H 23°, L 4° | Tomorrow: 
H 21°, L 6°
With the state budget now facing a Democratic Senate and a Republican Assembly, the University of Wisconsin is looking to get its foot in the door with an aggressive campaign to secure domestic partnership benefits for its employees.
UW legal staff and administration held a forum Tuesday to inform faculty and students on the current state of the battle to secure the funding, which has been at a deadlock since the late 1980s, according to Chuck Hoornstra, UW director of legal and executive affairs.
"We're locked into the definitions in the state statutes," Hoornstra said. "So long as they stay as they are, there isn't anything the university can do."
Stephen Lund, director of the UW Academic Personnel Office, gave a brief history of the battle for benefits all the way up to today, when Gov. Jim Doyle has included domestic benefits for all state employees in the state budget.
UW is the only Big Ten university to never have implemented a plan to pay for health benefits for domestic partners.
However, the prospect of implementing such benefits faces a tough road, according to Lund. "If [Indiana University] gets them approved, why can't Wisconsin?" Lund said. "The answer is simple: It’s control. They have control over their benefits — all they needed to do was convince their board of trustees."
Casey Nagy, chief of staff for Chancellor John Wiley, responded to audience members who expressed their frustration with faculty members leaving UW, seeking a friendlier environment elsewhere.
Nagy said the chancellor would be more "visible and aggressive" with the "pivotal challenge" facing the university.
Although the topic has always faced stiff opposition, Don Nelson, administrative program specialist, said the current situation at the Capitol provides for the best opportunity for implementation since 1989.
"I have never seen this type of discussion," Nelson said. "It’s a matter of getting the leadership on board."
Nelson added UW would have its opportunity to speak at the Capitol next week on the domestic partnership issue, along with the 40-50 visits Wiley is expected to make with legislators. There will also be five public hearings around the state, Nelson said, including one in DeForest, in northern Dane County.
After several rounds of "political wrangling" and "horse-trading," Nelson said the budget decision would end up in another committee.
"The process will come down to the conference committee," state Rep. Cory Mason, D-Racine, said in a phone interview. "It’s at least on the table to be negotiated, so it’s at least on the table. Now it’s going to be negotiated amongst a thousand other things; whether they negotiate to keep it in still remains to be seen."
However, UW's hope of including domestic partner benefits may ultimately fall short during negotiations.
"When you talk to real people, this is not a real benefit," said Bob Delaporte, spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch, R-West Salem, in a phone interview. "We'll take it out of the budget right away. It’s something taxpayers can't be expected to pay for. It doesn't appeal for working families in Wisconsin."
However, with a domestic partner representation of less than 1 percent of state employees, Nagy said the projected additional cost is around $100,000 at UW, which is a small portion of the overall operating budget of the university.
IP hash: 355f66b7
"When you talk to real people, this is not a real benefit," said Bob Delaporte, spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch, R-West Salem, in a phone interview. "We'll take it out of the budget right away. It's something taxpayers can't be expected to pay for. It doesn't appeal for working families in Wisconsin."
50% of the Big Ten schools that offer domestic partner benefits are primarily republican….is he trying to say that they are not true republicans or maybe they have common sense. The republicans need to get off their buts and realize that times are changing and unless things change fast at UW we are going to lose a lot of very talented professors. What are they going to say to that? “Our children get crappy educations in WI colleges but at least we can preserve our ‘families’” (what ever they consider to be the ‘norm’ for a family)
Change is inevitable….I only wish more people would realize that most of the time it is for the good and stop resisting it!
IP hash: 62a70d63
Which “real people” are the conservative speaker of the assembly and alum of Oral Roberts University speaking about? And, what kind of idiotic statement is “this doesn’t appeal to working families?” Does Huebsch (or his so-called “spokesperson”) really believe that working people don’t embrace the idea of equal treatment for everyone? I hope those who believe that everyone is entitled to fair and impartial treatment-including employment benefits-will remember this conversation at the next election. It’s time to do what’s right for Wisconsin’s future, Mr. Huebsch.
IP hash: fe857ae3
Resist this change all you want, there is no need for people to cave in and make the gays feel like there welcome and ‘normal’ because clearly there not. By making me pay for there boyfriends and girlfriends is entirely ridiculous.
IP hash: 6139241e
Agreed with comment at 8:45. While we are at it, i live with two people. I want benefits. Only 1% would be qualifying for this anyway according to the article. Way too small of a minority to change policy.
IP hash: 283bd801
Your lack of spelling ability (“there”) makes me hope that you are not a UW student or graduate, but really, whether or not gays “feel” welcome or normal is not the question. In fact, neither is your personal level of comfort with homosexuals. The issue is whether or not Wisconsin wants to retain and develop a diverse and representative university system. If not, Wisconsin will continue to lose relevancy in a modern economy and society.
IP hash: f80c448b
To the crazy 8:45 am person…how can you have the audacity to say that gay people are not normal?! I am gay myself and I don’t see how I do not deserve the same rights everyone else does. I don’t think straight people are wierd because they’re not. Just because we don’t like the same people you do doesn’t mean we’re not normal. Since when did the gender of the person we love make any determination as to who is normal? If you don’t want to pay for our partners (which probably wouldn’t be very much) move to another state :)
IP hash: 1bd81102
“By making me pay for there boyfriends and girlfriends is entirely ridiculous.”
And forcing them to pay for our families is discrimination. Discrimination isn’t ok just because it works out in your favor.
IP hash: 6fabc93d
Everyone should be allowed to “share” their benefits with one person, not necessarily a partner. That way, if you’re single, you could give a hobo some sweet, sweet healthcare. Problem solved, you’re welcome.
IP hash: c1c314ee
My only complaint is that people who would benefit form this don’t pay the marriage tax. If they paid that (or something like it) I’m all for it. Taxes for all, Freedom for none. - Germain E. Stemme
IP hash: ca3a4c87
"We'll take it out of the budget right away. It's something taxpayers can't be expected to pay for. It doesn't appeal for working families in Wisconsin."
People in domestic partnerships aren’t part of “working families?”
Don’t they pay taxes too, and support all those “working families?”
IP hash: 5ce3c448
Germain E. Stemme;
HMMM now just why should those people who aren’t allowed to get married pay a marriage tax. The current marriage debacle in our state has caused so many of the people who would benefit from this that I’m sure you are referring to not even eligible for a civil union.
-Antoinette Coles
IP hash: cf8a26c7
To 12:26 — We tried to get on the path to marriage equality last November. An ignorant populace rejected it. Any other idiotic comments?
My husband (yes, HUSBAND; we were married in Toronto) and I would be MORE than happy to pay the marriage tax and to share all the other rights and responsibilities that marriage entails. And I would venture to guess that thousands of same-sex couples across the state feel similarly. All the more reason to work for equality.
IP hash: 8dc22cec
The people of Wisconsin voted overwhelmingly in the last election to define marriage…. that’s why there is no popular support for extending these benefits to partners. Besides, the UW System is asking for $225 milion to improve education- don’t we believe that improving education should come before a discretionary fringe benefit of limited appeal?
IP hash: 5ce3c448
I’m sure that I’m not alone in thinking that it’s a very large exaggeration to call 59.43% of those who voted an overwhelming majority. Sounds more like a small majority.
As for connecting the money requested for improvements at UW. Each time we loose researchers, professors & staff to other higher educational institutions because they are able to have benefits for their loved ones education here is eroded as much as is our community for the loss of them.
IP hash: 13788092
Can my father be my “partner”? It would really help if he could get on my insurance. I swear we’ll love each other until death do us part.
IP hash: c7a69ec7
The lack of partner benefits is causing a demonstrable harm to the quality of the UW. Why is this even an issue? It should have been done long ago.
The number of people who would benefit from this is so small, and the cost so relatively low - its really hard to see the problem here. Except for the moral grandstanding some of the pols can get out of it.
IP hash: 355f66b7
To 7:01…let’s be logical :)
IP hash: 0c9f1356
Delaporte’s comment illustrates a sad fact in this state: people like him and the man he works for think that gays and lesbians are not human. That is the (non)thought process behind the marriage amendment, too. It is the same blindness that kept women from being able to vote, own property, or refuse sex from their husbands for many years. We have a lot to do to convince Delaporte that gays and lesbians are human, but women were able to do it by about the 1970s, and bit by bit, a change will come.
IP hash: 1e6f62a3
I don’t think John Wiley is likely to be effective. He’s made far too many mistakes and should be replaced ASAP.
IP hash: c4d4c728
Maybe you should think about the consiquences of “pushing” the “domestic partner” agenda on the rest of the world. You are calling people who don’t agree with your view “idiotic.” How mature is that. I don’t see one in congress calling “domestic partners” idiotic. Besides, if we looked back at the past and what happened to cultures when “Same-Sex” marriages were “allowed by culture” we see lots of problems and corruptness. In fact, one town was completely destroyed because of “domestic partnerships.” If we truly look at our country’s heritage, we will see that we were formed based on biblical principles, not “religious” principles. there is a difference. Based off the founding of this country, Homosexuality would not have even been discussed. It cleary says in the Bible that Homosexuality is wrong. Straight from God’s word. I think we should thank these guys for preventing an even bigger issue from arising by not allowing domestic partnerships.
IP hash: c14bdd0e
An earlier post is right. John Wiley, Patick Farrell, Kevin Reilly, and David Walsh should clean up the terrible messes at Bascom and Van Hise before the ask for more help form the legislature.
IP hash: c60215b4
“Same-Sex” marriages were “allowed by culture” we see lots of problems and corruptness. In fact, one town was completely destroyed because of “domestic partnerships.”
Ah Where’s the evidence? Do you mean Sodom? Well the truth is that God destroyed Sodom because of it’s intolerance, hatred, and abuse to outsiders coming into their town. Has nothing to do with gay men for ALL the men, gay,straight, rich, poor, young, and old went to Lot’s home to harress an torture God’s messengers. And as far as the Bible, it speaks directly to those whom are straight by nature going against their nature not those who are gay by nature. Period. Do you know what Jesus did when he met a gay man? Or can do you know that there are at least three references of same-sex love that God embraces in the biblical text? Those you desire to pick on others have a problem with treating all people equally. Period.