Hot on the heels of California’s gay marriage victory, a Wisconsin court will hear a case hoping to abolish that state’s ban on same-sex nuptials and civil unions.
The gay marriage argument, set for a week from Friday, will hinge on the amendment’s language:
University of Wisconsin-Madison professor William [McConkey] originally said the ban violates the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution – an argument Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Ness rejected last fall. The judge did leave the door open to McConkey’s claim that the state amendment illegally addressed more than one issue.
McConkey’s lawyer said the 2006 ballot question actually asked two questions: whether gay marriages should be banned, and whether anything “substantially similar” to gay marriage should be banned.
But the state Justice Department defended the amendment’s language, saying it was all meant to do the same thing.
Because, duh!, constitutional procedure doesn’t matter when you’re coming down on the queers!
