Wisconsin's attorney general said Friday he will not defend a new law that grants same-sex couples spousal benefits such as hospital visitation and inheritance, saying lawmakers went against voters' decision not to extend such privileges."When the people have spoken by amending our Constitution, I will abide by their command," said Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, who believes the law is unconstitutional. "When policy makers have ignored their words, I will not."
While both have been accused of shirking their professional obligations, what makes this different from what California's Attorney General Jerry Brown has done is that Brown went against the California constitution as amended by the votes, while this guy appears to be favoring the Wisconsin constitution as amended by the voters.
What prevents hospitals from forming their own policies to recognize same-sex relationships? What prevents someone from making arrangements to leave their estate to their same-sex partner? What is preventing someone for asking their employer to extend benefits coverage to their partners? Not everything has to be done through force of law.
As I have maintained before, bride+groom pairings are marriage, and the kind of voluntary social associations in which the state has the most interest. Other associations, whether involving one sex or both sexes, are different. While it can be argued that the state has an interest in some kind of recognition or regulation of some domestic partnerships, they aren't marriage and should not be treated as such.
0 comments,:
Post a Comment