773.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/a...
Aug 4, 2009 at 9:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think I have something in common with these two.
Aug 4, 2009 at 9:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
When they determine that this is not legal, does everyone get their money back?
Aug 4, 2009 at 7:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Go to Fair Wisconsin and you can click on a link that will take you right to the official document.
Aug 4, 2009 at 7 p.m.
Suggest removal
Momof5...not sure about this situation, but my company did not allow unmarried hetero couples the same benefits because hetero couples DO have the option of marriage.
Personally, I think everyone should have the right to marry. Am always reminded of something an anthropology professor once said, "Marriage just establishes rights of inheritance."
Aug 4, 2009 at 6:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
I've read about this list of 200 benefits vs 40 benefits several times now. Would someone please produce this list, or a link?
Aug 4, 2009 at 5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
I haven't followed this very carefully, but can unmarried hetero couples also apply for the same benefits?
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.