September, 22 2009, 10:58am EDT
Domestic Partners Seek To Intervene In Lawsuit Challenging Wisconsin's Domestic Partner Law
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion before the
Wisconsin Supreme Court today on behalf of five same-sex couples asking
that the couples be allowed to participate in a lawsuit that will
decide whether the state's newly enacted domestic partner law violates
Wisconsin's anti-gay marriage amendment. Anti-gay activists have asked
the Wisconsin Supreme Court to strike down the domestic partner law as
inconsistent with the marriage amendment.
MADISON, Wisconsin
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion before the
Wisconsin Supreme Court today on behalf of five same-sex couples asking
that the couples be allowed to participate in a lawsuit that will
decide whether the state's newly enacted domestic partner law violates
Wisconsin's anti-gay marriage amendment. Anti-gay activists have asked
the Wisconsin Supreme Court to strike down the domestic partner law as
inconsistent with the marriage amendment. The couples also ask the
Court to reject the petition and send the case to a trial court so that
evidence can be presented to show that the domestic partner law does
not violate the anti-gay marriage amendment that passed in 2006.
"While the domestic partner law falls far short of marriage, we were
grateful when it passed that we would no longer have to worry about
being able to visit each other in the hospital," said Jayne Dunnum who,
along with her partner of 17 years, Robin Timm, registered to become
domestic partners when the law went into effect this summer. "But with
this lawsuit those fears are back, and we'd like the opportunity to
explain to the courts how this affects us."
According to the motion filed by the ACLU, the five same-sex couples
meet all the legal requirements for becoming a party to the litigation
and would suffer harm if the court overturns the domestic partner law.
"We're hopeful that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will recognize that
lesbian and gay couples have the most at stake in this lawsuit and
deserve their day in court," said Larry DuPuis, Legal Director of the
ACLU of Wisconsin. "Only same-sex couples can describe what it's like
to fear not being able to visit a partner in the hospital or being left
with nothing when a partner dies without a will. And only same-sex
couples can explain what it means to be shut out of marriage and have
to accept a poorly understood second-class status as domestic partners
with 43 legal protections versus more than 200 that come with
marriage."
The anti-gay activists who are seeking to take away the legal
protections for registered domestic partners have claimed that they
need a speedy resolution and are entitled to go directly to the
Wisconsin Supreme Court because the modest legal protections granted to
same-sex couples through the law somehow affect the marriages of
straight couples. Rather incredulously, they also claim that it would
be in the best interest of lesbian and gay couples to have a speedy
resolution even though they are asking the court to strip domestic
partners of all legal protections.
According to the ACLU, there are important factual issues in the
case, such as the many ways in which domestic partnership differs from
marriage, that call for the kind of testimony that same-sex couples can
provide to the Court. To consider this important evidence, the Court
should refuse to accept this case directly but instead allow a circuit
court to develop the factual record.
During the political campaign for the anti-gay marriage amendment
that is the basis for this lawsuit, these same anti-gay activists told
the voters that domestic partner benefits would not be affected by the
amendment and that the state would be allowed to pass a law giving
same-sex couples some legal protections.
"The anti-gay activists misled the voters into passing the amendment
by saying that it would not affect the rights of domestic partners.
Then they tried to prevent the legislature from providing modest legal
protections for same-sex couples. And soon after the bill went into
effect, they brought a lawsuit to take those protections away, based on
the amendment that they said would not affect such rights" said John
Knight, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT Project. "It's
incredible the lengths they will go to deny committed couples basic
protections for their families."
The same-sex couples asking to be allowed into the lawsuit include:
Jayne Dunnum and Robin Timm from Plattsville, WI, have been
together for 17 years. After Timm was injured on their farm and had to
be rushed to the emergency room, they worry about being able to visit
each other in the hospital and are hoping the domestic partner law will
put an end to these worries.
Carol Schumacher and Virginia Wolf from Eau Claire, WI, have
been together for 34 years. As they enter their senior years, the
domestic partner law would ease their worries about being shut out of
conversations about each other's medical care and other end-of-life
decisions and guarantee that they are not barred from sharing a room if
they end up in a nursing home.
Wendy and Mary Woodruff from Milwaukee, WI, have been
together for 12 years. As a minister for the Metropolitan Community
Church, Rev. Wendy Woodruff has had to console a congregant who lost
everything, including her home and furniture, when her partner was
killed and the partner's relatives claimed their entire estate. They
fear the same thing would happen to them without the inheritance
protections of the domestic partner law.
Judith Trampf and Katy Heyning from Madison, WI, celebrated
their 20th Anniversary this summer. A few years back, Heyning had a
seizure that left her unable to drive for six months. Unable to take
family leave, Trampf had to use her vacation time to drive Katy to
doctor's appointments and to and from work. Under the domestic partner
law, the couple would finally gain access to family leave protection.
Diane Schermann and Missy Collins from Eau Claire, WI, have
known each other for 10 years and have been a couple for five. The
couple is raising seven children, including Diane's two children from a
previous marriage, a new baby that Missy gave birth to through in vitro
fertilization and four foster children, two of which are relatives of
Collins. Like many couples their age, the couple has put off making
wills because of the expense. The domestic partner law would guarantee
that at least half of their joint property automatically passes to each
other.
Lambda Legal also filed papers today to intervene in the Appling v. Doyle
case on behalf of Fair Wisconsin, the statewide equality organization,
and its members. Lambda Legal, like the ACLU, says domestic
partnerships and marriages are not "substantially similar."
Linda Hansen, David Froiland, Jason Plowman, Daniel Manna and David
Goroff of Foley & Lardner, LLP are assisting ACLU attorneys DuPuis
and Knight in representing the couples.
Additional information about the ACLU's motion, including bios and
photographs of the couples and the legal documents filed today, is
available at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/41068res20090922.html.
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Container Ship That Destroyed Baltimore Bridge Has Troubled History
The Maersk-chartered MV Dali—which lost propulsion just before the collision—not only was involved in a previous crash, but was also briefly detained last year over problems with its propulsion system.
Mar 26, 2024
The mega-container ship that lost propulsion before toppling Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge in a Tuesday morning collision was involved in a previous crash, and was cited last year for propulsion-related problems.
Newsweekreported that the Maersk Line Limited-chartered MV Dali—which crashed into the Interstate 695 Patapsco River crossing just before 1:30 am, causing the span to collapse and sending a construction crew into the water—collided with a wall in the harbor at Antwerp, Belgium in 2016. The accident, which was reported by Vessel Finder and other outlets at the time, was attributed to errors made by the ship's master and pilot.
The 9-year-old Dali was also detained by port officials in San Antonio, Chile last June after inspectors discovered a problem related to the vessel's "propulsion and auxiliary machinery," according toThe Washington Post, which cited records from the intergovernmental shipping regulator Tokyo MOU.
The ship's owner, Grace Ocean Private Ltd., and operator, Synergy Marine, "have been sued at least four times in U.S. federal court on allegations of negligence and other claims tied to worker injuries on other ships owned and operated by the Singapore-based companies," according toThe Associated Press.
Maersk was also sanctioned last year by the U.S. Labor Department for allegedly stopping employees from reporting safety concerns, documents published by The Lever revealed.
According to a July 14, 2023 Labor Department letter to Maersk regarding an Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigation, the Danish company "suspended and then terminated" a worker "in retaliation for reporting unsafe conditions and contacting the U.S. Coast Guard."
The fired employee "engaged in numerous protected activities" including reporting a leak and the need for repairs to a ship's cargo hold bilge system, alcohol use aboard the vessel by crew members, and inoperable equipment including an emergency fire pump and lifeboat block and releasing gear.
The search for six construction workers who were on the bridge when it collapsed into the river was suspended until Wednesday, according toThe Associated Press. The workers are presumed dead by their employer, Brawner Builders. Local media reported that multiple vehicles plunged into the river and that two workers—one of whom was briefly hospitalized—were rescued from the water.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pentagon Urged to Just Say No to AI-Powered Killer Robots
"The Department of Defense should declare its opposition to the development and deployment of autonomous weapons."
Mar 26, 2024
The watchdog group Public Citizen on Tuesday led a letter urging Pentagon leaders "to clarify that the Replicator Initiative will not involve the development and deployment of autonomous weapons systems," also known as "killer robots."
Last September, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks "asserted that the development of all-domain, attributable autonomy systems (ADA2) is an essential way for the Pentagon to maintain its comparative cutting-edge and keep up with the technological advancements of other states," notes the letter, which was addressed to her and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
"However, those comments failed to specify whether or not supporting autonomous weapons systems is one of the key focuses of this initiative," the letter stresses. "When addressing whether or not 'ADA2 means weapons systems,' Secretary Hicks stated: 'That's a serious question to be sure. They are not synonymous. There are many applications for ADA2 systems beyond delivering weapons effects.'"
"Autonomous weapons are inherently dehumanizing and unethical, no matter whether a human is 'ultimately' responsible for the use of force or not."
Public Citizen and the 13 other organizations argued that "this is no place for strategic ambiguity. Autonomous weapons are inherently dehumanizing and unethical, no matter whether a human is 'ultimately' responsible for the use of force or not."
Deploying lethal weapons that rely on artificial intelligence (AI) "in battlefield conditions necessarily means inserting them into novel conditions for which they have not been programmed, an invitation for disastrous outcomes," the groups warned. "'Swarms' of the sort envisioned by Replicator pose even heightened risks, because of the unpredictability of how autonomous systems will function in a network. And the mere ambiguity of the U.S. position on autonomous weapons risks spurring a catastrophic arms race."
"We believe the Department of Defense should declare its opposition to the development and deployment of autonomous weapons," the coalition concluded. "However, even if you are not prepared to make that declaration, we strongly urge you to clarify that the Replicator Initiative will not employ autonomous weapons."
In addition to Public Citizen, the coalition included the American Friends Service Committee, Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network, Backbone Campaign, Demand Progress Education Fund, Fight for the Future, Future of Life, National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, RootsAction.org, United Church of Christ, the Value Alliance, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom U.S., Win Without War, and World Beyond War.
The letter comes on the heels of Public Citizen releasing a report about the rise of killer robots, AI Joe: The Dangers of Artificial Intelligence and the Military.
The February report addresses the Pentagon's AI policy, the dangers of killer robots, the need to ensure decisions about nuclear weapons aren't made by automated systems, how artificial intelligence can increase not diminish the use of violence, risks of using deepfakes on the battlefield, and how AI startups are seeking government contracts.
The publication concludes with recommendations that Public Citizen president Robert Weissman echoed in a statement Tuesday.
"The United States should state plainly that it will not create or deploy killer robots and should work to advance global treaty negotiations to ban such weapons," Weissman said. "At minimum, the United States should commit that the Replicator Initiative will not involve the use of autonomous weapons."
"Ambiguity about the Replicator program essentially ensures a catastrophic arms race over autonomous weapons," he added. "That's a race in which all of humanity is the loser."
Keep ReadingShow Less
12 Palestinians Drown Trying to Retrieve Airdropped Gaza Aid From Sea
One campaigner called the incident "another deadly example of why airdrops are not the answer to famine in Gaza."
Mar 26, 2024
Human rights defenders on Tuesday pointed to the drowning deaths of 12 Palestinians trying to retrieve humanitarian aid parcels airdropped off the Gaza shore as yet another reason why Israel must stop blocking aid from entering the embattled strip by land.
Video published on social media shows Palestinians running toward the Mediterranean Sea in Beit Lahia as aid parcels parachute downward. Eyewitness Abu Mohammad toldCNN that the people who drowned "don't know how to swim."
"There were strong currents and all the parachutes fell in the water," Mohammad said. "People want to eat and are hungry. I haven't been able to receive anything."
Ramy Abdu, chair of the Geneva-based group Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, said that some of the victims died after becoming entangled in parachute ropes.
BREAKING| 9 Palestinians drowned and 5 others missing in the Sea of Gaza while trying to get humanitarian airdrop aid due to falling into the sea. pic.twitter.com/tSPpbrKsTg
— PALESTINE ONLINE 🇵🇸 (@OnlinePalEng) March 26, 2024
According to the U.S. military—which along with Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Singapore has been airdropping aid into Gaza—parachute malfunctions caused three of the 80 parcels dropped to land in the sea. The Pentagon did not say which country carried out the drop.
Earlier this month, five children were crushed to death and numerous other Palestinians were injured by U.S.-airdropped parcels on which the parachutes apparently malfunctioned.
The airdrops come amid widespread and increasingly deadly starvation in Gaza, where Israeli forces have been accused of using hunger as a weapon of war. Last month, Michael Fakhri, the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food, called Israel's forced starvation of Gazans part of "a situation of genocide" in the besieged enclave, where more than 114,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded by Israeli forces since October 7 and around 2 million people out of a population of 2.3 million have been forcibly displaced.
While Israel claims there are no limits on aid entering Gaza by land, Israeli officials said Monday that United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East trucks would be blocked from entering northern Gaza. Israeli forces have repeatedly attacked aid convoys and their police escorts, forcing UNRWA to suspend humanitarian deliveries.
Israeli forces have also on several occasions attacked starving Palestinians as they desperately attempt to get food for their families, including in the February 29 "
Flour Massacre" that left more than 870 Gazans dead or wounded.
Also blocking humanitarian aid from reaching starving Palestinians are Israeli civilians who have camped at border crossings to prevent convoys from entering Gaza. Last month, right-wing extremists set up a giant inflatable children's bouncy castle where aid trucks are meant to pass through the Kerem Shalom border crossing in an effort to lend a festive atmosphere to the action.
Medical Aid for Palestinians, a London-based humanitarian group, said Tuesday that "airdrops will not end famine and are a dangerous proposed 'solution.'"
Palestinians in Gaza expressed similar sentiments.
"We call for the opening of the crossings in a proper fashion," Mohammad told CNN, "but these humiliating methods are not acceptable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular