About this site
About us
Our beliefs
Your first visit?
Contact us
External links
Good books
Visitor essays
Our forum
New essays
Other features
Buy a CD
Vital notes

World religions
BUDDHISM
CHRISTIANITY
 Who is a Christian?
 Shared beliefs
 Handle change
 Bible topics
 Bible inerrancy
 Bible harmony
 Interpret Bible
 Persons
 Beliefs, creeds
 Da Vinci code
 Revelation 666
 Denominations
HINDUISM
ISLAM
JUDAISM
WICCA / WITCHCRAFT
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Comparing religions

Non-theistic...
Atheism
Agnosticism
Humanism
Other

About all religions
Main topics
Basic info.
Gods/Goddesses
Handling change
Doubt/security
Quotes
Movies
Confusing terms
Glossary
World's end
True religion?
Seasonal events
Science/Religion
More info.

Spiritual/ethics
Spirituality
Morality/ethics
Absolute truth

Peace/conflict
Attaining peace
Relig. tolerance
Relig. freedom
Relig. hatred
Relig. conflict
Relig. violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
10 command.
Abortion
Assisted suicide
Cloning
Death penalty
Environment
Homosexuality
Human rights
Gay marriage
Nudism
Origins
Sex & gender
Sin
Spanking kids
Stem cells
Transexuality
Women-rights
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news

Sponsored links

 

!!!!!!!! Search error!  If the URL ends something like .htm/  or .htm# delete the character(s) after .htm and hit return.

Same sex marriage (SSM) & domestic partnerships

In Wisconsin

Sponsored link.

Overview:

In 2006, Wisconson voters passed an amendment to the state constitution with almost 60% support. It consisted of two parts:

bulletOne part defined civil marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
bulletThe second forbids the state from granting civil union status or other similar legal recognition to unmarried couples that is similar to marriage.

William McConkey, a political science instructor, has challenged the amendment. He argues that state law limits referendums to a single subject, and that the referendum is invalid because it put two questions to the voters.

McConkey lost before a Dane County judge in 2008. But he appealed to a Madison, WI appeals court. In 2009-APR, the appeals court asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case as soon as possible. The Supreme Court accepted it.

The court will rule on two topics:

bulletWhether the 2006 constitutional amendment was valid.
bulletWhether a single voter has sufficient standing to launch a lawsuit. McConkey is a heterosexual who has a lesbian daughter.

The court announced on 2009-MAY-14 that lawyers had 30 days in which to file their initial briefs. Oral arguments are expected in the fall. A ruling could come before the end of 2009.

Bill Cosh, a spokesperson for Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (R) said:

"We have defended the voter's choice, and we will continue to do so."

Katie Belanger is the legislative director of Fair Wisconsin, the largest gay human rights group in the state. She praised the court's decision to take the case, saying:

"The constitutional amendment is definitely something we see as a stain on the constitution. It sort of enshrines discrimination, 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."

Lester Pines, the lawyer representing McConkey, said that he was looking forward to:

"a spirited and fun oral argument. ... This is a very significant legal issue. It's really not necessarily only about marriage. It's really about how things are supposed to be submitted to the voters."

If McConkey wins his case then:

bulletWisconsin's legislators could amend the marriage law that limits marriage to one woman and one man, and legalize same-sex marriage (SSM) in the state.
bulletIt could enable gay, bisexual, and/or civil rights groups to launch a lawsuit to overturn the current state marriage law and legalize SSM.
bulletMost likely, it would trigger two new referrenda to doubly enshrine discrimination in the constitution: one referrendum to prohibit SSM and another to prohibit civil unions. Both would probably pass if done quickly. However, they would probably receive less support than the 2006 referendum did because of the nationwide increase in support for SSM.

In the meantime, Governor Jim Doyle (D) has proposed a bill to create a domestic partnership bill that would give 43 benefits to registered same-sex partners, out of the hundreds granted to married opposite-sex couples. Included would be the right to visit each other in hospital, and to inherit each other's property. These are rights that loving, committed same-sex couples do not have at this time. They are currently considered mere roommates by the state, and their children are considered to be illegitimate.

Reference used:

The following information source was used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlink is not necessarily still active today.

  1. Ryan J. Foley, "Wis. high court to review 2006 gay marriage ban," Associated Press, 2009-MAY-14, at: http://www.chron.com/

Site navigation:

Home > Religious info. > Basic > Marriage > SSM > Menu >here

Home > "Hot" topics > Homosexuality > SSM > Menu > here

First posted: 2009-MAY-20
Latest update: 2009-MAY-20
Author: B.A. Robinson

line.gif (538 bytes)
Sponsored link

Go to the previous page, or return to the Same-sex Marriage menu, or choose:

Google
Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Purchase a CD of this web site

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Twitter link

Facebook icon

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.

 

Sponsored link: