David Taintor

Gov. Jim Doyle has proposed in his budget a domestic partner registration in Wisconsin, according to a Feb. 23 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article.

Doyle said this does not violate the marriage amendment because it would just give same-sex couples basic legal protections.

Under a constitutional amendment approved in 2006 by 59 percent of voters, same-sex marriage is not allowed as well as any legal status identical or similar to marriage, the article stated.

Even though people think that this would create a legal status that seems like marriage, I agree that same-sex partners should have the legal right to make marriage-like decisions.

The president of Wisconsin Family Action, Julaine Appling, said the proposal was a direct assault to the amendment.

I wonder what Ms. Appling, and people that think like her ,would do if they had a same-sex partner.

What Doyle proposed is to give them limited legal protections, such as allowing domestic partners to take family and medical leave to care for a seriously ill partner, make end-of-life decisions and add health care coverage. This type of protection would only give same-sex partners about 43 rights out of the more than 200 rights and benefits to married couples.

I am a straight woman. I’ve been dating a guy for more than two years now, and even though I’m Catholic I still believe that every human being deserves the same rights and benefits.

According to the Gay Demographics Organization, the census information on gay and lesbian couples’ projection for 2004 for same-sex marriages was 707,196.

All of those couples don’t have legal protection for their households. They can’t make decisions based on their sexual orientation.

It’s absurd, as if we are going back to slavery, when blacks couldn’t vote and didn’t have the same rights as whites. Or when women couldn’t vote because of their gender.

Same-sex couples deserve to be treated equally. They pay their taxes like everyone else, they vote like everyone else and they are forming a family, like everyone else.

It is only fair that they too can be responsible for their households like everyone else.

In the article, Doyle made it clear as to who could be allowed to count for a domestic partner registration. These couples would have to prove that they are 18 or older, are not married or in another domestic partnership, share a common residence, and are not nearer kin than second cousins.

These protections would help these couples to take care of each other.

It would also allow for people to see that a same-sex partnership is also a committed relationship.

These couples should be allowed to have the peace of mind knowing that if something were to happen to one of them that there is a law that protects not only their material goods, but above all, that it protects their family.

This proposal is not the first one in the country. Even though Oregon banned same-sex marriage, they allow domestic partnership.

This was done before and I’m sure it won’t be the last time it is done either. This kind of protection shouldn’t even have to go through a process that could get denied.

The article stated that when couples apply for declaration of domestic partnership they would pay a fee to process the paperwork, just like any vital records are administrated.

What Doyle is doing is making it possible for these couples to have basic protections. The key word there is basic, he is not saying Wisconsin allows same-sex marriage, because it’s banned by the Constitution. But, giving them these rights is just a small portion of what they deserve as human beings.

Doyle also said he would like to extend these benefits to state employees, but the only problem with that is that two years ago the Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimated that providing domestic partnership to state employees would cost $7.6 to $15.2 million a year, the article stated.

Although the time doesn’t seem right at this point, given the state’s $5.7 billion deficit and all the budget cuts, the proposition for domestic partnership should not be forgotten.

If the proposal doesn’t pass, I hope the reason for rejecting it is that there isn’t enough money to cover all same-sex couples and not because people think same-sex couples don’t deserve to have these rights that may resemble to marriage, even though they don’t.

These are basic protections that all couples should have, out of respect and out of acknowledgement that they too are human beings taking care of their families.

Claudia Lozano is a senior print journalism major and editorial editor of The Spectator. “Breaking Boundaries” appears every Thursday.