5
#000000
#FFFFFF
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
'Gutter Racist' Hegseth Blocks Promotion of 'Exemplary' Black and Female Army Colonels
"Today’s news isn’t an anomaly," said leaders of the Democratic Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus, "it is a part of a coordinated and sustained strategy to undermine and erase women and people of color."
Mar 27, 2026
In what's being called an "exceedingly rare" move, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is blocking the promotion of two Black and two female colonels to one-star generals,
The New York Times reported Friday that some senior US military officials are questioning whether Hegseth acted out of animus toward Black people and women after the defense secretary blocked the promotion of the four officers despite the repeated objections of Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, who touted what the Times called the colonels' "decadeslong records of exemplary service."
Military officials told the Times that Hegseth's chief of staff, Lt. Col. Ricky Buria, got into a heated exchange with Driscoll last summer over the promotion of another officer, Maj. Gen. Antoinette Gant—a combat veteran of the US invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq—to command the Military District of Washington, DC.
Such a promotion would have placed Gant in charge of numerous events at which she would likely be seen publicly with President Donald Trump. According to multiple military officials, Buria told Driscoll that Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer.
Pete Hegseth looked at a list of qualified officers and decided Black leaders and women had to go.That’s not leadership. It’s discrimination in plain sight.And every Republican who stays silent is complicit.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Norma Torres (@normajtorres.bsky.social) March 27, 2026 at 10:10 AM
A shocked Driscoll reportedly replied that "the president is not racist or sexist," an assessment that flies in the face of countless racist and sexist statements by the president, both before and during both of his White House terms.
Buria called the officials' account of his exchange with Driscoll "completely false."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to discuss the matter beyond saying that Hegseth is “doing a tremendous job restoring meritocracy throughout the ranks at the Pentagon, as President Trump directed him to do.”
Military officials told the Times that one of the Black colonels whose promotion was blocked by Hegseth wrote a paper nearly 15 years ago historically analyzing differences between Black and white soldiers' roles in the Army. One of the female colonels, a logistics officer, was held back because she was deployed in Afghanistan during the US withdrawal whose foundation was laid by Trump during his first term. It is unclear why the two other colonels were denied promotions.
Although more than 40% of current active duty US troops are people of color, military leadership remains overwhelmingly comprised of white men. Hegseth, who declared a "frontal assault" on the "whores to wokesters" who he said rose up through the ranks during the Biden administration, told an audience during a 250th anniversary ceremony for the US Navy that "your diversity is not your strength."
Hegseth has argued that women should not serve in combat roles, although he later walked back his assertion amid pushback from senators during his confirmation process. Still, since Trump returned to office, every service branch chief and 9 of the military’s 10 combat commanders are white men.
Leaders of the Democratic Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus issued a joint statement Friday calling Hegseth's blocking of the four colonels' promotions "outrageous and wrong."
"The claim that Hegseth’s chief of staff told the army secretary Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer at military events is racist, sexist, and extremely concerning," wrote the lawmakers, Reps. Yvette Clarke (NY), Teresa Leger Fernández (NM), Emilia Sykes (Ohio), Hillary Scholten (Mich.), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.).
"Time and time again, Trump and his administration have shown us exactly who they are—attacking and undermining Black people and women in the military, public servants, and women in power," the congressional leaders asserted. "It is clear they are trying to erase Black and women’s leadership and history."
"Today’s news isn’t an anomaly, it is a part of a coordinated and sustained strategy to undermine and erase women and people of color," their statement said.
"We've long known that Pete Hegseth is an unfit and unqualified secretary of defense appointed by Trump," the lawmakers added. "So it is absurd, ironic, and beyond inappropriate that he of all people would deny these promotions to officers with records of exemplary service. America's servicemembers deserve so much better.”
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also issued a statement reading, "If these reports are accurate, Secretary Hegseth's decision to remove four decorated officers from a promotion list after having been selected by their peers for their merit and performance is not only outrageous, it would be illegal."
"Denying the promotions of individual officers based on their race or gender would betray every principle of merit-based service military officers uphold throughout their careers," Reed added.
Several congressional colleagues weighed in, like Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a decorated combat veteran who lost her legs when an Iraqi defending his homeland from US invasion shot down the Blackhawk helicopter she was piloting. Duckworth said on Bluesky: "He says he wants to bring meritocracy back to our military. He says he has our warfighters' backs. But here he is, the most unqualified SecDef in history, denying troops a promotion that their fellow warfighters decided they've earned. Hegseth is a disgrace to our heroes."
Other observers also condemned Hegseth's move, with historian Virginia Scharff accusing him of "undermining national security with his racism and misogyny," and City University of New York English Chair Jonathan Gray decrying the "gutter racist" who "should be hounded from public life for the damage he’s caused."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Shameful': Trump Threatens to Redirect Student Loan Borrowers to Most Expensive Repayment Plans
More than 7 million borrowers booted from a Biden-era loan forgiveness program will have to quickly switch to a new plan using a system that's been backed up for months.
Mar 27, 2026
After axing a Biden-era student loan repayment program, the Trump administration is threatening to kick its millions of mostly low-income beneficiaries onto the government's most expensive plan unless they switch to a new one quickly.
The Washington Post reported on Friday that the Department of Education was beginning to email the more than 7 million people enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, telling them they needed to change their plan within the next 90 days.
