Last week the Wisconsin legislature's Joint Finance Committee approved recognizing domestic partnerships in the proposed state budget. If the budget is approved with this provision, domestic partners would have the same legal rights as married couples to make hospital visits and end-of-life decisions.
At the same time, a proposal is moving forward initiated by Governor Doyle and key legislators that would make domestic partners eligible to receive state health insurance and retirement benefits.
While the state has a long way to go to reverse the offensive constitutional amendment adopted two years ago that deprived anyone in a domestic partnership the right to marry and receive all of the protections and rights of marriage, this is a start.
In another generation all such offensive laws and constitutional provisions will be history. It will also accelerate the decline of the Republican Party.
A March 12, 2009 CNN poll is fairly reflective of the generational divide. 64% of all 18-45 year olds support either legal marriage or civil unions. Support is only 45% among those over the age of 64.
Meantime, support for gay marriage has grown from 20% in 2004 to 33% in 2009.
I recall Scott Milfred of the Wiscosnin State Journal writing in 2006:
Young Will Grow Older And Legalize Gay Marriage
...As a barely young person, I guarantee you that support for gay marriage among the younger generations of Americans is only going to increase.
And eventually this narrow majority of support for gay marriage will become an overwhelming majority among the young. And people like me will increase support among the old folks, too.
It's a given. It's a done deal.
It's why, before too long, gays and lesbians will marry throughout the United States.
There's nothing the opponents of gay marriage can do to stop this from happening. All they can hope for -- and they certainly are hoping and fighting hard for this -- is that it will be later than sooner.
The clock is ticking.
One more liberal nail in the death of morality in the U. S. When will this madness end.
Posted by: John Hyland, Appleton, WI | May 26, 2009 at 07:59 AM
Having evolved to indifference over gay marriage, I think the problem is with the term marriage and its religious connotations. As often happens, the argument is posed as a choice between two extremes and since neither extreme appears to be looking for a good faith solution, I think some contractual arrangement sanctioned by the state is a good compromise. Let's leave religion to churches and contracts to states.
Posted by: nonheroicvet | May 26, 2009 at 02:01 PM
"Holy Matrimony" is what religions do - they can include or exclude whomever they want.
"Legal Marriage" is what the states do, a civil contract that should be available for any consenting adults.
As "marriage" is a term of art that permeates our legal system, it should be the term used to define the civil contract, not the religious one.
Posted by: Ex-pat cheesehead | May 26, 2009 at 05:50 PM
Hey, I'm hep...I see no problem if a gay guy wants to marry a lesbian.
Posted by: R.J. | May 26, 2009 at 10:39 PM
"All they can hope for is that it will be later than sooner" Too true. If you read about the discussions the segregationists had back during the civil rights era, it was exactly the same attitude: this thing is inevitable, but we need to prevent it as long as possible and milk it as much as we can.
It's so irritating how little attention this reality seems to receive in the media, where commentators describe Proposition 8 in California as "vindication" for the religious right, as if the numbers haven't changed drastically in favor of gay rights in just the last few years.
Posted by: The Sconz | May 27, 2009 at 07:40 AM