Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
unhappy days

Wisconsin Supreme Court Keeps Marriage Ban Alive in 7-0 Vote


Well, I got my answer: In a unanimous 7-0 ruling, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions. The justices said the ban was properly enacted, even though referendum questions are supposed to be limited to a single question, since both questions “carry out the same general purpose of preserving the legal status of marriage in Wisconsin as between only one man and one woman.”

By:          JD
On:           Jun 30, 2010
Tagged: ,
    • Jaroslaw

      Does Wisconsin’s constitution have an equal protection clause?

      Jun 30, 2010 at 10:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brutus

      I think the referendum amended the Wisconsin constitution, so even if Wisconsin’s constitution also contains an equal protection clause it wouldn’t apply to this other portion of the constitution.

      That said, the single-subject challenge is a very strong argument and I’m shocked that it was rejected 7-0.

      Jun 30, 2010 at 10:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

      I hope all their fucking cheese rots……….

      Jun 30, 2010 at 10:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Argos

      It doesn’t surprise me in the least that this ban was upheld (although I am somewhat surprised that it was 7-0…). Despite what some people may think, Wisconsin is not a particularly ‘liberal’ state. Madison, yes, the rest of the state, not so much.

      I live outside of Milwaukee and I can assure you there are plenty of of racist, homophobic bigots around. There are a lot of decent people here too, but SSM is just too ‘scary’ for most of them to imagine I guess (even if it has absolutely nothing to do with them). Most of the midwest is like that, unfortunately. It’s going to take a SCOTUS ruling in our favor to see SSM in WI anytime in the next 10 or so years..at least.

      Jun 30, 2010 at 12:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw

      #2 Brutus, I discussed that with a coworker on the way to lunch….it is amazing the law is supposed to be “x + y = Z” but if it doesn’t follow the correct format, I too would like to know how the supreme court came up with 7-0?

      Actually, here in Michigan, the Board of Canvassers is supposed to prevent errors like that. It shouldn’t even made it to the ballot if it was incorrectly formulated.

      Jun 30, 2010 at 2:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CJ

      The number of states that have constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage is very, very high.


      This needs to eventually be addressed on the federal level via the courts, congress repealing DOMA, etc. It will take forever for individual states to change from their “anti” views to actually supporting equal rights for everyone. There are likely some states that wouldn’t change for another 50 years.

      Jun 30, 2010 at 3:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lambda

      @Argos: This decision doesn’t really have anything to do with the politics of the state. It’s simply a question of “was this one amendment or two.” The court should be extremely cautious when invalidating an amendment vote.

      Jun 30, 2010 at 8:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.