H 23°, L 4° | Tomorrow: 
H 21°, L 6°(AP) - The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed Thursday to decide whether the state’s 2006 ban on gay marriage was properly put to voters.
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. “We are really looking forward to the Supreme Court making a fair decision about whether or not the amendment was put to the people in the legal and constitutional way.”
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.
Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle has already tried to chip away at the amendment’s impact. Lawmakers are considering his plan to create a statewide domestic partner registry and give same-sex couples 43 benefits enjoyed by married couples, including the right to visit one another in the hospital and inherit each other’s property.
The 2006 referendum asked whether to rewrite the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman and outlaw the state from granting a similar legal status to unmarried individuals. Nearly 60 percent of voters approved making the change, which already had been passed by lawmakers in two legislative sessions as required before going to the referendum.
The justices are expected to decide two issues. The first is whether the two-part question violated a clause in the state constitution that limits referendum questions to a “single subject.”
The second is whether an individual voter such as McConkey, a straight man who has a gay daughter, has the legal standing to sue. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen argues he does not.
In his ruling last year, Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess said McConkey could sue. But he ruled the two clauses in the referendum question were “two sides of the same coin” and properly decided with one vote.
“They clearly relate to the same subject matter and further the same purpose: the preservation and protection of the unique and historical status of traditional marriage,” he said in a ruling from the bench.
IP hash: 2ff4997d
Whoo! Let’s go Wisconsin! We can do it!
IP hash: 51564633
Gays, Lesbians, Bi-sexual, and Transgendered have made huge gains in the past 20 years. In the spirit of Rev. Martin Luther King, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and President Barack Obama, this is the civil rights issue of our time!
IP hash: ae0209a1
You go Carter. I have such high hopes for them passing this, and if they do I am going to go gay all over this town. Get ready boys.
IP hash: 6c727064
“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.”
Where does it talk about outlawing civil unions in that phrase… It doesn’t! The Herald doesn’t even quote the amendment because it is so blatantly obvious that the claim has no basis. What a joke… But it won’t surprise me if this gets reversed, our state government is beyond corrupt… cough cough… Doyle… cough…
If you don’t like the rule of law that WE THE PEOPLE have voted to approve by a large margin (59%), then move to California or something. We don’t want you here anyway.
IP hash: 6c727064
“I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman.”
“This is an issue that I think helps to describe who we are…[Marriage] connotes to so many people a religious and not just civil element, and that includes me.”
For all you ignorant people out there, these are quotes from your “Messiah”…
But Carter, open your eyes and shut your mouth before you claim Barack Obama approves of gay marriage. WE THE PEOPLE of Wisconsin and the United States don’t believe gay marriage should be legal here, and the “Messiah” doesn’t believe it should be legal either… Looks like you’ll have another 20 years before anymore “huge” gains will be made here in this state. Oh wait there haven’t been any gains… I forgot.
IP hash: a1db6355
re: Anonymous @ 5/17
It talks about it here: “A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.”
This is a separate issue from defining “marriage” as it eliminates civil unions, domestic partnerships, or any other “substantially similar” status /in addition/ to restricting marriage. These issues (in my opinion, and several others’) are not two sides of the same coin.
As for moving, I think encouraging a significant portion of the population to move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars and spending money with them, during this time of economic crisis would be an unwise stance. Not to mention that, like it or not, we have a right to live here. Saying that you wish to exclude LGBT citizens from residing in this state seems to start impeding on additional rights that we still have, such as fair housing.
IP hash: ae0209a1
To the person who wrote the same response against gay marriage twice:
I don’t understand where you are coming from at all. It is none of your business who and who isn’t allowed to get married. You are being ridiculous and quoting the “Messiah.” He also states that you cannot divorce your wife yet people do that all the time. Hmmm. Why don’t you mind your own business because everyone has a right to the pursuit of happiness. And of course it got voted against. There are so many jerks likes yourself who are married who vote against the minority. By your line of thinking, minorities don’t deserve equal rights. I think you should slowly learn to accept people for who they are and stop quoting some ridiculous fictional story because soon enough, you’ll be in the minority and maybe then you shouldn’t get equal rights. Be against gay marriage as long as you want (for whatever weird and insane reasons you have) but don’t scrutinize us and tell us to leave. People in support of gay marriage help carry this state. Oh, and huge gains? How about all the other states that have now legalized gay marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and soon to be Vermont and Maine. That’s three more states this year. So what were you saying about progress?
IP hash: c6aeb703
2:20 said “By your line of thinking, minorities don’t deserve equal rights. I think you should slowly learn to accept people for who they are and stop quoting some ridiculous fictional story because soon enough, you’ll be in the minority and maybe then you shouldn’t get equal rights.”
I think that is a pretty big jump to say that by not supporting one group in an issue that this person will always “vote against the minority.” Is there something deeper you are trying to say? The ambiguous use here could have a double meaning if you aren’t careful, but I’m sure you realized that when you wrote your response.
I am a Christian, and I will say you can call the stories in the Bible what you want to, I think a lot of times too many people misunderstand (sometimes purposely for their own goals) the meanings behind it. It is too bad that the entire Christan community is judged for the actions of a few, but that is the case for most things nowadays.
I will say my view on gay marriage is a little out there, but I currently remain undecided. I will vote for gay marriage if one condition comes with it: legalization of polygamy. Before someone calls me ignorant, homophobe, stupid, or anything else, think it through: it occurs in nature (a male mating with multiple females or female mating with multiple males), it has existed in the past for some religions (Mormons), it exists in some countries today (look it up), and before the first state legalized gay marriage it had more legal precedent than gay marriage did. I am not saying any of those bullshit “a man marrying a turtle” excuses Douchebag O’Reilly consistently uses to deny gay marriage, but that a woman should be able to have multiple husbands or a man multiple wives if all involved are willing parties, and that a man can marry a man or a woman another woman. In no way would I ever consider polygamy for myself, but I do feel that some religions and beliefs are oppressed and that gay marriage and polygamy are two of them. The institution of marriage IS flawed, and if polygamy still functions in some countries, it demonstrates a possibility for application here, along with gay marriage.