The Milwaukee Journal reported the following...
Dane County Circuit Judge Richard G. Niess said the pairing of two sentences in the amendment - one addressing marriage and the other similar legal relationships, such as civil unions - did not violate a provision in the Wisconsin Constitution that says if more than one amendment is submitted, voters must be able to vote for or against each amendment separately.
The case was brought by Bill McConkey, who lives in Door County and teaches at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh.
McConkey said he was offended by the amendment because one of his seven daughters is gay and he thinks it unfairly takes protections away from certain people.
McConkey's lawsuit raised several objections to the amendment, but Niess left open only the question of whether the amendment was properly presented to voters.
The lawsuit was filed against Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen and defended by the state Department of Justice.
The amendment reads: "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."
The two sentences are "two sides of the same coin," Niess said. "They clearly relate to the same subject matter and further the same purpose."
McConkey said he was disappointed by the ruling and thinks two separate subjects were presented to voters.
Julaine Appling, chief executive officer of the Wisconsin Family Council, said the two sentences were necessary - one defines marriage and the second protects the institution - and that voters understood the amendment.
In the November 2006 election, 59% of voters supported the amendment.
After the hearing, McConkey said his instinct was to the appeal the decision, but he and his attorney, Lester Pines, a Madison lawyer representing McConkey for no fee, said they would consult about that possibility.
Posts
