Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
domestic partnerships

Wisconsin’s Attorney General Stands By Constitutionally-Approved Discrimination

891401

Groups like Wisconsin Family Action were none too pleased when Wisconsin’s domestic partnership law went into effect this month, despite a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. So they sued, asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to knock down the new law. So on whose side is the attorney general, who’s responsible for defending the state’s interests? The side of conservative jerkoffs, that’s who.

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen won’t defend the DP law he announced yesterday. The Supreme Court instructed the state to respond to WFA’s lawsuit by the end of the month; Van Hollen, however, says he will not be representing Wisconsin to uphold domestic partnerships, which are “substantially similar” to marriage. That’s because voters decided on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, he says, and not because he’s trying to drum up support for a possible Republican run for the governor’s mansion. That would mean he’d be facing off against incumbent Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, who signed the DP bill into law. (Doyle isn’t running for re-election.)

“My duty to is to the people of the state of Wisconsin and the highest expression of their will – the constitution of the state of Wisconsin,” says Van Hollen. “When the people have spoken by amending our constitution, I will abide by their command. When policy-makers have ignored their words, I will not.” That leaves Doyle, himself a former attorney general, forced to hire outside counsel to defend DPs. And he’s not happy about it.

“The attorney general’s job is to represent the state and defend state law when there is a good-faith defense to be made,” Doyle said in a statement. “His representation should not be based on whether he likes the state law.”

All of this is amusing on one level because: 1) Van Hollen won’t defend Wisconsin’s DP law since, he says, it violates the state’s constitution; while at the same time 2) President Obama’s Department of Justice say they have to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, even though they acknowledge it’s discriminatory (and thus violates the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment).

And yes, Mr. Van Hollen is the same attorney general who is refusing to investigate child sex abuse allegations against a priest that even the Madison Catholic Diocese acknowledges are “credible.”

By:           editor editor
On:           Aug 22, 2009
Tagged: , , , , , ,
  • 7 Comments
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      How can one comment intelligently on stupidity?

      Aug 22, 2009 at 3:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TomEM
      TomEM

      @schlukitz: Good question.

      Aug 22, 2009 at 7:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bystander
      bystander

      “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.”

      Now that is a profoundly stupid thing to have in a constitution or statute for that matter, but i don’t see how you can argue the Wisconsin Marriage Amendment doesn’t prohibit these domestic partnerships.

      Aug 22, 2009 at 7:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Franklin
      Franklin

      Doyle isn’t running for re-election. He announced that several days ago.

      Aug 23, 2009 at 8:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reluctantcommenter
      reluctantcommenter

      @TomEM:

      DPs in wisconsin only provide couples with 43 of the 200 rights granted to heterosexual couples through marriage. that’s certainly not identical to marriage, so define “substantially similar”.

      i’m no expert, but getting less than a quarter of the rights granted through “marriage” does not seem substantially similar.

      Aug 23, 2009 at 12:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reluctantcommenter
      reluctantcommenter

      oops, that was directed at bystander.

      Aug 23, 2009 at 12:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ashle
      ashle

      Definition of marriage is means that a couple(opposite gender) is getting together and further continue as life partners.

      Why do equal sex people wants to marry?
      They can live together without marriage,

      Dont spoil value of marriage it is related to moral values.

      Ashle

      Mar 24, 2011 at 2:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.