Wisconsin same-sex marriage decision sets stage for change Commentary
Wisconsin same-sex marriage decision sets stage for change
Edited by:

Katie Belanger [Fair Wisconsin]: “On Wednesday, June 30, 2010, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the 2006 state constitutional amendment banning marriage equality and civil unions in the McConkey v. J.B. Van Hollen et al. decision. In this case, William McConkey challenged the validity of the amendment, stating that it violates the single subject requirement for all constitutional amendments by addressing both marriage and civil unions. This decision was not about public policy, but rather about legal procedure.

In the unanimous decision, liberal and conservative alike agreed that the amendment did not violate the single subject rule. Our highly politicized Supreme Court had the opportunity to use this case to make a statement, to undermine our 2009 domestic partnership victory and do irreparable harm to the fight for equality, but they did not.

Conservative Justice Michael Gableman was tasked with writing the opinion. While many of us disagree with the court about whether or not civil unions are the equivalent of marriage, Gableman’s words were clear: “…the question before us is not whether the marriage amendment is good public policy or bad public policy, nor its interpretation or application…”

These statements signal that the court was not weighing in on the merits of the amendment. They did not interpret the amendment. They did not discuss or include commentary on whether the amendment was the right step for our state or not. The justices took care to not legislate from the bench. The outcome was not what we at Fair Wisconsin had hoped for. When we joined with the ACLU and Lambda Legal to file an amicus brief in the case, it was for the express purpose of preventing the court from doing irreparable harm to our current legislative victories and our future priorities.

So, where do we go now?

This decision is not a step backwards; it rather confirms the status quo. It does not change the amendment or domestic partnerships. Couples who have registered as domestic partnerships are not affected and couples can continue to register at their county clerk’s office. Some have said that this decision may bolster the confidence of the anti-fairness conservatives who see an opportunity to challenge the domestic partnership registry. To those people I say, “Been there, done that.” The Supreme Court threw out the first challenge before they even decided the McConkey case. And if our opposition brings the case to a lower court, we are ready to once again swiftly and effectively defend the critical protections that so many couples are enjoying around the state.

What this decision does is clarify the path to full equality.

We’re going to have to push up our sleeves and do it the old-fashioned way. Putting boots on the ground, continuing to elect leaders who will stand with us in the fight for equality, educating people about the harms the amendment inflicts on caring, committed same-sex couples across the state every day. Repealing a constitutional amendment is no easy process. Two consecutive sessions of the legislature need to pass the repeal measure and then we go back to the ballot with another statewide referendum. I have no doubt that we will accomplish these goals and more. This is a marathon, not a sprint. It will take time to get the right elected leaders in office. It will take time to change the hearts and minds of our friends and neighbors, to gain their support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality.

So, we’d better get a move on.”

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.