carlitosway - Polyamory is not the same thing as polygamy. Not that I have a particular problem with polygamy. I think it's a legitimate question.

Zoso polyamy not legal in Wisconsin. To make something so positive become so negative is so typical of the same few, as always. brwe IMO Hateful bigot. dakman WELL SAID. notfromhere Thank you I was thinking the same. To those that are still stuck with Romney and most of the GOP back in the 50's may you be blessed with many Open minded Children and Grandchildren that can accept your bigotry and learn to understand if they choose a different life style that the will not look to you for support. And pray they do not learn such hate from the likes of you. God Bless the City Council members for do the right thing.

there are plenty of married couples without a joint bank account, and there are plenty of married couples who receive benefits from their spouse who don't live together. How many families were split as a result of GM closing? This is a joke!

http://www.postcrescent.com/article/2011...

The link above provides both sides of the debate over this topic in play in Appleton, WI.

The FairWisconsin website does list Wisconsin cities that offer domestic partner benefits coverage.

@mrsjoe- Funny!

There are very legitimate oversight and fiscal issues here. These can not be put down or extinguished by a red herring comment that anyone who raises concerns about this proposal is "bigoted" or "out of touch." As, if you say yourself, this city is dying, then IS THIS a priority and how will we pay for and oversee this program. Simple hard questions requiring direct, thorough answers. I would like to see what other cities our size and economic condition are doing this and how is it REALLY working. Some research, please.

In order to qualify both names need to be on the mortgage/lease, joint bank accounts. Change IRS tax filing status to include domestic partners so people can file joint returns. Responsibilities should go along with benefits.

I was waiting for all the archaic , out of touch, bigoted comments! Get with it people its 2012! My company has been offering domestic partner benefits for years! In reality how many city workers actually will apply for this? So all of you concerned taxpayers, don't get your undies In a bind. This dying city has more to worry about than if "Joe and John" want domestic partner benefits.

Just let gay people get married already. They deserve to be just as miserable as every one else.

wow...just legalize marriage for anyone who wants it so this isn't an issue...

@brwe, I'm a taxpayer, and I would very much like my contributions to aid domestic partnerships. So kudos to the six other council members who stood up for my tax dollars. And shame on Mr. DuWayne for his archaic and possibly bigoted beliefs.

+1 for Saxcat, treat everyone as single, that way no one is disciminated against.

They also have to have filed a declaration of domestic partnership with the Rock County Clerk’s Office or with the state or having filed an affidavit of domestic partnership with the city, so it's not just a matter of a lease and a bank account.

In the state of Wisconsin I could get married and divorced every six months if I wanted to, and accomplish the same thing except I'd get a tax benefit too. Actually, if I got divorced here, and remarried in Vegas (or IL or IA) I could get remarried sooner than 6 months. So what's your point?

The problem that is going to arise is in the dissolution of the domestic partnership, the requirements for that, and how it is handled. My assumption is that partners would be able to cobra the same as ex-spouses in a divorce scenario, but how do you go about dissolving it? Also, would the certification of a Domestic Partnership at the courthouse be treated as a major life event which allows mid-year insurance changes, or would they have to wait until the open enrollment period?

This would all be very simple if we would just legalize gay marriage. Plus, that would eliminate the option of opposite sex couples that want all the benefits of being married (like health insurance through a significant other's employer) but don't actually want to commit themselves to marriage.

Health insurance is so expensive for companies that a lot of them are going to a system that requires a spouse to take insurance through their own employer if they have the option. Sometimes they are required to pay a penalty if the spouse does not take insurance through their own employer, if they allow exceptions at all. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point that became the trend with the majority of employers in order to be able to offer any kind of affordable insurance to their employees. Another option I can see happening is that employers will offer coverage to employees, spouses, domestic partners, and family coverage, but will only contribute toward the premium of the employee's coverage. So you can get insurance for your spouse and kids, but you have to pay the entire premium amount. It's not entirely unheard of at this point, so it's definitely something that could happen much more frequently in the future if insurance costs continue to go up.

Keep in mind that the city will need to set up a level of bureacracy to oversee this construct. That will cost money and rigorous oversight. At a time when the city has/is cutting positions and condensing responsibilities into existing positions how will this be done? Who will oversee this and how much will it cost the city? Has this been thoroughly thought out? Ultimately, why are we doing this? For whose benefit and for what purpose?

Kudos to DuWayne Severson for his courage in standing up for the taxpayers!

A joint lease and savings account? Sounds like they can rotate partners every six months or so. What happens to the status of the old partner? Are they simply dropped or grandfathered into the plan? Sounds like a good way to help a friend with medical trouble - put their name on the lease and small savings account, and just like magic the city will pick up the medical tab. What a wonderful deal for somebody.

"City Manager Eric Levitt said the city will fine-tune the policy by adding a way to monitor the status of domestic partners and defining the length of time couples must be together before they can apply for benefits."

With the state of many marriages today, I think they should be more worried with monitoring the status of marriages.

lol olderandornerier, I wonder what the premiums are for an overweight chain smoking dachshund?

What a farce. Next they will include pets.

So does this mean that of all three of my live in girlfriends will get benefits?

I agree with saxcat, the individual is the way to go it will require more self responsibility as well, what a novel concept.

If you are involved in a polyamorous relationship, can you claim more than one domestic partner for health-care benefits?

headaches headaches expenses. I'm all for everyone having the same opportunity, but the current system won't allow it. treat everyone as single.

This reeks of loopholes. Good luck dealing with the mess that it creates.....