Wisconsin Supreme Court to review gay marriage ban

[snowdays]

Source: AP



http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20090515/OSH0101/305150041/1128&located=RSS

Wisconsin Supreme Court to review gay marriage ban
Decision may affect 2006 referendum approved by voters

By Ryan J. Foley • Associated Press writer • May 15, 2009


MADISON — The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed Thursday to decide whether the state's 2006 ban on gay marriage was properly put to voters.
Advertisement

The court will review a challenge by political science instructor William McConkey, who claims the referendum on the constitutional amendment illegally put two issues to voters at the same time: whether to ban gay marriage and whether to outlaw civil unions.

A Dane County judge dismissed the case last year, and the Baileys Harbor man appealed that ruling. Last month, the Madison-based District 4 Court of Appeals asked the high court to take the case immediately because of its statewide significance.

Justices announced Thursday they decided to take the case and gave lawyers 30 days to file their initial briefs. The court did not set a date for oral arguments and any decision would not be expected for months.

Fair Wisconsin, the state's largest gay rights group, praised the court's decision to take the case.

"The constitutional amendment is definitely something we see as a stain on the constitution. It sort of enshrines discrimination," said its legislative director, Katie Belanger.

A ruling striking down the amendment would not legalize same-sex marriage because state law still defines marriage as a union between husband and wife. However, it could pave the way for lawmakers to eventually allow it, or for advocates to file lawsuits seeking that right.........

Read more: http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20090515/OSH0101/305150041/1128&located=RSS

---

I recall that the wording was very confusing and people walked away--those who thought they were voting yes, ended up voting no. Some press about it at the time

[WillParkinson]

1. The other problem...

Is that it was asking 2 questions (Civil unions and marriage) as one question. You might have been for unions, but against marriage, but you had to take all or nothing.

[No Elephants]

5. In Massachusetts, both the neo theos and rights organizations opposed civil unions, the first

group for their usual reasons and the second group because separate but equal is never equal.

The opposition worked, because the legislature had been considering civil unions as a way around our court's opinion on equal rights. However, when both groups opposed civil unions, the legislature ended up (intentionally, say some) unable to agree on anything and the court decision about marriage stood.

[WillParkinson]

7. Wisconsin law states...

There can only be one question put to a person in a amendment to the constitution. One judge, however, said that both questions amounted to the same things.

[Ian David]

2. ...

Marriage = +

[sybylla]

3. If this is struck down, it won't come back for a long time.

In Wisconsin, to get an amendment to the constitution before voters, it has to pass both houses of the legislature in two legislative sessions. Since a session is 2 years, that will probably take some time. The first shot was accomplished when the pukes had control of both houses for 6 years. Now, Dems are in charge of both houses. There will be no constitutional ban in Wisconsin for some time to come if this is thrown out on a technicality.

And, I think there is a growing sentiment in support of civil unions. It won't be so easy next time.

Thank goddess for technicalities!

[CatholicEdHead]

4. I hope it is overturned

Fair Wisconsin did a very good job with outreach, but it still ended up 2 to 1 for the ban. :(

The trend in Minnesota is to probably make it legal in 5-10yrs, and the same in Wisconsin without that ban.

If I remember the vote, the best spots were Madison and Milwaukee and Dane County with the only percentage over 50% against the ban in the state.

[No Elephants]

6. Could it be that equal rights advocates voted no because of their opposition to civil unions?