Around 4.5 million of those borrowers earn incomes between 150% and 225%, allowing them to qualify for zero-dollar monthly payments under SAVE, which the Trump administration effectively killed in December after settling with Republican states who'd brought lawsuits against the program under former President Joe Biden.
Anonymous officials told The Post that those who do not switch plans within three months of receiving the email will automatically be re-enrolled in the Standard Plan. Unlike SAVE, which is income-based, the Standard plan has borrowers pay a fixed rate over 10 years.
Standard typically carries the highest monthly payments, and those transitioning to it from SAVE could pay more than $300 extra per month in some cases, with the poorest borrowers seeing the sharpest increases.
While 90 days may seem like plenty of time to switch to a less expensive repayment plan, it's not nearly that simple.
Due to the large exodus of borrowers, the Department of Education has struggled to process all the forms, processing only about 250,000 per month. Many borrowers who have tried to transition have found themselves waiting months for a reply.
To make matters more confusing, many of these borrowers will have to switch programs again soon, since all but one repayment program will be dissolved on July 1, 2028 as a result of last year's Republican budget law. The remaining plan will also be income-driven, though it is still expected to cost borrowers more each month.
According to a report released last month by the Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers, two groups that support loan forgiveness, nearly 9 million student loan borrowers are in default. During Trump's first year back in office, the student loan delinquency rate jumped from roughly zero to 25%, which it called "precedent-shattering."
"Much of the rise in delinquencies can be linked to the Trump administration’s actions aimed at increasing student loan payments," the report said. “The US Department of Education blocked borrowers from accessing more affordable payments through income-driven plans, having ordered a stoppage in application processing for three months and mass-denying 328,000 applications in August 2025. As of December 31, 2025, a warehouse’s worth of 734,000 applications sat unprocessed.”
Being in default has major ramifications for borrowers' finances. Those with delinquent loans saw their credit scores decrease by an average of 57 points during the first three quarters of 2025, dragging around 2 million of them into "subprime" territory, which forces them to pay thousands of dollars more for auto and personal loans and makes them more likely to have difficulty finding housing and employment.
The report estimated that if those booted from SAVE defaulted at the same rate as other borrowers, the number of student loan borrowers in distress could rise as high as 17 million.
According to Protect Borrowers, the typical family will pay more than $3,000 per year in additional costs as a result of the end of SAVE.
The end of SAVE comes as oil shocks caused by Trump's war in Iran have spiked gas prices and threaten to raise them throughout the economy, adding to the already elevated costs of food, housing, and transportation resulting from the president's aggressive tariff regime.
"In the middle of an affordability crisis driven by Donald Trump," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), "Trump is killing a plan that lowers student loan costs. It's shameful."
Keep Reading
Show Less
With Everyone Looking for Iran War Off-Ramp, Experts Offer 'Exit Plan'
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament... Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp."
Mar 27, 2026
Multiple reports published in the last two days have indicated that President Donald Trump is seeking to wrap up his illegal war in Iran, which has significantly hurt his domestic political standing—partially by raising gas prices at a time when polls show US voters are primarily concerned about the cost of living.
While ending the Iran war will not be simple, some foreign policy experts believe that it can be done if both the US and Iran truly understand that deescalation is in both nations' best interests.
George Beebe, director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and former director of the CIA’s Russia analysis, and Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, have written an essay published on Thursday by Foreign Policy outlining what an achievable Iran "exit plan" would look like.
The authors acknowledged the immense challenges in getting both sides to meet one another halfway, but said this option is preferable to a drawn-out war that will leave both nations poorer and bloodied.
On Iran's side, argued Beebe and Parsi, a deal would involve renewing "its stated commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons," re-opening the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping vessels, and making a commitment "to denominating at least half of its oil sales in US dollars rather than the Chinese yuan."
The US, meanwhile, would "grant sanctions exemptions to countries prepared to finance Iran’s reconstruction" and "would also permit a specified group of states—such as China, India, South Korea, Japan, Turkey, Iraq, and others in the Gulf—to resume trade with Tehran and the purchase of Iranian oil, thereby easing global energy prices."
Beebe and Parsi emphasized that this deal would only be a first step, and they said the next step would be restarting negotiations to establish a nuclear weapons agreement similar to the one previously negotiated by the Obama administration that Trump tore up during his first term.
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament," they wrote. "Neither can compel the other’s surrender. Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp—one that does not hinge on the other’s humiliation."
Even if Trump takes this course of action, however, there is no guarantee it will succeed, in part because of how much he has already damaged US alliances across the world.
In an analysis published Thursday, Sarah Yerkes, senior fellow at the Carnegie International Endowment for Peace's Middle East Program, argued that even nations in the Middle East that stand to benefit from a weakened Iran are now thinking twice about their dependence on the US for their security needs, given that Trump's war has resulted in Iran launching retaliatory strikes throughout the region.
Yerkes also highlighted how Trump's handling of European allies is making it less likely that they will play a significant part in helping him end the conflict.
"Europe, which is not eager to enter what it sees as a war of choice, has refrained from proactively joining US and Israeli strikes," Yerkes explained. "One of the clearest examples of the transatlantic rift was over the initial reaction to closures in the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping channel for approximately 20% of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG traffic. Multiple European countries refused to cow to Trump’s demand that they send warships to help keep the strait open, inviting public ire from Trump."
The bottom line, warned Yerkes, is that "each day the war continues, without explicit goals or a clear exit strategy, opposition to the United States—from friends and foes, inside and outside—is also likely to grow, making America less safe and less secure."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular