Say It Ain’t So

We like to think that child abusers and child killers are monsters who are easily identifiable and, even more importantly, different from the rest of us “normal” people.  A recent news story in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reminds us that the reality is more complicated. 

The alleged crime is sadly familiar: a young man was arrested in connection with the death of his girlfriend’s two-year-old son, Karmari J. Curtis, whom the suspect was babysitting.  The boyfriend brought the toddler’s body to the emergency room and claimed that the child had drowned accidentally while in the bath.  Since the lifeless child was reportedly dry and completely dressed, medical personnel and the police doubted the story, and the medical examiner’s report on the cause of death is currently sealed pending charges.  At the time of the toddler’s death, the suspect, Corey Benson, was out on bail awaiting trial on charges of physical abuse of a child and child neglect.  The previous charges stem from an incident in October when Benson admitted to playing tackle football with the same child and doing elbow and leg drops to him afterwards.  The toddler suffered life-threatening injuries, including a lacerated liver, as the result of that incident.  Benson was under a court order to have no contact with the boy after the October charges.

Everything about this tragic incident is ghastly, but here I want to focus on one particularly chilling aspect of this situation: the suspect, Corey Benson, is a young man of great potential who seemed to have beaten the odds against him. 

Continue ReadingSay It Ain’t So

Israel Reflections–Restorative Justice

In honor of the RJ conference that Marquette is hosting today (link here for the agenda on clergy abuse and healing), I thought I would post several student reflections on our meeting with the restorative justice group Parent’s Circle when we were in Jerusalem.  The Parent’s Circle is a group of bereaved family members on both sides of the conflict that work on reconciliation, and hearing their stories is truly an honor.  Below are two different student reflections, from Rebekah Thigpen and Juan Amado, on our meeting and the work of the Parent’s Circle:

When we arrived in Israel and began our sightseeing and touring, one of the things that struck me the most was how “normal” our surroundings were – people went to work, had families, and lived their day-to-day lives like the nothing out of the ordinary was going on in the region. Even though the conflict was not as apparent as I thought it would be, as the trip went on, we heard many different speakers with many different perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, some more favorable to Israel and some more favorable to Palestinians. However, it was during our time meeting with two individuals from Parent’s Circle that the consequences of the conflict became real while at the same time breaking down the barrier between the two sides.  During our Parent’s Circle meeting, we met with two individuals both of whom lost a loved one in the conflict. The older woman, Robi, lost her son while he was on active duty in the Israeli Defense Force and the younger Palestinian man, Ali, lost his brother at the hands of the Israeli Defense Force. At first blush, one might assume these two individuals would be natural enemies given their stories, but instead they have come together in their grief to move past the conflict. Although these two individuals, like many others who participate in Parent’s Circle, have come together as a result of unfortunate circumstances, I think it demonstrates a larger concept at the heart of resolving disputes peacefully. Participants in the Parent’s Circle, both Israelis and Palestinians, are able to move beyond the conflict because they each have something in common, something in common that humanizes one another. I hope that if more Israelis and Palestinians can come together based on common interests or common experiences such that each side realizes that the other is human, both living day-to-day lives as mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, wives and husbands, the conflict can fade into the background.

Continue ReadingIsrael Reflections–Restorative Justice

Marquette Benefits Extension and the Domestic Partnership Registry

Marquette University’s recent decision to grant spousal benefits to the same-sex partners of its employees may face a potential legal road block in the near future.  According to the March 29 issue of the Marquette Tribune, same-sex domestic partners are eligible for spousal benefits only if their names are recorded in a state-maintained domestic partner registry.

Wisconsin has such a registry, but it is one of questionable constitutional legitimacy.  On November 7, 2006, Wisconsin voters approved a state constitutional amendment that prohibited same sex marriages in the state as well as “a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals.”   As required by the state constitution, the same amendment had previously been passed in two separate legislative sessions by both the Assembly and the State Senate.  A subsequent challenge to the legitimacy of the amendment was unanimously rejected by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in June 2010.

However, in June 2009, the Democrat-controlled Wisconsin legislature adopted a same-sex domestic partnership law that was arguably contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Marriage Amendment.

The new statute (2009 WI Act 28) created a state registry for domestic partners, and in addition provided a number of “spousal”-style rights to the registered partners, including inheritance rights identical to those of a traditional opposite-sex spouse.  The bill, which was included in the state budget bill, narrowly passed the Assembly on June 13, 2009, by a vote of 50-48, and then was approved on June 19 by the Senate by an even closer 17-16 vote.  Governor Jim Doyle signed the bill on June 29, with an effective date of August 3, 2009.

Shortly after Gov. Doyle signed the bill, but before it took effect, Wisconsin Family Action filed a petition with the Wisconsin Supreme Court requesting that the high court declare that the domestic partner registry was unconstitutional under the Marriage Protection Amendment.  In Appling v. Doyle, the Supreme Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, ruled on Nov. 4, 2009, that the action had to be filed in Circuit Court.  The case is currently before the Dane County Circuit Court.

Should the litigation prove successful in invalidating the domestic partnership registry, the new Marquette benefits plan would automatically come to a halt, since registration with the state appears to be a prerequisite to receiving benefits.  It is also possible that the act could be challenged at any time in a probate proceeding involving the intestate estate of someone on the registry.  The heirs who would have inherited from the deceased, had there not been a change in the state inheritance laws, would clearly have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the act.

Moreover, there are some indications that the Walker Administration may be planning to initiate an effort to repeal the Domestic Partnership law — in late March, Gov. Walker dismissed Lester Pines, the lawyer retained by his predecessor to represent the state in defending the law.  Given the razor-thin margins by which the partnership registry law passed in 2009, the current Republican majority clearly has the power to repeal the law should it be inclined to do so.

Apparently the jury is still out on this issue.

Continue ReadingMarquette Benefits Extension and the Domestic Partnership Registry