WI Supreme Court to hear gay marriage case

[FreeState]

http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local_wluk_madison_scowis_gay_marriage_200911021234_rev1

Supreme Court to hear gay marriage case
Updated: Monday, 02 Nov 2009, 12:36 PM CST
Published : Monday, 02 Nov 2009, 12:36 PM CST

MADISON - The state Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a Northeast Wisconsin man’s appeal of a lost lawsuit over Wisconsin’s same-sex marriage referendum.

William McConkey of Baileys Harbor sued the state in May, arguing a 2006 referendum which led to a statewide ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The ballot measure read, in part, "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."

McConkey, who has a homosexual daughter, argued that the first part of the referendum question limiting marriage to only one man and one woman was a separate subject from the second part of the question addressing any similar legal status to marriage for unmarried individuals. McConkey argued that if the propositions had been put forth separately, a significant number of voters may have voted yes on one question and no on the other. He also said the question violated a provision in Wisconsin’s constitution requiring referendum questions to only deal with one subject.

A Dane County judge ruled McConkey did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the marriage amendment, and that the referendum question was legal because both questions related to the same subject.

McConkey appealed, and the appeals court turned the case over to the Supreme Court because of its broad impact. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case Tuesday morning. A final decision will be made in writing later...

[Athelwulf]

1. If we lose this, the next step: Amend the constitution to allow civil unions (or maybe marriage).

I don't know what the reality on the ground is concerning popular opinion of same-sex marriage. But I figure civil unions that are equivalent to marriage ought to be easily attainable. If repealing the amendment in its entirety is not feasible right now, then repealing part of it may be fine — for the short term. It sucks, I know, but it could at least tide us over, I suppose.

[FreeState]

2. Nate Silver has the state as ready to repeal it in 2012

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html

Below are the dates when the model predicts that each of the 50 states would vote against a marriage ban. Asterisks indicate states which had previously passed amendments to ban gay marriage.

2009 (now)
Vermont
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Maine
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Nevada*
Washington
Alaska*
New York
Oregon*

2010
California*
Hawaii
Montana*
New Jersey
Colorado*

2011
Wyoming
Delaware
Idaho*
Arizona*

2012
Wisconsin*
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Illinois

2013
Michigan*
Minnesota
Iowa
Ohio*
Utah*
Florida*

2014
New Mexico
North Dakota*
Nebraska*
South Dakota*

2015
Indiana
Virginia*
West Virginia
Kansas*

2016
Missouri*

2018
Texas*

2019
North Carolina
Louisiana*
Georgia*

2020
Kentucky*

2021
South Carolina*
Oklahoma*

2022
Tennessee*
Arkansas*

2023
Alabama*

2024
Mississippi*

[Athelwulf]

3. Then a wholesale repeal is definitely worth a try! n/t

[LeftHander]

4. No. If this amendment is upheld by WI SC...then gay couples simply do not exist.

That is the real intent of this mean-spirited amendment. Anti-Gay-Marriage are Anti-Gay people and they simply have a deep seeded fear and hatred for us.

I for one hate them back. Hypocrites and narrow minded religious zealots.

[Athelwulf]

7. That may have been Wisconsin's mindset in 2006. But what about now, or 2010, or 2012? n/t

[LeftHander]

5. Listening in on the arguments (online)

The arguments for repeal are centering around "standing" and "purpose". Immediately two conservative judges wanted to hear the arguments from the attorney on standing. i.e. What weight does the fact that this amendment was passed and not questioned prior to the election. And what standing does the plaintiff have....what injury is he suing for..Counselor Fine was ready with three points on the "standing" question.

That went well I think. Now the Attorney is addressing the "purpose" of the amendment. It came from a joint resolution from the legislature on marriage between one man and one woman. He is arguing that this is the purpose of the amendment and that the second part of the amendment on "nothing similar to marriage" violated the purpose of the original resolution.

His entire argument is about describing the methodology used by the court to determine "single question" description of an amendment as found in the WI Constitution. There is precedence by the court that the legislatures joint resolution that precludes the amendment states the purpose and the amendment must adhere to that single purpose.

Pro Ban lawyers are coming up next...I won't be able to listen....

[LeftHander]

6. listeneing to arguements...for upholding the ban...saying it is not two.

Lawyer is arguing it's purpose is to protect marriage. Chief Justice Abrahamson is beating him on it by saying well what if divorce was included in the amendment...she is breaking down his arguments in a better fashion than the conservatives did with "standing".

Summation:

He is addressing standing. By saying this whole case only involves McConky. State calls for dismissing as case has no standing. But anti-amendment lawyer wants to extend standing to ANY voter not just McConky who brought the suit to the court.

He is saying that the plaintiff was not injured and thus violate the constitution by bringing the case.


"Isn't there a voter in Wisconsin that would of voted different "?

She is trying to show "log rolling" she showed him that it was log rolling and he wanted to prevent log rolling....I think he is losing his argument. (good thing).

This is going to be a VERRRRYYY interesting outcome....

[FreeState]

8. Thanks for the updates! n/t