News: Top story
Gay marriage ban under fire
Supreme Court may hear case regarding controversial constitutional amendment
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Rachel Vesco:
- Doyle meets privately with mayors (May 7, 2009)
- Public debates possible state smoking ban (May 6, 2009)
- Doyle, governors meet to talk region's wind power (May 6, 2009)
- Poverty increases as economy suffers (May 5, 2009)
- Committee OKs county RTA, film incentive change (May 1, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Following a wave of states legalizing same-sex marriage this week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will now have the opportunity to review the state’s ban on gay marriage, an appeals court ruled Thursday.
William McConkey, a political science lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, filed a suit against the state claiming the amendment banning same-sex marriages in the state was unconstitutional because of the way it was presented to voters.
“The lawsuit is not about the substance of the amendment that was approved by the voters, it’s about whether the proper procedures were followed about the way the amendment was drafted,” McConkey’s attorney Lester Pines said.
When a referendum for a constitutional amendment is submitted to voters, it can only contain one question, according to Pines. When the amendment to ban gay marriage was voted on, it included two provisions: one limiting marriage to only one man and one woman and another preventing any recognition of a situation similar to marriage between unmarried individuals.
The amendment to ban same-sex marriages in the state passed Nov. 7, 2006.
After McConkey brought the case to a Dane County Circuit Court, the court ruled the amendment was correctly presented to voters. This ruling granted McConkey the standing to bring the case before the court, though Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen argued against it during the trial.
Following the circuit court’s ruling, both McConkey and Van Hollen appealed the case. McConkey appealed based on the court’s amendment ruling while the attorney general appealed the standing ruling.
Thursday, the Fourth District Wisconsin Court of Appeals said it needed further clarification before it could make a ruling on both the amendment procedures in the state, as well as further information on McConkey’s standing to bring the case before the court to begin with.
According to the court’s ruling, the judicial precedents on both issues required further clarification from the Supreme Court before a decision in the case could be made.
The Wisconsin Family Council, a third-party organization against allowing same-sex marriages in the state, was also a part of the judicial process, according to CEO Julaine Appling.
The group filed a brief to express its support for the circuit court ruling the amendment was constitutional and could do something similar if the Supreme Court decides to take up the case, Appling said.
“It’s all in the court’s hands right now,” Appling said. “We’re cautiously optimistic the court will respect the will of the people.”
Fair Wisconsin, an organization that supports same-sex marriages in the state, is waiting to see if the court decides to hear the case before deciding if they will take any action, according to spokesperson Christine Callsen.
If the Supreme Court does not accept the case, it will be sent back to the appeals court.
17 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
I don’t care how they invalidate the ban, so long as they do! I still don’t understand how this is a separation of church and state… why can’t the state define their marriage (not civil union) licenses anyway they want?
Lift the ban. As long as the gay guys watch their language on the Metro buses when children are on board. Their profanity is just as bad as the little punks that sit in the back all the time.
I would have at least some respect for Appling if she admitted she hates the gays instaed of her “do it for the children” bullshit. Personally, Appling to me seems a bit internally discombobulated…confused. You dig? The sensible shoes, the no nonsense hair.
“Why can’t the state define their marriage (not civil union) licenses anyway they want?”
Um, they did… The people of the state voted and decided how they wanted to define marriage.
the state granting marriage licenses in the first place is a blend of church and state. Marriage should be purely a religious institution, with the state granting some sort of civil union.
Wisconsin “Family” Council. What a joke.
“It’s all in the court’s hands right now,” Appling said. “We’re cautiously optimistic the court will respect the will of the people.”
So I guess it must be the will of the people for the state to eradicate rights, privileges, and protections from people. Isn’t it supposed to be the other way around?
As to the separation of church and state, this is what I think. Each religion is different. Appling is an example of a religious person on a crusade to impose her closed-minded catholic view of marriage on others. And, when you think of marriage there are two components: civil marriage and religious marriage.
Religious marriage does not grant legal protection. In my opinion religious marriage usually involves putting together a huge, expense, celebration based on the tradition of a given religion. It is a purely a symbolic concept. Obtaining the marriage license is just a tiny but huge part of that celebration. Some religions are visibily notorious for strictly defining marriage between a man and a woman. So, for these religions its pretty clear who can participate in their rite of marriage.
Civil marriage grants legal protection to the couple. It typically takes the shape of a marriage license. The license is issued by the government, and no religion is involved. No celebration, no fanfare, no elaborate expense is required. So the problem is this: religion is sometimes used to impose its will on the people and dictate who can obtain legal protection for their relationship and in some cases their families.
In Wisconsin, the marriage license costs just under $50. It grants 200+ legal protections from the state. I forget how many legal protection from the federal government. It is a very cheap way for a couple, under specific requirements, to obtain basic legal protection.
So when the courts think of the will of the people when it comes to that disgusting amendment, yes.. the first sentence defines, the second restricts, and because of the confusing wording who the hell knows what the will of the people really was. Makes you wonder how many people might have voted yes thinking they were voting in favor of gay marriage.
Hahaha @ 3:48. “Their profanity…” Yes. Because all gay guys use the same kind of language. Or any group of people for that matter. Get a clue. And how does that have anything to do with the ban on marriage and civil unions?
I thought the citizens of Wisconsin were pretty clear on their stand on gay marraige in 2006. I hope the Supreme Court in Wisconsin has the good sense not to try to legislate from the bench, but with the liberal lunacy that seems to be sweeping the state and the nation today, who knows?
It’s a shame that Wisconsin is stuck in the dark ages on this issue. Usually I’m proud about my home state, but this it’s just plain embarrassing that Wisconsin would be one of the places where the constitution specifically includes discrimination.
To Anonymous @ 3:48 “As long as the gay guys watch their language on the Metro buses when children are on board. Their profanity is just as bad as the little punks that sit in the back all the time.”
Why are you targeting “gay gay’s” with this comment? Everyone should watch their language around children. If I said “Blacks should watch their language on the bus! Their profanity is just as bad as other people!” it would sound incredibly racist because there was no need to mention blacks specifically if other groups are swearing.
You should have said “Everyone who uses bad language on the bus should watch what they say around children”. That would get exactly the same point across without needlessly associating gay people with bad language.
You’re calling all gay guys foul-mouthed? I’m fairly certain we live in a college city, the metro buses carry more foul-mouthed students than just gays…
I strongly hope this amendment gets lifted. I don’t care how “clearly” voters made their position in 2006, had we listened solely to a popular vote for every major civil rights gain in this country, there would be no civil rights. Women’s suffrage? Votes for non-whites? Desegregation? None of these would have happened had they been decided by a popular vote. That’s what people always fail to mention when they pull this “legislation from the bench” bollocks, “legislation from the bench” is the only way this country has of keeping popular ignorance out of our lawbooks.
A person is a person, when will the US truly get rid of discrimination? Also in this democracy, don’t the PEOPLE decide? When did church come into the equation?
It’s heartening to see so many comments in favor of lifting the ban. Church and state should be separate - secular -
Yay liberal lunacy! Woooo!
11:03 - YES