WI: Judge may rule soon on challenge to state's marriage ban

Link: Capital Times

Excerpt:

Last week, as the California Supreme Court was making national headlines for overturning California's gay marriage ban, local attorney Tamara Packard was putting the final touches on the final legal brief on behalf of her client, William McConkey, who is challenging Wisconsin's gay marriage ban.

[...]

While the California Supreme Court ruled that the California ban did not pass constitutional muster, the issue before Judge Niess is much more narrow. McConkey also had originally claimed that Wisconsin's constitutional amendment violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, but Niess ruled in September that McConkey did not have standing to sue on that issue.

Niess did, however, allow McConkey to proceed on the question of whether the referendum on the fall 2006 ballot asked two questions rather than one -- whether to ban gay marriage and whether to prohibit anything "substantially similar" to marriage. Significantly, a provision in the Wisconsin Constitution, known as the single subject rule, prohibits referendum questions from asking multiple questions.

The Department of Justice argues in its brief that the marriage amendment is constitutional because its parts relate to the same subject matter and are designed to accomplish the same thing.

But if the judge agrees with McConkey that the referendum did pose two questions to voters, the state's constitutional amendment, which was approved by 59 percent of voters, would be overturned.

Most likely, such a ruling would be immediately appealed and the Court of Appeals would likely stay any judgment pending the outcome of the appeal.

[...]

[jw]