Click here to view La Crosse Area Weather
Home > News > Story
 Advertisement 

Published - Sunday, December 03, 2006

POST COMMENT | READ COMMENTS (59 comment(s))

Same-sex couples struggle for legal protection


.
MADISON — Once the initial shock and anger began to ebb, Jackie Hind and Kelli Neal assessed the Nov. 7 statewide vote to ban gay marriage and civil unions and decided they needed to take action.

They’d been living in a cocoon in Madison, surrounded by supportive neighbors and co-workers, they concluded. They felt the vote as a rude slap — 59 percent of Wisconsin residents approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, civil unions and anything with a legal status “substantially similar” to marriage.
“The vote just made us realize that so many people around the state are not supportive of us,” said Hind, a speech pathologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “It lit a fire under us to get our financial and legal guardianship issues in order as soon as possible.”

The couple, together 13 years, have two children.

Madison attorney Sandy Holtzman, whose law practice concentrates on services to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, said the amendment has had a similar effect on many couples.

“It has thrown a lot of people into a real state of chaos,” she said. “There are only a handful of legal protections available for same-sex couples to begin with, and the amendment served to prevent any further protections that are so sorely needed.”

Attorneys do not know yet whether the amendment will alter any of the legal protections currently available to same-sex couples, but its passage certainly could embolden someone to contest them, said Leslie Shear, director of the Family Law Project at the Frank J. Remington Center at UW-Madison Law School.

“As you put together these various legal documents, you’re starting to create a status that is substantially similar to marriage,” Shear said. “To me, it’s somewhat ironic that the more you’d do to protect your family, the more open to a challenge you might be.”

Attorneys stress that the legal documents available to same-sex couples are just as applicable to any unmarried couple. And some of the items, such as an estate plan, are fundamental for everyone but particularly crucial for unmarried couples.

In many cases, the documents and forms can be completed without the cost of an attorney. However, “the reality is that you rely on these documents most likely in a crisis when things are called into question, so the best approach is to use a lawyer,” said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Pride, a national organization that advocates for full family equality.

Health care

One of the most basic documents for a person in a same-sex relationship is the power of attorney for health care, said Jennifer Chrisler of Family Pride.

“The reality is that unless you are a legal relative, hospitals can choose not to grant you access,” Chrisler said.

The document allows a person to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated partner, said Madison attorney Michele Perreault.

“Sadly, we have had cases in Wisconsin where domestic partners have been kept out of hospital emergency rooms and intensive care units and their partners have died before it could get sorted out,” she said.

The document also is important if there is disagreement among family members over a course of treatment, she said.

A power-of-attorney document also can incorporate a medical release form addressing the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which led to privacy standards in 2001.

The law limits who can look at and receive your health information, but a release form can allow medical professionals to share the information with a same-sex partner, Perreault said.

People should talk to their health-care providers and extended family members so that there are no delays in honoring the documents, she said.

Hind and Neal: Hind has filled out a power-of-attorney form that includes a HIPAA clause through her employer. Neal intends to do so soon.

Children

Wisconsin’s adoption law allows single homosexuals to adopt, but the state Supreme Court ruled in 1994 that the same law prohibits “second-parent adoptions.”

Second-parent adoptions are those in which a same-sex parent adopts his or her partner’s biological or adoptive child without terminating the legal rights of the first parent.

Three other states also expressly prohibit second-parent adoptions, while 24 states have granted them. In the remaining 22 states, it is unclear whether the law permits them.

“Right now, with a patchwork of protections across the country, it’s sort of a mess,” said Kara Suffredini, an attorney with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Other options are available, but none is as legally binding or as comprehensive as an adoption decree, she said.

One alternative is legal guardianship, which expands the rights and responsibilities of another adult without taking away any legal rights of the biological parent, said Fitchburg attorney Iris Christenson.

Guardianship does not confer inheritance rights, and it can’t guarantee standing in family court in a custody dispute, but it does help in dealing with school and health-care officials, Christenson said. For example, a legal guardian can view school records and authorize medical care.

