Wow... this takes a lot of balls for Patrick McIlheran to say:

Milwaukee School Board member Jennifer Morales wants the schools, for benefits purposes, to treat people who are shacking up as if they were married -- "domestic partner" benefits, it's called.

It's supposed to be the epitome of progress. Morales says it's a matter of fairness: "Fairness for employees is fairness for employees," she told the Journal Sentinel. "It's not about me, it's not about Tina."

Tina would be the woman to whom Morales says she's married. If the schools approve this deal, Morales and Tina Owen, who works at an MPS charter school, would be considered spouses for benefits purposes.

That would be the same guy who wrote pretty passionately to pass the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Wisconsin, and then wrote about how such a ban wouldn't affect benefits for same sex couples, so they need not worry.  Ummm... yeah... right.  It especially takes a lot of balls to use the phrase "shacking up", and then immediately talk about about Owen and Morales.  So first Patrick fights to prevent committed couples like Owen and Morales from getting married... and the criticizes them because they're not married... saying they're just "shacking up"... and aren't deserving of the benefits that any other married couple might receive.  That's not just arrogant on his part, but insulting.

Of course, everyone who is talking negatively about this proposal (like Patrick #2, and Fraley) are bringing up the expense.  The budget is strapped, and so we shouldn't have to pay for these extra benefits.  That's a red herring.  Would you also suggest then that the school board implement a policy of openly giving hiring preference to single young heterosexuals over married people with children?  If it's about the benefits and the budget only, then you should have no problem with that.  Right?  However, if you say no... and you say that we should be fine with hiring married couples who get more expensive benefits, but are unwilling to grant those same benefits to gay couples who would get married if you would let them, then that's discrimination... pure and simple.

The great irony here is that passing the gay marriage ban, they were creating this problem.  If committed gay couples were allowed to marry, then they'd get benefits like any other gay couple.  But now that they can't marry, they're fighting for domestic partner benefits, which will cost more, because heterosexual couples that aren't married will be able to get the same benefits.

I should disclose that although Tina and I aren't really friends, I have met her several times, and we have a good friend in common, and I can say that she certainly doesn't deserve the attacks being pointed at her.