Interesting ID having a "69" at the end. (Just joking.)

I don't know, timsmom69, maybe it had something to do with calling gays denegrates??? Are you truly that ignorant? Obviously people can live together without being "partners". Also, you basically sign your life away when registering as domestic partners in any shape or fashion. You sign legal documents and there is such a thing as perjury.

To respond to ktaustin, I would say that there may be some reports that would support your claim, but professional associations related to psychology and child development all seem to agree that the sexual orientation of parents has no bearing on the emotional development of the child. For example:

From the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychology (1999): "It has long been established that a homosexual orientation is not related to psychopathology, and there is no basis on which to assume that a parental homosexual orientation will increase likelihood of or induce a homosexual orientation in the child.

Outcome studies of children raised by parents with a homosexual or bisexual orientation, when compared to heterosexual parents, show no greater degree of instability in the parental relationship or developmental dysfunction in children."

From the American Psychological Association (2004): "Research has shown that the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish (Patterson, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001)"

From the American Psychoanalytic Association (2002): "Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are capable of meeting the best interest of the child and should be afforded the same rights and should accept the same responsibilities as heterosexual parents."

I would suggest that, if the studies you mention had merit and could demonstrate impact, the professional associations would give them creedence. But from the statements above, it seems as if they have not.

Screw (no pun intended) all this. Just go with Obama's plan to make sure everyone has access to health care coverage. It will go from job to job with you ... it's time has come, folks.

ktaustin, your logic is sort of flawed. By what you are saying, you're suggesting that a brother and sister that live together should be entitled to domestic partner benefits???

And also, regarding your comment about gay couples having broken homes, that is simply as ignorant as saying same-sex marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage (which is, in fact, incorrect anyway because DIVORCE destroys the sanctity of marriage FARRRR sooner than gay marriage does). Why would you discourage making people happy? Why would you discourage someone from being themselves? Why are you discouraging FAMILY??? Believe it or not, we, as gay people, DO aspire to have happy families with solid careers that provide for their families and children. Why are people like you so concerned about what people do in their bedrooms instead of how they can help and provide for their families and communities?

I think my earlier comment was misunderstood so I will clarify. I think it is unfair to offer domestic partner benefits to a homosexual couple (who have deed in both names, on each others life insurance, etc), but NOT offer domestic partner benefits to 2 family members who are living together. Actually I don't even see why it should matter that they are related, but the example that comes to mind is some extended families, or brother/sister living together, etc. My point is, what's the difference between a couple gay guys living together and a couple brothers living together? One couple has sex, the other doesn't. To offer benefits to one but not the other makes no sense.

Aside from that, the other option is to just offer benefits to a married spouse only, because in this society we are supposed to be encouraging positive family units. Homosexual families are, at best, as good as broken homes involving divorced single parents, step-families, etc, which we as a society (and as a government) should be discouraging. There are studies that support that claim although I don't have time to look them up now.

its when the few(dane county) take a stand that the majority take notice and bills get sponsored. bravo county of dane:)

Many people here are missing the point. This is a case of the few (Dane County) forcing the many to their respective view point. As of today, domestic partnerships are not recognized by the state. If the many in the state wanted this, get a state senator or representative to sponsor a bill and get the law changed. Unless the law is changed, this should not be forced upon the few within Dane county.

From thekid3477: "but on that note why do they have a rite to tell you who its ok to love/marry??"

Thank you for pointing out our willingness to overlook that which serves our purpose. I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw that.

I've listened to people who complain about the slightest bit of government oversight indicate in the next sentence that this same government should be able to tell someone if they have a 'suitable' relationship. The hypocrisy is astounding.

From lil_joe: "When does government have a right to determine what a private business must do?"

Strictly speaking, the government isn't determining what a private business must do - they are saying that they choose to consider for only those offering this benefit for work on their projects.

Perfectly acceptable and happens all the time - They are simply making a decision on who they wish to do business with.

and lil joes rite. why does the govt have a rite to tell a private business what to do?? but on that note why do they have a rite to tell you who its ok to love/marry??

im w janesvillean. i dont understand why we waste time talkin about this. how the sex of someone is relevant to anything is beyond me. arent 'all men created equal'....

My employer has fairly strict requirements for registering as domestic partners. We had to sign an affidavit stating that we were in a long-term, committed relationship for at least six months, we had to have a lease or mortgage/deed in common (for the "primary residence...” BOTH of our names had to be on the mortgage), we had to have a common bank account with significant funds, we had to be listed on each other's life insurance policies, etc. I would imagine that the Dane County registry will require many of the same things, so the idea that just anyone can register as domestic partners probably won't reflect reality. Also, I pay for the domestic partner benefits, my employer only offers my partner and I ACCESS to those benefits. I still pay for them.

As for the higher cost , just wait for the lawsuits.

All the contractors have to do is NOT offer benefits to ANYONE to be compliant. That's a real "step forward".
.
When does government have a right to determine what a private business must do?
.
What's the real reason for this rule? Is it to force social views of the county board onto others?

This is indeed a small step toward equality. I'm sorry for the people living in the last century for whom this is a big deal, but most people under 35 believe this is just the way things should be.
.
If anyone is concerned about the costs here, then they should demand that contractors eliminate benefits for married spouses. After all, that increases costs too.

airforceguy, do you have a problem following the money? I'm pretty sure I don't. In states where same-sex marriage is not legal, domestic partners are REQUIRED to pay tax on their partner's benefits (not their own, however, which is like it is for everyone). If I took part in this plan (and if I lived in Dane County), I wouldn't pay taxes on my own benefits but I would pay taxes on my partner's.

So tell me exactly how this would increase taxes because same-sex marriage is not legal in Wisconsin (yet)...

Rockstars – You must have a problem following the money. Contractors working for the State will have to pay more for their workers. That coast will be passed on to the State. And where does the State get its money? TAXES!

Also, why shouldn't something like this be celebrated? This is a step towards equality. And how exactly, Rocky, will this cause taxes to go up? That's a bill that employers will foot.

Hey, timsmom69 (classy name, by the way). Maybe you should go back to thumping that bible. I take offence to that comment. Maybe ignorant fools like you shouldn't get any sort of benefits at all. Troll.

Maybe some of you should do some research on the qualifications for filing for domestic partnership are!

My question is, can 2 siblings living together claim the other for domestic benefits? How about someone getting benefits for their live-in parents? Either offer benefits for spouses only, or you have to open it up to anyone living with you. I don't see why having sex with each other should be what qualifies you for domestic benefits.

The article states that befeits have to offered (not paid for) by companies. Taxes should not be affected at atll. This would be an out-of-pocket expense for the employee. It also states that benefits would be offered to ALL domestic partners, both same sex and opposite sex. So many poeple do not have access to health care - I applaud cities and companies doing what they can to make health care availabe to as many people as possible.

Don't celebrate too quickly. It's only a matter of time before Rock County follows suit.

Yea! We are in Rock County. I feel bad for Dane County residents as their taxes will undoubtedly increase as fewer and fewer contractors bid for jobs, and those that do will have much higher costs (and fees).

Of course, the businesses may just drop coverage for spouses as well.....