Experts: Amendment to spark court battles (ban of civil unions/gay marriage)

[rodeodance]

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=106691&ntpid=2

THU., NOV 9, 2006 - 12:11 AM

Experts: Amendment to spark court battles

DOUG ERICKSON [e-mail]
Patrick Erwin went to bed Tuesday harboring a deep sadness and a looming dread that he would soon need to leave Wisconsin.

Voters had just passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions in the state, and Erwin, who is gay and lives in Madison, said he felt his life here was about to become more difficult.

"This kind of thing usually emboldens people to take further action," said Erwin, 37, an administrative assistant at an insurance company. "I think things will proceed in a worse direction before they get better."

One day after the referendum's passage, analysts and observers predicted Wisconsin is in for a thorny and protracted dispute - likely decided by judges - over the ban's language, reach and ramifications.

"It's sort of open to interpretation what the wording means," said Donald Downs, a UW-Madison political science professor. "What kind of benefits accruing to partners will this amendment allow? In the end, it's going to be up to the courts to decide."

Gay-rights supporters and unmarried opposite-sex couples fear the amendment could jeopardize all types of domestic-partner benefits, even those offered by private companies. They said the ban's passage could spur anti-gay activists to fight even small attempts at equality, such as the ability to visit partners in the emergency room.

[LostinVA]

1. The same thing will happen in Virginia

Because the amendment is written the same way.

Sometimes Loving vs. The Commonwealth of Virginia seems alot more recent than 1970...

[customerserviceguy]

4. Well, actually, it shouldn't even seem that recent

because it happened in 1967. It's interesting, because interracial marriage was never on the ballot, but a 1967 Gallup poll found about 90% of the US population opposed to interracial marriage. Looks like the Supreme Court was ahead of the curve on that one, and I expect them to do so again. There are too many constitutional bans on equal marriage out there to repeal them one by one.

[moose65]

7. that's true

There were never "votes" about interracial marriage. Is all this ballot stuff a recent phenomenon? I'm sure that some states would have passed amendments about racial issues if they'd had the chance. Are there other ways to amend these constitutions besides ballot initiatives?

[customerserviceguy]

8. A state's legislature can always

vote to amend a state's Constitution, but many have to then submit changes to a vote of the people. But that's not used often. A state legislature can enact laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman, and if the governor of the state signs that bill, it becomes law. However, that state's Supreme Court can decide that such a law is invalid, as has happened in Massachusetts and New Jersey, and to an extent, in Vermont.

It's a good thing that the rights of racial minorities were not put up for popular vote back in the Sixties, there would have been a very strong vote against them. While I believe the US Supreme Court would have struck down overtly racist statutes and constitutional amendments, it was far easier for them to go against 'custom', and simply do the right thing. I have a fear that it will take a LONG time for the anti marriage equality amendments to go away.

[moose65]

2. what can a court do?

If the amendment is part of a constitution, how can it be declared "unconstitutional"?? Will the US Supreme Court have to decide? As I understand it, the US Constitution trumps state constitutions.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. bottom line - Constitution GIVE rights, they don't take them away.

I'm sure this will be religated to the trash can eventually, but it will be a fight.

[Igel]

6. US Constitution is construed to trump state constitutions.

If SCOTUS says some provision in a state constitution is unconstitution with a big 'C', then it's unconstitutional.

[msongs]

5. these bans are violations of religious freedom - why should ONE religion be imposed

on everybody? the christian religion is not the only belief system available, so why should everyone have to live according to its precepts (and that assumes anybody actually practices the religion properly).

telling me I cannot receive equal treatment under the law because I am not a christofascist is immoral and illegal.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Justitia]

9. Civil Rights should NEVER be voted on by your neighbors, we'd still have slavery otherwise.

And women & blacks would never have been given the right to vote.

Civil Rights are not arbitrarily handed out by Majority (Mob) Rule.

This kind of discriminatory practice will have to be turned over by the SCOTUS on a nat'l level.

Unfortunately, this is the most bigoted SCOTUS since Dred Scott.

[brentspeak]

10. I don't understand the reluctance to OK civil unions

I understand why the public is not in favor of gay marriage -- good or bad, it's about as radical a cultural change as you can get. But civil unions wouldn't upend the ancient status quo.