Securing legal guardianship usually takes about four months and costs about $250 for a court-appointed third party called a guardian ad litem to represent the child’s interests. Attorney fees can run an additional $800 or so if all goes smoothly, more if complications arise, Christenson said.

A recent development in the last five years in Wisconsin is “parentage,” in which full parental rights and responsibilities are conferred by a court to both persons in a same-sex relationship, said Madison attorney Judy Sperling-Newton, who has worked extensively in the area.

With this process, the couple proves to the court that both partners are equal parents based on their intent in creating the child or their taking on of responsibilities for the child, Sperling-Newton said.

The process is different from an adoption, she said. She likened it to man who successfully seeks the paternity of a child he does not need to adopt the child because he’s already the father based on biology. In the case of a same-sex partner, the claim is based on intent instead of biology.

Sperling-Newton thinks parentage, which costs about $5,000, is not threatened by the passage of the amendment because the relationship in question is between a child and an adult, not between two adults.

Other attorneys in Madison say they question the validity of the parentage approach and have declined to offer it as a service for that reason.

Hind and Neal: Hind adopted the couple’s children, Alexander, 6, and Elena, 4, from Guatemala. Because only one person could be named on the adoption papers, Neal has no legal standing if something were to happen to Hind.

“I have no rights to my children, and I feel very vulnerable,” Neal said.

The couple has considered a move to a state that permits second-parent adoptions. Currently, they are seeking legal guardianship.

Finances

Madison attorney Sandy Holtzman has mediated many a dispute between couples who didn’t foresee an argument over money.

She recommends a co-habitation agreement, a contract of sorts that is advisable for any two people living together, even platonic roommates.

The document, similar to a prenuptial agreement, spells out who is responsible for paying which day-to-day bills, such as mortgage, groceries and vehicle costs, Holtzman said. It can be especially important when there is a disparity in assets or debts between partners.

“It’s always nice to agree to these things when everyone is getting along,” Holtzman said.

Another important document is the power of attorney for finances, which allows a person to handle a partner’s obligations if he or she becomes temporarily or permanently incapacitated. Its value extends to other situations, Holtzman said.

“Say two people are living together and one travels out of the country a lot. The person he or she has designated as an agent can sign checks in their absence and pay bills.”

Hind and Neal: The couple has neither a power of attorney for finances nor a co-habitation agreement.

“We are seeking legal advice to find the best way to protect our family,” said Neal, an occupational therapist who currently is a stay-at-home mom while the children are young.

Inheritance

Without a will, state law falls back on marriage and blood relations to determine the distribution of assets, which could exclude a person in a committed relationship, said Madison attorney Sverre Roang.

It is especially critical that estate plans of same-sex partners be well-crafted because anecdotal information suggests these couples face court challenges at a higher rate than the population as a whole, said Roang, who wrote about the topic with colleague Brian Larson in the November issue of “Wisconsin Lawyer.” Often in these challenges, money is of secondary importance.

“The fact is that these relationships are not accepted by everyone,” Roang said. “The risk in one of these relationships is that someone in the family will use the probate process to make their views known or to cause trouble because they didn’t like the relationship in the first place.”

Roang advises people to be explicit in their plans, especially if they’ve decided to leave out relatives. “This lets people know it wasn’t a mistake and that there was thoughtful reflection behind it.”

The choice of a disinterested witness also is critical, Roang said. “Typically you want someone who knows the person only in passing, someone who would have absolutely no ulterior motive.”

Beyond the division of property, an estate plan can address a multitude of issues, including child custody and who gets to handle funeral and burial arrangements, Roang said.

Also, same-sex couples should discuss with an attorney options for minimizing gift and estate taxes items not handled in a will but important to consider, he said.

A relatively basic estate plan will cost $500 to $1,500 in the Madison area, Roang said. Complex estate plans that involve business succession and tax planning can cost many thousands of dollars.

Hind and Neal: Neither has an estate plan. “We need to do that,” Hind said. “The hectic life of raising two children has kept us from getting around to it.”

