Sponsored links
|
|
| One part defined civil marriage as a union of one man and one woman. | |
| The 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:
| Whether the 2006 constitutional amendment was valid. | |
| Whether 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:
| Wisconsin'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. | |
| It could enable gay, bisexual, and/or civil rights groups to launch a lawsuit to overturn the current state marriage law and legalize SSM. | |
| Most 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.
![]()
The following information source was used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlink is not necessarily still active today.
![]()
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
![]()
|
|
|
Sponsored link: