Law Gone Wrong: Adoption in the Context of Same-Sex Relationships

Today’s post is the first in an occasional series entitled “Law Gone Wrong.”  The editors of the Faculty Blog invited Law School faculty to share their thoughts on misguided statutes, disastrous judicial decisions, and other examples where the law has gone wrong (and needs to be nudged back on course).  First up is Professor David Papke.  

As currently written, WIS. STAT.  48.92 – Effect of Adoption is a bad statute with unintended results.  The statute says that, with the exception of stepparent adoptions, an adoption ends all legal relationships between the adopted child and that child’s biological parents.  Put in blunter words, the rights of all biological parents are terminated when an adoption is finalized. This statute no doubt grows out a determination to normalize the lives of adopted children.  They are to have only one set of parents and to know just who those parents are.  On a deeper level, the statute reflects the possessive imperatives so central in the dominant American world view and extends it to adoptive children.

The great problem with the statute involves same-sex couples with children.

Continue ReadingLaw Gone Wrong: Adoption in the Context of Same-Sex Relationships

Supreme Court Candidates Debate: Testy Talk About Collegiality

Four thoughts in the aftermath of the debate Monday evening at Eckstein Hall between incumbent Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser and his challenger in the April 5 election, Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg:

First: As a news reporter, I’ve never covered a race for a Supreme Court seat. I was struck by how awkward the debate is, compared to the plain old partisan races I’ve covered fairly often. It’s similar to confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court justices: Basically, if you have something substantial to say, you can’t and shouldn’t say it. You can’t say what you would do with any potential upcoming issues. Frequently, you can’t (or won’t) comment on past actions, although Prosser did talk about some past cases and said he was glad to run on his record. So you end up standing there, saying repeatedly that you are independent and nonpartisan and will judge each case fairly and with an open mind. Which both Kloppenburg and Prosser did. But it is very clear that Prosser is being backed by conservatives and Republican-oriented groups and Kloppenburg is being backed by liberals and Democratic-leaning groups. Do all these people and groups know something the candidates don’t know? Are they wrong? Or is this a curious exercise in avoiding talking about the issues, even though everyone seems to know what you’d say if you did?

Two: I’ve been at some testy and tense debates and joint appearances by candidates in various races, but this one was way up the list, if it wasn’t the champion on my personal list.

Continue ReadingSupreme Court Candidates Debate: Testy Talk About Collegiality

Scattered Thoughts

As we are all aware, these past couple of weeks have been a time of historic change for the state of Wisconsin.  The debate surrounding the changes proposed by Governor Walker in the Budget Repair Bill has been amazing for me to witness.  Rather than give my personal opinions regarding the content of the bill, I thought I would share of the ancillary thoughts that have run through my head because of the current political times.

First, these changes have occurred during a great time in my life.  I consider myself lucky to be able to observe such historic legislative action while enrolled here at Marquette.  We as law students are unique within the political discussion because we have access to such great legal minds.  For example, two weeks ago Professor Paul Secunda spoke to students about the then-proposed Budget Repair Bill.  Professor Secunda reserved time to answer very well thought-out and informed student questions regarding things like: the potential legal avenues of those opposed to the bill, the effect that Wisconsin’s labor reforms could have on a national level, and what specific items within the bill actually mean to citizens and public employees within the state. 

The presentation by Professor Secunda is just one of the many opportunities we have as legal scholars to advance our personal knowledge on very important political issues.  This Marquette University Faculty Blog has provided a forum for other Professors and local attorneys to provide their opinions and thoughts regarding the reform.  These forums provide an outlet for legal thinkers as well as a resource for students like me.

Ultimately, while the bill has been passed (although currently subject to a temporary restraining order) by the Legislature, discussions regarding the changes have only just begun.  As a participant in this emotional and heated discussion, I consider myself lucky to have been in law school during these changes.

Second, the changes to public sector labor law have made me think back to some of the statements made by Justice Antonin Scalia during his presentation at Marquette in the fall. 

Continue ReadingScattered Thoughts