Doug Erickson is a reporter for the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison.
.
 Advertisement 
 Tell us what you think...

 Comments »

Bucko wrote on Dec 7, 2006 7:09 AM:

" The columnist's note at the end of each section is: They haven't done any thing about it yet or a lawyer can fix that but they haven't done anything yet. What's the struggle finding an attorney? Finances? Just buy a nice fat cheap term life insurance policy for everyone like everyone else has to do. If they care about their children, the custody will go with the $$$ the beneficiary receives for the child's care. These "concerns" are easily remedied and even if the were "married", simply holding the document is not "The Fix". "

To: To 10:08 wrote on Dec 5, 2006 10:54 PM:

" First you say men and women are different. Okay, I buy that. So men have a different type of pool to pick from - women, who are not the same as men. Restrooms are all the same. It is discrimination, it is wrong, and in time it will be overturned. "

TO: Re: Here it is wrote on Dec 5, 2006 10:50 AM:

" Think of it as a bowl with 3 coins in it. The government empmloyees are now taking 2 coins. Statistics are telling us the private sector employee is barely grab one coin. Government contributions to retirement 2-3 times the private sector average, health benefits paid after self 'opted' early retirement until 65. A "rising tide" does not raise all boats. This is not another Dane/Lacrosse County, UW, government bill I want to pick up. "

To:10:08pm wrote on Dec 5, 2006 8:39 AM:

" That is not discrimination-that is simply an acknowledgment that men and women are different. Unless, of course, you want to put forth the arguement that gender-specific restrooms are gender-discrimination. "

Responces to several posts wrote on Dec 4, 2006 10:08 PM:

" 1. The idea that gay men and women should just marry each other: wouldn't that disgrace the institution of marriage more than two gay women getting married? Also, would you want to share in the rights and responsibilities of marriage with someone other than your partner? 2. Gay people CAN and DO have biological children 3. To everyone concerned that if gays could get married so would roommates...umm, abuse of marriage like this is already possible between males and females, and the system hasn't come crashing down. 4. It IS discrimination: using the pool argument...women can not pick a spouse from the same pool as men and vice versa - gender discrimination. 5. And to Rights? - We did try to fight for something similar with a different name - civil unions, which are also banned in the amendment. "

it's not just about the homosexuals wrote on Dec 4, 2006 7:25 PM:

" The amendment will also affect heterosexual couples who are together but not married. This can happen with older couples, who at times do not marry because of finances, families, etc. I would rather the partner who knows a person and cares deeply for a person make decisions on their behalf rather than some "blood relative" that isn't even in contact with their family member. As far as gay adoptions, if the kids are in a loving relationship, let them be nutured. There are enough kids in heterosexual relationships that do not get the nuturing they need. "

Sadly Disappointed wrote on Dec 4, 2006 6:04 PM:

" It strikes me as odd how we, as a society, seem to be working non-stop to remove any and all "indications" of religion in daily life-never has the push for separation of church and state been so strong. Yet, when an issue such as this comes to the forefront, what's the first basis for almost any argument against same-sex marriage? RELIGION. Personally, I have never seen anything wrong with a state recognized (notice I used the word state-not church) union for the purpose of securing benefits, retirement, child custody, etc, regardless of who your partner may be. Perhaps if people had attempted to move beyond the typical knee-jerk response to this issue, the outcome would have been different. Then again, I've always been an optimist. "

RE Here it is.... wrote on Dec 4, 2006 3:36 PM:

" So, who's fault is it that 10% do not have insurance while working? Certainly not same-sex couples! Insurance is a benefit, not a right. Go after employers for insurance. Better yet, we should be like Canada and England where everyone has health care! We all know this is deeper than health insurance and money! Call it for what it is, biggotry and discrimination! "

Here it is wrote on Dec 4, 2006 2:47 PM:

" The 'couple' has been together 13 years. Now a fire is "lit" under them aftter the vote? They have had some legal protections available to them. Over this time the 'couple' does not have power of attorney for finances, nor does it have a cohabitation agreement, you could go on and assume that their is no joint ownership of their home or tenants in common agrement. Neither has an estate plan to name each other. This is about money. Primarily about UW health coverage to grave and bloated WRF contributions and the income derived from it. is is not about SS benefits. No more! Heterosexual live-in pals are already covered under the merit of procurring a checkbook with both their names on it at UW. While 10% of us have no insurance while we are working! "

to:12:54pm wrote on Dec 4, 2006 2:00 PM:

" Granted, but our laws still need to be based on something. I don't totally disagree with you, as long as you acknowledge that if the standard is "is anyone harmed" it should be applied uniformly(i.e.-get rid of all the victimless crimes) Also, no one is saying homosexuality or homosexual behavior should be illegal-only that society shouldn't be forced to endorse and/or sanction it. "

DONT ACCUSE US ALL wrote on Dec 4, 2006 1:12 PM:

" Just because one person makes a statement regarding "financial" burdens this could cause, DONT label us all the same. It has nothing to do with money for myself. It has to do with whether or not I think same sex couples should be able to marry. PERIOD. I do not think same sex couples should marry. Nor do I think "roommates" should marry. And even if the law changes, my personal beliefs will remain the same. "

To: 10:23 wrote on Dec 4, 2006 12:54 PM:

" I don't use my religion to determine laws. Besides, biblical laws have their roots in even earlier social law codes. The thing that makes religious laws different is that they are accepted as being given by God. I suppose you win this one based on the fact that people can vote however they want if they think it's 'wrong', but I find many of these people do their share of 'wrong' behaviors themselves. I doubt we're going to get anywhere with this except that we're looking at it differently, and my main concern is if people are going to be harmed if gay couples get equal rights. "

Ahhh, finally we hit the truth! wrote on Dec 4, 2006 11:29 AM:

" Whew, I didn't think any of you would hit it! You are all worried about your pocketbooks! If same-sex couples are allowed to marry, there will be less in the social security fund, retirement funds, the list goes on and on! You don't really care what they do in their own home, you just don't want any less of your share of the pie! So, if a single gay woman dies at the age of 60 and she has no children, EVERYONE gets a share of her SS money. We certainly can't have her marrying and letting her partner getting her hard earned money she paid to social security for 48 years!! "

Nestor wrote on Dec 4, 2006 10:46 AM:

" Ask and find out how many govenment entities pay health care to grave. Then ask how many also offer this benfit to even heterosexaul live-in pals with no joint ownership, tenants in common, or other agreements. Meanwhile 10% of our WI population has no health benfits even while working! Let alone after 'opted' early retirement. The fact is these two woman may step over almost all these hurdles with drafted documents. This is about money, this is about sharing the future better health benefit and definately about sharing future government contributed retirement benefits. My point, I cannot afford to pay anymore, period? Stop here and now. "

Mr Kennedy wrote on Dec 4, 2006 10:31 AM:

" An answer to RanDomino. Simply put, the ban on interracial marriage specifically said you cannot marry someone because of the color of your skin. A black man could not marry a white woman, but a white man could marry that same woman. Race was the determining factor. The law was discrimination as it did not apply equally to everyone. The law against same sex marriage tells EVERYONE that you cannot marry someone of the same sex, for whatever reason(whether you prefer to or not). It applies to everyone equally, so is not discrimination. Unbelievable that I even have to explain this. "

I'm STILL confused... wrote on Dec 4, 2006 10:23 AM:

" The 9:45 pm 12/3 post did not address my question. You still seem to be saying it is your way or no way. You listed a litany of offenses for which you have no problem imposing your religion(or your morality, whatever)upon others. One of these was drug dealers-I could make the arguement that it is none of our business what dealers/users choose to put into their own bodies, that we should not impose our religious/moral views on them. Again, I ask, why should your views and your morality and your religion be used to determine our laws, but not mine? And please don't allege discrimination/bigotry. That is old and tired-and was addressed by todays 8:48am post. "

Church/State wrote on Dec 4, 2006 9:12 AM:

