Every politician has an agenda and just last Friday Governor Jim Doyle publicly announced his and that of the liberal state lawmakers. Governor Doyle revealed that he will include domestic partner health insurance benefits for all state employees, including University of Wisconsin system faculty and staff, in his biennium budget proposal. In 2002, Doyle attempted a similar measure, but Republican majorities in both the State Assembly and the State Senate were able to remove the domestic partnership benefits from the budget. With the new makeup of the state legislature, however, the possibility of these benefits making it through the budget process is a more complex issue than it was five years ago.

Basically, the Governor’s proposal will be submitted to the legislature and is then forwarded to the Joint Committee on Finance, which will go through the entire budget, almost buffet style, taking what they want, removing what they don’t and asking for chef’s extras. However, they cannot simply ignore some items, such as the domestic partner provisions. They have to proactively decide for them to be removed prior to Assembly and Senate floor debates. So, the committee debates all of the governor’s proposals and then passes their version of the budget on to the Assembly and the Senate for amending and approval.

When the budget gets to the floor of each of the houses, representatives and senators will offer amendments to add or strip proposals from the budget. Separately, they will vote on their versions of the budget and then exchange them with the other house. After another round of amendments, the budget will go for a vote in both houses.

The Joint Finance Committee is a bipartisan committee with eight Republicans and eight Democrats. Each of the eight Republicans on the committee voted in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment, while each of the eight committee Democrats voted against that measure. Those in favor of the benefits will argue that they will help make the state and the universities more competitive in recruitment and retention of employees. A few might try to equate homosexual rights with civil rights and claim domestic benefits are the fair and proper thing to do. Madison Representative Mark Pocan, an open homosexual, is one of the eight Democrats on the finance committee. He has often said that Wisconsin should give legal recognition to same-sex couples, and he is likely to be the most vocal proponent of the governor’s plan.

Those who oppose the measure are most likely to forget the moral high ground and instead, argue only that the benefits will cost too much. In 2002, the proposed domestic partner benefits were projected to cost between $6.6 million and $13.2 million to insure the 1 to 2 percent, (probably less than that), of all state employees who have same-sex partners. Despite the politics that will come into play in the committee, there must be consensus to add or remove an item from the governor’s proposal. So unless a Democrat committee member goes against his or her party and his or her voting record and agrees to strip Doyle’s domestic partner benefits from the budget, the committee’s budget is likely to retain the provision when the budget goes to each house.

This will be the focus of the fight. Representatives or Senators could offer an amendment to strip the domestic partner benefits from the proposed budget. However, the new makeup of the state legislature leaves us with split control: Republicans have a slim majority in the Assembly, and Democrats control the Senate. If the Assembly amends its budget to strip the domestic partner benefits, the Senate will have to approve that amended budget, and vice versa. Because these benefits aren’t the only items for consideration, there will be plenty of back and forth, compromise and hardball politics from both sides of the aisle. Republicans might acquiesce to a Democrat-favored item if the Democrats agree to approve a Republican proposal, and so on.

In addition to the fiscal aspect, in his budget the governor will also be proposing a definition of a statewide domestic partnership registry. In all likelihood, the definition will include not just cohabiting same-sex couples, but also unmarried, cohabiting opposite-sex couples. The bottom line in all of this is that the government should not be doing anything to promote any kind of sexual relationship outside of marriage. They help no one, and hurt most everyone. It’s one-man/one-woman marriage that benefits society; not cohabitation, be it same-sex or opposite sex. For instance, in cohabiting relationships, we find, on average, more domestic violence and more disadvantages for women and children than we do in marriage, not to mention the emotional upheaval that comes with the free-wheeling approach in cohabiting relationships. Why should government, using our taxpayer money, promote these sexual relationships outside of marriage?

In the event that the domestic partnership provision stays alive in the budget, you and I will need to speak up loudly and clearly and let the governor and the legislature know we want no part of this agenda.

This is Julaine Appling for The Family Research Institute of Wisconsin reminding you the Prophet Hosea said, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”