×
Blergh.
I thought this one had a chance of prevailing, but obviously the state Supreme Court thought differently.
This morning it ruled against a claim that the state’s same-sex marriage amendment was improperly worded.
Amendment questions should cover only one topic, not two.
But according to William McConkey, the amendment consisted of two questionswhether the state should ban same-sex marriages, and whether the state should ban opposite-sex unions that are much like marriage.
Here’s the amendment:
And here’s what the state Supreme Court found:
So even if, say, you wanted to ban same-sex marriage but wanted to preserve opposite-sex partnerships (or vice-versa), you had to vote for the whole kit and kaboodle, the justices found, because the whole amendment relates to traditional marriage.
And, later, the court wrote:
I’d argue that the purpose was to increase the number of conservative voters at the polls in 2006, but, then, I already have.
PHOTO CREDIT: Derek Ramsey
I thought this one had a chance of prevailing, but obviously the state Supreme Court thought differently.
This morning it ruled against a claim that the state’s same-sex marriage amendment was improperly worded.
Amendment questions should cover only one topic, not two.
But according to William McConkey, the amendment consisted of two questionswhether the state should ban same-sex marriages, and whether the state should ban opposite-sex unions that are much like marriage.
Here’s the amendment:
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.
And here’s what the state Supreme Court found:
We hold that Article XIII, Section 13 of the Wisconsin Constitutionthe marriage amendmentwas adopted in conformity with the separate amendment rule in Article XII, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which mandates that voters must be able to vote separately on separate amendments. Both sentences of the marriage amendment relate to marriage and tend to effect or carry out the same general purpose of preserving the legal status of marriage in Wisconsin as between only one man and one woman.
So even if, say, you wanted to ban same-sex marriage but wanted to preserve opposite-sex partnerships (or vice-versa), you had to vote for the whole kit and kaboodle, the justices found, because the whole amendment relates to traditional marriage.
And, later, the court wrote:
Before the marriage amendment was adopted, marriage in Wisconsin was already limited by statute to the unions of one man and one woman. See Wis. Stat. %uFFFD 765.001(2) (2005-06)[19] ("Under the laws of this state, marriage is a legal relationship between 2 equal persons, a husband and wife."); %uFFFD 765.01 ("Marriage, so far as its validity at law is concerned, is a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential, and which creates the legal status of husband and wife.").[20] This amendment was therefore an effort to preserve and constitutionalize the status quo, not to alter the existing character or legal status of marriage.
The first sentence preserves the one man-one woman character of marriage by so limiting marriages entered into or recognized in Wisconsin. The second sentence, by its plain terms, ensures that no legislature, court, or any other government entity can get around the first sentence by creating or recognizing "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage."[21] We need not decide what legal statuses identical or substantially similar to marriage are prohibited by this clause in order to understand its plain and general purpose.
Why preserve the status quo through a constitutional amendment? This is no secret either. The sponsors of the amendment were quite clear that state supreme court decisions overturning the marriage laws of other states were the primary reason for the amendment.[22] In short, the sponsors of the amendment wanted to protect the current definition and legal status of marriage, and to ensure that the requirements in the first sentence could not be rendered illusory by later legislative or court action recognizing or creating identical or substantially similar legal statuses. The purpose of the marriage amendment, then, was to preserve the legal status of marriage in Wisconsin as between only one man and one woman. Both propositions in the amendment tend to effect or carry out this general purpose.
I’d argue that the purpose was to increase the number of conservative voters at the polls in 2006, but, then, I already have.
PHOTO CREDIT: Derek Ramsey
