Wednesday, July 01, 2009

Lining Up for Taxpayer-Funded Benefits

Just remember… we were told that this would not cost anything more. 

If Dane County Clerk Bob Ohlsen’s hunch is correct, the first Monday in August is going to be a hectic day at his office.

That’s the day same-sex couples across the state, including an estimated 1,400 to 2,400 couples living in Dane County, will be able to take advantage of a historic piece of legislation signed Monday by Gov. Jim Doyle that for the first time recognizes domestic partnerships across the state. Along with the recognition come dozens of legal protections that previously were only granted to married couples, including the right to take family leave to care for a sick or dying partner, the ability to access a partner’s medical records and the right to inherit a partner’s property. In addition, Doyle approved granting health care benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees.

“My sense is we are going to be swamped,” Ohlsen says. “Even for those who already get benefits for their partner through their employer, there is a huge advantage to applying to the registry.”

Applying for the registry is the same as applying for a marriage license. Couples must provide proof of residence, certified copies of their birth certificates and their Social Security numbers. For those who have been previously married, a certified death certificate or divorce judgment is required. The fee is also the same as a marriage license, $115 per couple in Dane County.

To qualify for the new legal protections, two individuals must be at least 18 years old, members of the same sex, share a common residence, not be nearer of kin than second cousins and not be married or in another domestic partnership.

Jed and I would have fit those criteria once upon a time.

(8) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1704 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Not be closer that second cousins?

    So not only did that budget make Wisconsin an even BIGGER tax hell, but it also made us a bunch of in breds too?

    Wisconsin; just like Kentucky, only with higher taxes!

    Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on July 01, 2009 at 1714 hrs


  2. Sounds like an economic boon to me - all those registration fees.  And Cheaney, your comment makes no sense.  “NOT closer than second cousins” - how does that lead to inbreeding?  It’s the same standard as for marriage in this state.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2009 at 1848 hrs


  3. So, members of the opposite sex who are not married, but may live together, do not recieve this benefit.

    Hmm…sounds like the government is discriminating against a group of people based on their sexual preference. 

    Hmm.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2009 at 1902 hrs


  4. It was a joke seashell. Lighten up!

    And cousins ARE related.

    Hence the inbreeding comment.

    Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on July 01, 2009 at 1928 hrs


  5. That’s a stupid argument, Mr. PP. They can receive the same benefits. All they have to do is get married. And then they would receive MORE benefits than is being offered with this legislation.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2009 at 2021 hrs


  6. No, they should have the right to not get married, just like some believe they have the right to get married.  Thus, if an opposite sex couple exercises their right to not get married, then they should be afforded the same benefits under this program. 

    It’s clearly discriminatory.  Or, are charges of discrimination only valid and substantiated when it comes from a left-leaning group? Let’s ask Judge Sotomayer about that. 

    Arguments, by the way, are neither stupid nor smart; they can be valid, lucid, sound, etc….or that to the contrary. 

    Only people can be stupid or smart.  I trust you’re not calling me stupid.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2009 at 2205 hrs


  7. I guess I don’t understand the second cousins thing either. It’s not like they are going to have a baby together.

    The whole thing is a farce. We become another magnet for even more ultra liberals.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2009 at 0018 hrs


  8. It’s going to be fun watching Jullaine Appling scramble on this one.  Remember during the debate over the Constitutional amendment, she alleged that the amendment wouldn’t ban domestic partnerships.  Once the amendment was approved, however, she changed her tun.  We always knew that she was a hypocrite; now we know that she is a liar as well.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2009 at 0710 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.