In a thoughtless move from the state Capitol, Wisconsin‘s Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has refused to support a domestic partnership law that will grant spousal benefits to same-sex couples. The law allocates privileges such as hospital visitation and inheritance to legally protect same-sex couples under law. Stating the law is “unconstitutional,” Van Hollen cites Wisconsin‘s 2006 constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as a feeble foundation to his argument.

With a twisted sense of logic, Van Hollen attempts to defend his unsteady decision by attributing it to the citizens of Wisconsin, saying “the people have spoken by amending the constitution,” and that he will “abide by our command.” Never mind the 413 same-sex couples that have already been legally added to the state registry or the hundreds more who have applied, or the thousands of others Van Hollen has yet to solicit. Clearly, Van Hollen is truly a servant of his people.

Since news hit of the attorney general’s reckless decision, rumors have circulated that he is trying to make a name for himself as he eyes a gubernatorial run. This would hardly be the first time a politician has clung to a controversial argument to cement a political base, but Van Hollen is hardly doing a successful job at hiding his intentions. Democratic Madison Rep. Mark Pocan said it best when he called Van Hollen’s decision “sloppy,” one that “hurts the institution.” Gov. Jim Doyle also openly rejected the attorney general’s decision, stating, “The attorney general’s job is to represent the state and defend state law when there is a good faith defense to be made.”

Giving same-sex couples a fraction of the privileges that married couples share can hardly be compared to the institution of marriage, and there is no “good faith defense” for this inequality. And Van Hollen seems to be arguing because the citizens of Wisconsin have voted against gay marriage, they must simultaneously have voted down other basic rights of same-sex couples. This isn’t an assumption Van Hollen has the right to make, and I stand behind Gov. Doyle’s statement that the attorney general’s “representation should not be based on whether he likes the state law.”

The consequences resulting in the attorney general’s decision will not just hit the same-sex couples vying for equal rights in Wisconsin. The pompous Van Hollen is not only infuriating taxpayers by making up their minds for them on this issue; he is also sticking them with the bill for legal expenses. Van Hollen’s refusal to support the domestic partnership law will require the state to hire an outside counsel to defend the law. Normally these expenses would be covered by the attorney general’s office, but due to his rash verdict, Wisconsin taxpayers will be forced to pay the outside council’s fee of roughly $175 per hour. If he had done his job correctly and listened to the people whose ideology he claims to be protecting, taxpayers wouldn’t be stuck paying for this mess.

For more evidence that Van Hollen aspires to the Governor’s Mansion, note that his current political standpoint differs outrageously from statements made back in 2006, during his successful bid for attorney general. At the time, Van Hollen portrayed himself as progressive toward gay rights, stating “It was clear lawmakers could extend benefits traditionally associated with marriage such as probate benefits and health insurance under the constitutional amendment.” So one must wonder why Van Hollen is singing a different tune just after news broke that Doyle will not run for another term. In a demagogic attempt to rally a conservative base, Van Hollen has been transparent in his intentions. And while he may have the Wisconsin Family Council singing his praises, I am hopeful the majority of Wisconsin will recognize his political ambitions outweigh his political character.

Emily Osborne ([email protected]) is a sophomore intending to major in journalism.