So Much for So Few

To hear Governor Doyle and people such as Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison), an open and activist homosexual, tell it, Wisconsin has thousands and thousands of homosexual “couples” who are being, as they see it, deprived of their “rights.”  And that’s why Doyle (in addition to the payback he owes the pro-homosexual group Fair Wisconsin for their help in getting him re-elected in 2006) has teamed up with his pro-homosexual buddies and proposed a statewide same-sex domestic partnership registry, along with some 40+ benefits that up to now have been reserved for legally married couples. Doyle said as much in the few lines he devoted to this provision and his health-care for domestic partners (same-sex or hetero) of state employees.  

Never mind that his domestic partnership registry is likely unconstitutional because of the marriage protection amendment nearly 60% of Wisconsin voters passed in November 2006.  Never mind that the number of people in Wisconsin who would qualify for the registry is unbelievably small–very vocal, very well organized, very well funded, and very determined to redefine marriage but nevertheless, very small. 

The most recent reliable numbers seem to be from 2005.  Wisconsin’s total population that year was 5,581,980.  The number of people self-describing as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered was 161,000, rounded up.  That means that less than 3% of the population could even remotely be affected (2.88% to be precise).   Of that total “gay” population, 14,894 were “couples,” which is 19% of the total homosexual population, or .5% of Wisconsin’s total population.  These numbers by the way, track with the other states.

Contrast these figures with over 1.1 million married couples in Wisconsin (2000 census), which is 39% of the state’s total (all ages) population.  This percentage increases to 55% of the 18 and over population.  (Using 2000 census data for marriages and 2005 numbers for homosexual relationships more than likely gives the benefit of the doubt to the latter.)

The governor and others have some ‘splaining to do about proposing marriage-like benefits for, at best, 3% of the state’s population–most of whom aren’t even identifying as “couples.”  Instead of creating a legal status for these few, the governor ought to be looking at ways to strengthen marriages–the backbone of this state.


2 comments on “So Much for So Few

  1. Ken Van Doren says:

    OK, let us say these folks get their wish and their registry.

    Now let us say that some homophobe takes over the state. Do you REALLY want these folks knowing who you are? Sometimes a closet is a very safe place to be.

    AND how about equalizing the other way? Why should taxpayers be on the hook for entire families, or domestic partners? It creates an inequitable situation, in that unattached individuals receive the benefit of only the single health care coverage, while those under the family plan get the benefit of up to $10,000 more per year, if the employer pays the whole thing. So, equal pay for equal work, the single person is paid less.

    HOw unfair.

  2. Edward Jensen says:

    The company I work for provides benefits to anyone that can be classified as a dependent, in other words the employee provides over 50% of their support. This could be an unmarried person of the same or opposite sex or even a parent if they are under the age of 65 when medicare would be available.
    If the person has medical coverage or it is offered through a different employer, the employee must have that person take the other coverage and if they do not, the employee has to pay a “spousal” premium in order to have coverage. If the other insurance is accepted, then the employee’s insurance becomes secondary for that dependent.
    I do not know what kind of rules the state employees are under. But as a taxpayer, I should be able to have a say in how tax money is spent. When it came to my employers decision to provide benefits to unmarried couples, I have no voice in that matter. All I ever hear from my company is how we have to cut costs, yet they continue to spend in areas they did not have to.
    One of the big oil companies (can any one name a small oil company) does not provide same sex benefits and is under attack by the gay rights crowd. Yet that company makes record profits and their price is the same as the other guys. They are hated more than any other oil company.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s