I don’t know anyone who doesn’t appreciate a good love story (I know plenty of people who would deny it, but that is something to be explored another day). Jane Austen aficionados, or really anyone who has watched a romantic comedy, know that in any love story there comes the initial attraction, the falling deeply in love part, the unfortunate separation, wallowing and then the happy ending where everyone ends up with exactly the right person. That’s the end, right? Unfortunately, a significant portion of the population is barred from that happy ending under Wisconsin law.
Same sex couples are not allowed the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples because of the 2006 state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. In 2009, Governor Doyle partially eradicated this when he signed a law granting same sex couples some legal protections under domestic partnerships. These protections are not comparable in scope to the rights of married couples, but they do allow partners to visit each other in the hospital. Shortly after the law was passed, Wisconsin Family Action challenged this law, arguing that it violated the constitutional ban. The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to hear the case, but the group did not desist. It brought another suit against the law in August of this year that challenged the legality of domestic partnerships. This suit, as the suit before it, unequivocally seeks to deny basic civil rights to Wisconsin’s LGBT community and should therefore be rejected by both the courts and the public.
The wording of the 2006 amendment defined marriage as between a man and a woman and that “a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.” The second provision is the basis for the Wisconsin Family Action suit, as the group argues domestic partnerships are “substantially similar” to marriage. This, however, is not the case. The legal protections guaranteed under the domestic partnership law are not as broad in scope as those that accompany marriage. For example, married couples and unmarried individuals may adopt children in Wisconsin, but people in a domestic partnership may not. Furthermore, an out-of-state marriage license will be recognized by Wisconsin for heterosexual couples, but Wisconsin will not recognize same-sex marriage licenses from other states, nor will it automatically transfer a domestic partnership from another state. Shocking: a domestic partnership is not the same as a marriage.
Wisconsin Family Action is trying to deny basic civil rights to thousands of Wisconsinites. By challenging the domestic partnership law, the group is essentially telling the LGBT community that it is not enough that their relationships are not recognized as equal to heterosexual relationships but that they do not deserve to have their relationships recognized by the law at all. As an ally, I find that stance insufferable. The domestic partnership law does not violate Wisconsin’s constitution as Wisconsin Family Action claims. The lawsuit instead smacks of a radical group lashing out at a vulnerable group and desperately seeking publicity. This is the second such lawsuit, and it has little chance of succeeding where the first failed. Instead of adhering to this doctrine of hate, the members of Wisconsin Family Action would do well to remember past suppression of civil rights, and to learn to appreciate the amazing diversity encapsulated in humanity.
Unfortunately, the hurtful positions of groups such as Wisconsin Family Action are not going to go away anytime soon. There will still be factions agitating against equal civil rights for all people for quite some time. But in this instance, with this particular case, the courts have a chance to put this assault against LGBT rights to rest. Wisconsin Family Action’s 2009 suit was not heard, but perhaps this suit should be tried to send a message. A ruling against the group would do more to deter comparable future actions than a non-ruling. After reading the 2006 constitutional amendment, and after reading the 2009 domestic partnership bill, it is my humble opinion that they are not in conflict. The spirit behind each bill may have differed, but the actual legal definitions set forth by each are not incompatible.
The current challenge to Wisconsin’s domestic partnership law is a malicious attempt to deny certain Wisconsinites important civil rights and should be utterly rejected by the courts. According to Fair Wisconsin, the domestic partnership bill extends rights to 15,000 Wisconsin couples. That’s a lot of people searching for their happy ending. Recognizing domestic partnerships is about a lot more than recognizing someone’s right to visit their loved one in a hospital. It’s about recognizing what that represents: it’s about recognizing people’s love for each other.
Elise Swanson ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and English.
