Fearless Sifting

And today’s BH story on US Rep. Tammy Baldwin and other Democrats speaking to the TAA proves to be no exception.

However, according to Mike Mikalsen, spokesperson for state Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, the TAA’s efforts will go unanswered unless the university is willing to break state law, which currently prohibits domestic partner benefits.

“It’s unfortunate that leadership of TAA would rather play politics than represent their members in working conditions and wages, which is what labor unions are usually for,” Mikalsen said.

Nass, along with some other state legislators, think changing state law to allow domestic partner benefits is fiscally irresponsible and goes against the desires of the majority of voters living in Wisconsin.

“Sixty percent (of voters) have defined marriage between one man and one woman,” Mikalsen said, referring to Wisconsin’s 2006 amendment banning state recognition of gay marriage. “Benefits should be offered only to married individuals, and the state has an obligation to follow the voters.”

This one merely repeats the same line that Nass himself used last week, that the marriage amendment was the equivalent of a statewide referendum on domestic partnership benefits. Clearly, there are many people who strongly disagree with that sentiment. However, in matters such as this one, not everyone’s opinion counts equally and its quite interesting to note that 2 people whose opinions matter quite a bit more than most disagree. Part of the job of the Wisconsin Attorney General is to provide opinions on questions of law and it just so happens that the last 2 Attorney Generals, pretty strongly disagree with Nass and Mikalsen.

Former Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager:

Lautenschlager wrote that “it can reasonably be inferred” from the language of the amendment “that neither the Legislature nor the people intended to invalidate domestic partnerships when they adopted this provision.”

…

In her opinion, Lautenschlager argued that public opinion polls at the time Wisconsin voters voted on the amendment consistently found a majority of state residents were in favor of legally recognized unions that gave both straight and gay couples most of the same benefits as marriage.

And the current Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen. Who intriguingly is also the highest ranking Republican in a state office.

Also in the interview Friday, Van Hollen:

Agreed with Lautenschlager’s recent opinion that a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would not prevent local governments or private employers from providing health benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.