State Supreme Court to hear case on marriage amendment (Wisconsin)

[WillParkinson]

State Supreme Court to hear case on marriage amendment

Madison - The state Supreme Court on Thursday said it will hear a challenge to the 2006 constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage.

The order added the case to the court's 2009-'10 term that ends in June 2010, but did not specify a date for oral arguments before the seven-member court.

The challenge to the constitutional change was filed in 2007 by Bill McConkey, a Door County resident who teaches at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh and who has a daughter who is gay. Although McConkey had argued that the constitutional change was improperly put before voters in 2006, a Dane County judge had ruled against him.

Citing the importance of the case, the Court of Appeals had asked the Supreme Court to decide the case.

The decision by the Supreme Court to hear the case came days before the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee considers the proposal of Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle to legalize local registries that would give same-sex couples the right to register with local officials to obtain legal privileges now limited to heterosexual couples.

The Wisconsin case also comes as judges in several other states, including Iowa, have legalized same-sex marriages.

Wisconsin voters approved the constitutional amendment by a 59% to 41% margin.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/45044032.html

(Sorry, forgot the state in the title)

[LeftHander]

1. The question(s) in question....as it appeared on the ballot in 2006

This sure looks like this run on compound "question" is asking two separate questions that had to answered with one response. Some voters could not vote yes on the first part and no on the second part or vice versa. This is precisely why the Constitution worded the amendment process to allow only one question.


---------the ballot wording------------

"Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?"

---------------------------------------

Per Wisconsin State Constitution only ONE question can be asked of the voters per amendment. In terms of the substance of the amdendment there are two distinct parts

one: To provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage.

two: A legal status substantially similar to marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be recognized.

There was a lot of discussion about this and the GOP controlled state assembly and senate managed to put the measure through in two consecutive legislative sessions during the Bush years.

[Stargleamer]

2. Yes, this should be a no-brainer. . .

but if the Wisconsin Supreme Court has any members like Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas, it could find ways to justify the unjustifiable.