" For all those complaining about issues of church and state - you're right, I agree completely. Marriage was a religious issue that the state decided to get in on. I say take away the right of the state to grant marriages and let the church be the only one to do so. "

To:9:45pm wrote on Dec 4, 2006 8:57 AM:

" Thanks, but you didn't address my question. Or, if you did, you are saying,yes, it is your way or no way. You listed off a litany of offenses that go against your morality, and feel perfectly comfortable saying they should be legislated against. Should others not have the same right? Peoples morality differ. All of our laws are someones morality being pushed on others. You mentioned drug dealers. I could make the arguement drug dealers and users are making a personal choice and are not harming anyone else. I could say your personal religious beliefs, moral beliefs, whatever shouldn't be used to control others. But, then we would have anarchy. "

Eater of the dead wrote on Dec 4, 2006 8:51 AM:

" Re:7:55am post. God did not instruct people to not marry or procreate with close relatives until some time later. Clearly, it was necessary at the time to populate the earth. Also, the genetic imperfections were not as pronounced in the beginning. For more detail, I recommend Ken Ham and answersingenesis. "

To:RanDomino wrote on Dec 4, 2006 8:48 AM:

" You have to look at the pool of potential partners to determine if discrimination exists. Interracial marriage was discrimination because, as a black man, my pool of potential marriage partners under the law was not the same as that of a white man. Same sex marriage is not discrimination because the pool of potential partners for a straight man is identical to that of a gay man. Before you say a gay man has no desire to marry a woman-that is not the point. The point is-they have the legal right to choose whether to do so or not. Capice? "

marriage wrote on Dec 4, 2006 8:42 AM:

" man and woman, enough said. "

Adam and Eve NEVER married wrote on Dec 4, 2006 7:55 AM:

" They lived together and they had sex with their children. (and their children had sex with each other). Is this the way we want people to behave? "

Re 9:45pm post: wrote on Dec 4, 2006 6:29 AM:

" WOW, hats off to you! You said it all, and very well! Reading all of these comments, I cannot believe how racist and biggoted the people in this area truly are! I will never understand the insane right wingers! "

Rights? wrote on Dec 4, 2006 1:14 AM:

" Why don't the gays just come up with a new term that will have the same meaning and benifits that marriage has, and fight for that. There won't be as much resistance because they won't be messing with the definition of marriage. this issue is as simple as that for many people. "

RanDomino wrote on Dec 3, 2006 10:46 PM:

" To those who say that 'there's no problem because gay people have the same right as everyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex': That's not the issue. Was it a mistake to allow interracial marriage, since before that everyone had equal right to marry someone of the same race? Any two people who love each-other should be allowed to marry. "

To Vance wrote on Dec 3, 2006 10:40 PM:

" Well there you go. Just another reason majority rule should rule. Inter racial marriages were only the start of our messed up, feel good world. Just something else that should have been banned and enforced before it got started. "

kids wrote on Dec 3, 2006 10:11 PM:

" For all of those people out there who feel the gay population is damaging to your children consider that during the civil rights movement parents were teaching their kids that black people or asian people were bad. That would be unherd of today. Kids don't see in black and white. They have a gift that adults don't and that is the ability to accept people for who they are. Kids only care if adults are kind and trustworthy. We adults can all use a lesson from the younger generation. Hate is a LEARNED behavior. The number one way children learn is from observation of adults. Shame on you parents who teach your children to hate. "

I Hope wrote on Dec 3, 2006 9:56 PM:

" I hope everyone who has commented on here voted on this issue. If you did wonderful feel free to comment. But if you didn't you don't have a right to comment. We have the power to change. "

To: I'm confused wrote on Dec 3, 2006 9:45 PM:

" I'm not saying people shouldn't vote their conscience, just that personal religious beliefs shouldn't be used to control others. If I'm a vegetarian for religious reaons, that doesn't mean I should vote to ban meat eating for those who don't observe like me. The 'majority rules' argument doesn't hold up either, because majorities have often oppressed minority groups until those groups took a stand. These people aren't murderers, terrorists, drug dealers or criminals, they just want equal rights. I can't believe how mean some of you people are. "

Nice liberal push wrote on Dec 3, 2006 9:15 PM:

" by the Tribune. Gay Marriage gets voted down by 59% of Wisconsin voters and the Tribune thinks that this issue is a front pager. And people wonder why the main stream press is called the liberal propaganda machine for the Democrats. "

Why do people have to DISCRIMINATE!? wrote on Dec 3, 2006 8:42 PM:

" All you wacko Republicans, go sit in a corner and discriminate against the wall because YOU DON'T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE. You people will NEVER have to deal with them in your life so why are you stiring up trouble with them?? Oh yeah, while in your corner GO READ YOUR BIBLE! Wait, I thought jesus (ew) and god (notice i didnt capitalize it) didn't discriminate against people? "

to 6::25 pm poster wrote on Dec 3, 2006 8:40 PM:

" well done. spoken like a true SP "

RE: Why is this so shocking wrote on Dec 3, 2006 8:28 PM:

" IF "unmarried heterosexual couples" living together are committed enough to be living together and want to have the same legal rights in certain situations, maybe the shoudl follow the LAWS AND RULES like everyone else and get married and stop asking for special privlidges. Man. "

RE: rude slap? wrote on Dec 3, 2006 8:26 PM:

" So well said, always wanting special benefits and complaining about everything - screaming liberals. "

Vance (vances@rocketmail.com) wrote on Dec 3, 2006 8:26 PM:

" "Majority Rules" Well... If the majority was rigt in the 1960's, interacial marriage would have never happened. The majority of America, including elected politicians were against interacial marriage at that time. Yet, it was a court that abolished that terrible law prohibiting those marriages. "Majority Rules" may be the law. However, it remains wrong when the majority is mislead or biggoted via their "Christian" values. The only ones hurt here were children and families. Nothing was gained. "

Eater of the Dead wrote on Dec 3, 2006 7:14 PM:

" Re 6:17 pm post. They are not being discriminated against. It is not a gay marriage ban-it is a same sex marriage ban. It applies to everyone equally. "

I'M confused wrote on Dec 3, 2006 7:13 PM:

" re the 6:25pm post. Are you saying people should not vote their conscience, but that you can vote yours? If they are to "keep their values at home", would that apply to all our laws that govern behavior, or just those laws that govern behavior that YOU think should be acceptable? You need to clarify yourself. You seem to be saying it is your way or no way. "

One question.. wrote on Dec 3, 2006 7:08 PM:

" Do they want some cheese with that whine? "

Simple solution wrote on Dec 3, 2006 7:03 PM:

" If you don't like it...LEAVE "

to: yawn wrote on Dec 3, 2006 6:51 PM:

" Minorities complaining? So, would you then have denied African Americans the right to vote and be treated as equals, or were they just another whining minority? 'Majority rules' isn't always right. "

Just eat it. wrote on Dec 3, 2006 6:50 PM:

" The election was held, the people voted. The law passed, and on the other hand,the democrats regained power. We all just have to live with it, whether we like it or not.The problem with liberals is that nothing is ever settled unless they got their way. If they lose the election, someone had to have stolen it, and they will demand unending recounts. This will be the same. "

to: shame on you all wrote on Dec 3, 2006 6:25 PM:

" Well said! I get tired of so-called Christians who throw the bible around in order to condemn others but are obviously guilty of biblical 'misbehavior' themselves. This wasn't even a religious issue, yet predictably someone had to bring it up. Like others said, keep your faith in your family and stop forcing it on others. These Christians should be more worried about methamphetamine or alcohol issues in the community instead of gay couples--those are the things that will truly bring a family down. "

all 4 u wrote on Dec 3, 2006 6:17 PM:

" i think that gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. gay people shouldn't be hated just because of who they love. "

Minority rules wrote on Dec 3, 2006 5:29 PM:

