bill mcconkey filed suit
Madison, Wisconsin -
In a long-awaited decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has upheld the 2006 voter referendum amending the state's constitution to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions.
The unanimous 7-0 decision did not directly address the marriage issue but rather a legal technicality involving the referendum process.
Bill McConkey, pictured, a University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh political science instructor, filed suit in 2007 arguing that the marriage referendum violated state law requiring that such proposals can only address a single subject. He argued that because voters were asked whether the state should ban both same-sex marriage and "identical or substantially similar arrangements," they were denied the opportunity to vote "no" on one part and "yes" on the other.
Polls in Wisconsin and elsewhere have shown that many voters who reject the concept of same-sex marriage nonetheless support civil unions, and McConkey maintained that the two issues should have been presented separately.
Representing the state, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen countered that the referendum was legal because the two parts of the amendment were closely related and served the same purpose of preserving "the unique status of marriage."
The state also argued that McConkey didn't have legal standing to sue because he would have voted "no"on both questions, even if the referendum had been written in two parts. The state contended McConkey therefore wasn't harmed by the way the referendum was written.
The Dane County Circuit Court agreed with the state, and McConkey appealed that decision, leading to the June 30 Supreme Court ruling.
"Fair Wisconsin is disappointed in but respects the court's decision," said Katie Belanger, executive director of the statewide LGBT advocacy group. "We will continue working to protect Wisconsin's 15,000 same-sex couples and build towards a legislative repeal of this discriminatory amendment to our state's constitution."
Belanger said that in ignoring the larger question of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry or enter into civil unions, the court's decision does not affect the domestic partnership registry enacted by lawmakers last summer. The registry provides same-sex couples with about 40 of the 150 rights enjoyed by married couples, including hospital visitation rights.
In July 2009, Wisconsin Family Action and other right-wing groups asked the Supreme Court to block the domestic partner registry law because they said it violates the same-sex marriage amendment. But last November the court declined to hear the group's petition without comment.
Belanger said the Supreme Court justices went "out of their way not to make any swipes about the policy matter at hand" in issuing their decision on the amendment. "This is literally about interpreting the single-subject rule, not about interpreting whether the constitutional amendment was the right step for the state," she said.
Legal precedents concerning the single-issue rule are scarce and conflicting, Belanger added.
"Domestic partnerships are just one step on the long road to equality," Belanger said. "Fair Wisconsin will continue working toward the day when all Wisconsin's citizens will know true equality."
Wisconsin voters adopted the 2006 marriage amendment by a 59 percent majority.
Written by Louis Weisberg, Special from Wisconsin Gazette
The unanimous 7-0 decision did not directly address the marriage issue but rather a legal technicality involving the referendum process.
Bill McConkey, pictured, a University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh political science instructor, filed suit in 2007 arguing that the marriage referendum violated state law requiring that such proposals can only address a single subject. He argued that because voters were asked whether the state should ban both same-sex marriage and "identical or substantially similar arrangements," they were denied the opportunity to vote "no" on one part and "yes" on the other.
Polls in Wisconsin and elsewhere have shown that many voters who reject the concept of same-sex marriage nonetheless support civil unions, and McConkey maintained that the two issues should have been presented separately.
Representing the state, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen countered that the referendum was legal because the two parts of the amendment were closely related and served the same purpose of preserving "the unique status of marriage."
The state also argued that McConkey didn't have legal standing to sue because he would have voted "no"on both questions, even if the referendum had been written in two parts. The state contended McConkey therefore wasn't harmed by the way the referendum was written.
The Dane County Circuit Court agreed with the state, and McConkey appealed that decision, leading to the June 30 Supreme Court ruling.
"Fair Wisconsin is disappointed in but respects the court's decision," said Katie Belanger, executive director of the statewide LGBT advocacy group. "We will continue working to protect Wisconsin's 15,000 same-sex couples and build towards a legislative repeal of this discriminatory amendment to our state's constitution."
Belanger said that in ignoring the larger question of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry or enter into civil unions, the court's decision does not affect the domestic partnership registry enacted by lawmakers last summer. The registry provides same-sex couples with about 40 of the 150 rights enjoyed by married couples, including hospital visitation rights.
In July 2009, Wisconsin Family Action and other right-wing groups asked the Supreme Court to block the domestic partner registry law because they said it violates the same-sex marriage amendment. But last November the court declined to hear the group's petition without comment.
Belanger said the Supreme Court justices went "out of their way not to make any swipes about the policy matter at hand" in issuing their decision on the amendment. "This is literally about interpreting the single-subject rule, not about interpreting whether the constitutional amendment was the right step for the state," she said.
Legal precedents concerning the single-issue rule are scarce and conflicting, Belanger added.
"Domestic partnerships are just one step on the long road to equality," Belanger said. "Fair Wisconsin will continue working toward the day when all Wisconsin's citizens will know true equality."
Wisconsin voters adopted the 2006 marriage amendment by a 59 percent majority.
Written by Louis Weisberg, Special from Wisconsin Gazette
Article provided in partnership with Wisconsin Gazette.
