Wis. AG will not defend gay partnership law

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.

[Jeff Watson]

Then by all rights, he should be disbarred.

[fatboy2]

Finally a state that has standards

[Daniel P from Long Island]

I don't think he should be disbarred, but I think the governor should order him to defend the law. And if he doesn't defend the law for whatever reason, whether the governor orders him to do so or not, I think he should be removed from office for violating his oath of office.

Failing that, KILL THEM ALL !

:)

[Rick in Kansas]

Just as with AG Jerry Brown in California not defending the constitutionality of the amendment mandated by Prop 8, Van Hollen is simply exercising the discretion of his office. While we may not agree with his idiotic and incredibly pandering position, he does have the authority to take it. The good that will come out of all this, is that he will be made to look like an incompetent demagogue when the state Supreme Court upholds the LIMITED protections of Wisconsin's Domestic Partnership law...

[WeTheSheeple]

By the same token, the U.S. AG (and DOJ) should refuse to defend DOMA.

[Kyra]

I really wish somebody would just pass laws or get a court case saying that hospital patients have the same freedom of association that everyone else does. Regardless of relationships between the people, regardless of sexual orientation, if you're stuck in the hospital, you're going through a difficult time in your life and perhaps at risk of actually DYING, and the last thing you need is to be denied access to the people you care about, whether they have some kind of legal relationship or not.

There is no reason anyone's hospital visitation rights should have to wait until the hospitals or the states are all sufficiently gay-friendly that they are willing to extend the concept of family to us. If the bar to get in is lowered from "immediate family only" to "people the patient wants to see" or "friends of the patient" then there's less justification to deny us access, and the bigots on duty would not see letting us in as an act of giving us the status of family, and thus letting us in as not quite so abhorrent.

[budinca]

A hospital patient should be able to have any visitor he wants regardless of whether or not the visitor is related to the patient. This is especially true if the patient is near death. He would want to have somebody he loves with him. Denying him this right is cruel. I have never understood the hospitals' "family only" policies. What if the patient has no family, no matter what his sexual orientation is? Is he denied visitors and must suffer or die alone?

Also, a person should be able to choose any person who he wants to inherit his money and property. It was his, not the state's.

[Joe in Novato]

the AG of Wisconsin should be ashamed for the pain and suffering experienced by those families whose VERY BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS he doesn't see warrant his defense. Has he ever heard of taking the high road.

He will have a lot of answering to do when his time comes.

[libertyjustice]

The people of Wisconsin voted this law into effect, if the Attorney General refuses to defend and uphold the new law; he isn't doing his job and should resign or be fired.

[Psd in WI]

libertyjustice wrote:

The people of Wisconsin voted this law into effect, if the Attorney General refuses to defend and uphold the new law; he isn't doing his job and should resign or be fired.

No the govenor and the left wing senat pushed the law. The people voted it down on the ballet.