" Why is it that the minorities always think they can rule the majoraty? Homosexuals are in the minority and I can only hope always will be. Gay marriage has never been a legal thing, so why should it be legalized now? Just so certain people can have certain things they want? As for everyone preaching about the Bible, What did God do to the cities of Sodom and Gamora? Why did he do it? I am not a "Bible thumper" by no means, but Lets all quit using religon to attack others or expect others to be understanding. If you don't like the laws of the land, leave and find somewhere that does. "

yawn wrote on Dec 3, 2006 4:31 PM:

" another story about a minority complaining because they don't get their way. last time i checked our system was a democacy, ie the majority rules. i'm sure they will find a SP judge to legislate via the courts. we were supposed to have seperate branches of government, but somehow the SPs usurp it. "

Re: Why is this so shocking? wrote on Dec 3, 2006 4:14 PM:

" No one is looking for MORE rights, they are simply asking for EQUAL rights. Under this amendment if an unmarried heterosexual couple lives together and the man beats the woman and she presses charges he will only be charged with a misdemeanor and a fine...one month ago it would have been a felony and prison time. But it is all ok because gays can't marry...better they can't marry than justice be served right? "

Will get over it when Hades freezes over wrote on Dec 3, 2006 3:30 PM:

" Being hetero and married, I was nevertheless disgusted with the state I live in when it made bigotry into law. 2006's battle was lost, true, but like HADES will I just "move on". As long as people who see other people as human beings exist, you'd better believe that this battle will be fought again and again. Did Susan B. Anthony "get over it"? Did Frederick Douglas "get over it"? You bigots cloaking your hate in "Christianity" have not heard the last of this issue, anymore than the slavers and male supremicists heard the last of the civil rights pioneers after any of their setbacks. "

Re D.L.----- wrote on Dec 3, 2006 2:35 PM:

" You say "I don't care about gay people!", then throw the bible into it. What a good christian thing to say. Especially when I thought christians are taught to love thy neighbor, not to judge, etc etc etc. And what if one of your children were born gay? YES, I said born gay....because who chooses that?! Will you love them anyway, or banish them from your good christian family? Are YOU admonished for believing in imaginary things or a book put together by the Roman emporor Constantine? What you believe in or worship in your own home is your own business...as is what a gay couple does in their own home. Worry about your sins and leave the rest of the world alone. Religion is the root of all wars, a form of control.....look at what it has done to you. "

Ignorance is truly bliss !! wrote on Dec 3, 2006 2:07 PM:

" Wow, "if....", your statement is the poster child of all statements for biggotry. So, you think the population will dwindle? How so? If you are gay, you are not going to populate. How does making civil unions hurt the population? They are already not populating! Do you think if same sex marriage is illegal, they well turn into heterosexuals and start populating?! It is beyond my comprehension how you people think! Geez, come to think of it, we might be better off all being homosexuals and bringing down the population! I think I will make the switch tomorrow! "

Shame on you all! wrote on Dec 3, 2006 2:01 PM:

" Christians are the biggest hypocrits! Always throwing the bible into things.....but do as you please, just ask for forgiveness if you sin once and a while and it's all good. Stop thinking that your way is the only way and keep your religion in your home, not in mine. If a same sex couple wants to make their union legal, why can't they? Because you don't like it? That isn't a good enough reason. Stop being biggots, live by your own religion without forcing it on others, and let people live their own lives. "

To D.L.- wrote on Dec 3, 2006 1:58 PM:

" You assume that everyone is a christian and that christianity is the only power working here. Take the bible out of politics, like it should be, and look at it in a different perspective. What if the majority of this country were muslim and you were the minority? How would you like to be stoned for showing your face in public if you were a woman? Now, put yourself in the gay perspective and figure out why you can't be a family because christians don't like it. "

Are you kidding me? wrote on Dec 3, 2006 1:12 PM:

" It is so easy to same "why don't they just...." Try for one moment to consider someone else's point of view, imagine never being able to live and love with the protections and right afforded the majority of people. If being gay was the mainstream and hetersexual people had to fight for the right to marry and protect their families would this even be an issue? As far as procreation, open your eyes, gay people won't stop procreation, just because people stop hating homosexuals doesn't mean everyone will become homosexual; that sounds extremely freudian to me and maybe those that believe that should examine their own lives alittle closer. It's a big closet and maybe your a big box in the back? "

re: 9:35 am wrote on Dec 3, 2006 12:48 PM:

