Wisconsin's Supreme Court Hears Case Challenging State's Marriage Equalty Ban

William McConkey is my hero.

As I reported earlier, he is fighting on behalf of his lesbian daugther Wisconsin's same-sex marriage ban enacted by voters at a referendum in 2006. He claims that the question on the ballot was unconstitutional because it in fact asked two questions, thus making it impossible to determine the will of Wisconsin voters.

The referendum stated, “Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?”

The state's Supreme Court heard the case Tuesday. (Watch the proceedings here)



In other Wisconsin news, the Supreme Court threw out the case by anti-LGBT group Wisconsin Family Action challenging the new domestic partnership law. They claim that it's too close to marriage which violates the same-sex marriage ban. Making matters worse, Wisconsin's attorney general had refused to defend the law.

The court gave no reason for the rejection of the case, signaling to Wisconsin Family Action that they must refile in lower courts and go through proper court procedure. So the fight isn't over.

Wisconsin Attorney General Refuses to Defend New DP Law Against Right Wing Law Suit, Receives Harsh Criticism

This story makes the blood boil.

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said Friday he would not defend the state in a lawsuit brought by conservative groups over the state's new domestic partner law, which has allowed same-sex couples to receive many but not all benefits of marriage. However, the plaintiffs say that it too closely resembles marriage, violating the state's ban on both marriage equality and civil unions.

What makes them similar?

Milwaukee's Journal Sentinel reports that 413 couples have registered for domestic partnership since the law went into effect August 3 with more to come, giving these couples 40 of the more than 150 benefits available to married couples. But since the cost of registering is the same as applying for a marriage license, opponents claim that it's the cost that makes it too similar to marriage.

Can someone explain that logic to me? Please! If anything, it's a rip-off, and now we're being sued (indirectly) for that rip-off? Not only do gay and lesbian couples have to pay the same as married couples to get a tiny slice of the benefit pie, the whole of which their straight counterparts receive, they have to pay more taxes on top of it! If anything, the starkly separate AND unequal treatment of its citizens should cause Wisconsin to be sued.

The state's Supreme Court asked the state to respond to the lawsuit but has not decided yet to hear the case. Due to Van Hollen's decision, the state will not have to pay outside legal counsel on the back's of the taxpayers.

Van Hollen, a Republican who has not ruled out a run for governor in 2010, cited the state's 2006 amendment ban and stated that the domestic partnership law is unconstitutional so indefensible.

"My duty to is to the people of the state of Wisconsin and the highest expression of their will - the constitution of the state of Wisconsin," Van Hollen said. "When the people have spoken by amending our constitution, I will abide by their command. When policy-makers have ignored their words, I will not."

Governor Jim Doyle, who signed the law in July, said in an official statement, "The Attorney General's job is to represent the state and defend state law when there is a good faith defense to be made. His representation should not be based on whether he likes the state law. Clearly this is defensible. Constitutional law experts have examined the domestic partnership registry and believe it is sound and not in conflict with the state constitution. Attorney General Van Hollen's decision not to defend the domestic partner registry will force the costs of outside counsel onto taxpayers when the Attorney General should simply do his job."

Joint Legislative Council, a state nonpartisan legislative research office, agrees with the governor, saying the law would stand up to challenges because it doesn't come close to marriage, not providing “comprehensive, core aspects of the legal status of marriage to same-sex couples.” Those include the ability to divorce, file joint taxes and share marital property.

Critics of Van Hollen have been harsh, as they should be, stating that he's not doing his job but letting politics do the decision making, sacrificing the rights of LGBT citizens in an effort to keep his conservative supporters.

Openly gay State Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison), who ushered the law through passage, said in a statement, "It is unconscionable that in a time of fiscal crisis his actions will force the state taxpayers to fund outside attorneys to defend our constitution and perform Van Hollen's job. When the domestic partner registry is upheld, Van Hollen will have to explain to the people of Wisconsin why he shirked his duties and stuck them with the bill."

One Wisconsin Now, a liberal advocacy group, called Van Hollen out, claiming he has flip-flopped on his domestic partnership stance. In the attorney general's 2006 campaign for his position, he stated that it was clear lawmakers could extend benefits “traditionally associated with marriage” such as probate benefits and health insurance under the constitutional amendment.

"Attorney General JB Van Hollen is a right-wing legal activist who uses his taxpayer-financed office to serve his partisan political agenda. This abrupt flip flop on domestic partner benefits that he insisted during his campaign for Attorney General were legal, is the latest abuse of his office… Candidate Van Hollen promised that domestic partner protections were legal. Candidate Van Hollen promised he’d defend the state of Wisconsin. Attorney General Van Hollen has broken both of those promises," One Wisconsin Now said.

The state's high court returns to session in September, and four of the seven judges must agree to hear the case.

Oh, and remember when I said that the state should be sued? Well, it's being challenged at least.

The Supreme Court is also set to hear a challenge to the marriage amendment from Bill McConkey, a Door County resident whose daughter is gay, and who has argued that the amendment was improperly put to voters.

Historic Day in Midwest as Wisconsin's Domestic Partner Registry Goes Into Effect

Wisconsin's domestic partnership law goes into effect today, marking a historical moment because it is the first state in the Midwest to extend protections to same-sex couples through legislation.

WQOW reports:

The first same-sex couple in Madison has signed up for the state's new domestic partnership registry.

Janice Czyscon, 56, and her partner, 57-year-old Crystal Hyslop, arrived at the Dane County offices at 5:12 a.m. and waited in the rain until the doors opened. About two dozen more same-sex couples waiting in line cheered and clapped at 8 a.m. as county Clerk Robert Ohlsen (OHL'-son) led them into the office to fill out their application.

Capital Times reports on couples Bob Klebba and his partner of 11 years, David Waugh, who went to the Dane County Clerk's Office this morning to register.

Married in California during the Summer of Love, registering is semi-sweet, because though in fact they are legally married, Wisconsin has seen them up until today as legal strangers. Even after registering, the state which banned marriage equality in 2006, still won't view them as married.

"For us personally, we are taking one step backward by signing up," Klebba told the Capital Times. "The registry allows the authorities to recognize us as lesser citizens and not to recognize us for what we truly are ... a married couple."

Attorney Tamara Packard says the same-sex couples who are legally wed shouldn't tell the county clerks when applying for registry.

"For legal purposes in Wisconsin, it's as if those marriages never happened," Packard says. "As horrible as that is to say, they are not married."

Reports Capital Times:

With some 1,400 to 2,400 same-sex couples living in Dane County, turnout Monday was expected to be robust as couples have their first opportunity to take advantage of the historic piece of legislation signed by Gov. Jim Doyle June 29.

While the registry will now afford same-sex couples some 40 legal protections previously extended only to married couples, it falls short in making all couples equal. Despite this fact, three members of Wisconsin Family Action have filed suit. They claim the registry violates the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage.

"The registry doesn't even come close to providing equality," says Emily Dudak Taylor, an attorney with the Law Center for Children & Families in Madison. "That's why the lawsuit is so laughable."

Find out more about both domestic partner registry and how you can volunteer to protect the law at Fair Wisconsin.

Image: Mike DeVries/The Capital Times

Wisconsin High Court Agrees to Hear Case Challenging State's Marriage Equality Ban

Unite the Fight earlier reported that the Wisconsin high court was asked to review the state's same-sex marriage ban.

Good news. They agreed to hear the case.

But hold your horses. A ruling striking down the amendment would not legalize same-sex marriage because state law still defines marriage as a union between husband and wife. However, it could pave the way for lawmakers to eventually allow it, or for advocates to file lawsuits seeking that right.

The case was submitted by William McConkey, a 66-year old who describes himself as a “Christian, straight, married," man with a gay daughter is a University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh political science instructor. He claims the referendum that banned marriage equality in Wisconsin illegally put two issues to voters at the same time: whether to ban gay marriage and whether to outlaw civil unions.

The court has given lawyers 30 days to file their briefs.

Fair Wisconsin, the state’s largest gay rights group, praised the court’s decision to take the case.

“The constitutional amendment is definitely something we see as a stain on the constitution. It sort of enshrines discrimination,” said its legislative director, Katie Belanger. “We are really looking forward to the Supreme Court making a fair decision about whether or not the amendment was put to the people in the legal and constitutional way.”

Stay tuned!

See related story, "Wisconsin Governor's Civil Unions Plan Likely Legal" at Gay Marriage Watch.

Wisconsin High Court Asked to Review Same-Sex Marriage Ban

The Wisconsin Supreme Court was asked Thursday to decide whether the state’s 2006 ban on gay marriage was properly put to voters.

The case, having initially been dismissed by a county judge, was sent to the appeals court who side-stepped it. They said the case presents several new legal issues that should be decided by the state’s highest court.

“The validity of the marriage amendment is a matter of significant public interest with statewide implications,” the three-judge panel wrote.

William McConkey, a 66-year old who describes himself as a “Christian, straight, married," man with a gay daughter is a University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh political science instructor. He claims the referendum illegally put two issues to voters at the same time: whether to ban gay marriage and whether to outlaw civil unions.

Either way, nearly 60 percent of voters approved.

More work would need to be done to legalize same-sex marriage in Wisconsin even if a ruling struck down the Wisconsin amendment because state law still defines marriage as a union between husband and wife. However, it could pave the way for lawmakers to eventually allow it or advocates to file additional lawsuits seeking that right.

Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle has a plan being considered by the legislature that would create a domestic partnership giving same-sex couples 43 benefits granted to married couples in an attempt to undermine the amendment.