Starting now, equality takes a step forward.
From The Washington Post:
At 12:01 a.m. Tuesday, the District will begin recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions under a new law approved in May.
. . . .
Issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples remains illegal, however, the D.C. Council is expected to take up a legalization bill in the fall.
And, in Wisconsin, despite a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, domestic partnership benefits will soon be available to those couples, per the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Starting Aug. 1, couples will be able to apply for a declaration of domestic partnership with their county of residence and would pay a vital records fee for processing the paperwork. Partnerships will be dissolved through a termination process at the county clerk’s office.
Couples would be offered 43 of the more than 200 rights and benefits extended to married couples, 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.
With our work, change is happening, at every level, all around us.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Chris Geidner is the award-winning senior political editor at D.C.'s Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, The American Prospect, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications, as well as at his blog, Law Dork. In 2011, he received the Excellence in News Writing Award from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for his coverage of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal. Prior to moving to D.C. in 2009, he served as an attorney on the senior staff at the Ohio Attorney General's Office and had earlier worked for a leading Columbus law firm. An extended biography can be found
Chris, before the trolls arrive, do you know anything about the intricasies of Wisconsin law. I remember when the wave of anti-marriage amendments were passing, there were some states where the campaign ‘promised’ it would not affect ‘civil unions’ or other benefits already given, and once passed, proved to do so, to bar any civil union benefits.
If Wisconsin was one of these, and there is a suit against this decision — and there will be whatever the other facts are — is there any possibility a judge could rule it unconstitutional because of a conflict with other provisions, much as the California decision may go?
Prup, I moved to WI shortly before they passed this heinous amendment. The pro hate forces here had no qualms about banning marriage and unions: the amendment “provides that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.” There is currently a suit to rule the amendment unconstitutional on a technicality (two issues presented at once): http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/45044032.html. We’ll see how it turns out, but I’m not hopeful given WI jurisprudence.