" You can't be serious. Giving same-sex couples benefits/legal protection is not going to cause our population to dwindle due to lack of procreation--how did you even come up with that cause and effect theory? "

What? wrote on Dec 3, 2006 12:35 PM:

" Let's see... the population would dwindle? 1. These people aren't procreating anyway! 2. In a world so massively overpopulated, wouldn't that be a nice problem to have? "

D.L. wrote on Dec 3, 2006 10:35 AM:

" I don't care about Gay people And their rights.The bible says Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve. Gay rights should not be promoted. It is pushing the wrong idea to our children, by saying it is alright to be gay, which I am strongly against "

get over it wrote on Dec 3, 2006 9:43 AM:

" the voice at large voted, so deal with it move on. "

rude slap? wrote on Dec 3, 2006 9:38 AM:

" I think having to consider this and vote on such a ludacris ideal is a massive punch to my senses, get over it. If you want the rights, follow the laws ... quit thinking everyone should bow to you. "

if... wrote on Dec 3, 2006 9:35 AM:

" if rights are granted for same sex 'couples' whats to stop roommates that have a non-sexual relationship from reaping those benefits too? I'd marry my roommate to reap the benes, heck ya! The govt will never allow it ... why ... simple .... if everyone was gay, there would be no procreation and the population would dwindle and the country would be taken over. Simple. If may be your right, but its not good for the mass. "

Why is this so shocking? wrote on Dec 3, 2006 2:49 AM:

" I don't understand why people are so shocked by the vote. These people want more rights than heteral sexual people that aren't married. If I live with someone, which I choose to do, I don't get the same benifits that married couples do either. Why should they get more than me? If they want the same befefits they should choose someone to marry that is the opposite sex and then they will get all the marriage benefits. So gay men should find gay women to marry and just live apart. Why don't they just make it simple instead of trying to always push these issues. "


PLEASE NOTE: Comments on stories that frequently update through the day disappear with each update.
The comments above are from readers. In no way do they represent the views of the La Crosse Tribune.

Click here to report offensive or inappropriate comments. Please identify the comment you're concerned about, the story to which the comment was attached, the date of the comment and the person who made the post.

 Post a comment (150 word limit) »

Log In - If you have already signed up with The LaCrosse Tribune, please sign in now!
Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Sign Up - To encourage intelligent and meaningful conversation, The LaCrosse Tribune requires all commenters to register before posting comments. It's quick, it's easy, and it's free! Just fill in the information below to get started!

**Your Member ID and password will be required to log in. Your comments will appear under your user name.

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
E-mail Address:
Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

First Name:
Last Name:
Company:
Home Phone:
Business Phone:
Address:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
 

NEWSPAPER ADS

LACROSSE JOBS

TOP HOMES

 
 
Dailies
La Crosse Tribune
Winona Daily News

Weeklies
Coulee News
The Chronicle
Holmen Courier
Houston County News
Onalaska Life
Tomah Journal
Vernon Broadcaster
Westby Times

Regional
Inside Preps
My LIVE! Entertainment
Best of River Valley
Business Report
Healthy Living Today
Strictly Golf
River Valley Bike Trails
River Valley Blogs
River Valley Outdoors

Shoppers
Tri-County Foxxy

Marketplace
Newspaper Ads
Local Website Directory
7 Rivers Rentals
HomeSeller
Wheels Website
Work For You

Portals
La Crosse NET
Winona NET

Classifieds
River Valley Classifieds

Links
Lee Enterprises

About Us | Classifieds | Contact Us | Terms of Use | F.A.Q. | Privacy Policy | Requests | Search | RSS | Videos | Advertiser Directory | Add to My Yahoo!
Copyright © 1997 - 2007 The La Crosse Tribune. All rights reserved.
Material from this site may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed. A Lee Enterprises subsidiary.