November 21st, 2009
 

365 Gay: News

Wis. AG will not defend gay partnership law


(Madison, Wis.)  Wisconsin’s attorney general said Friday he will not defend a new law that grants same-sex couples spousal benefits such as hospital visitation and inheritance, saying lawmakers went against voters’ decision not to extend such privileges.

“When the people have spoken by amending our Constitution, I will abide by their command,” said Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, who believes the law is unconstitutional. “When policy makers have ignored their words, I will not.”

The law, which took effect Aug. 3, allows gay and lesbian partners to receive dozens of the same legal protections as married spouses. So far, 413 couples have been added to the state registry and more have applied.

The conservative Wisconsin Family Council asked the state Supreme Court last month to invalidate the law. The group argued that it conflicts with a 2006 constitutional amendment approved by voters that banned gay marriage and any “substantially similar” relationships.

Wisconsin was the first state to grant domestic partnerships to gay couples despite having the constitutional ban. It was also the first Midwestern state to give gay couples some legal protections legislatively.

Van Hollen, a Republican, said the domestic partnerships as defined by the law are “substantially similar” to marriage. He accused the Democratic-controlled Legislature and Gov. Jim Doyle of ignoring the will of the people.

The decision by Van Hollen to declare the law unconstitutional will force the state to pay the expense of hiring an outside counsel to defend the law, a task normally performed by the attorney general’s office. Outside lawyers typically cost taxpayers about $175 per hour.

The high court last week asked the state to respond to the lawsuit by Aug. 31 as it considers whether to take the case. Four of the seven justices would have to agree to do so. If they decline, the law would stand but the group could file a challenge in circuit court.

Attorney Brian Raum, who is representing the conservative group, said Van Hollen’s decision strengthens the group’s case.

“I certainly think it helps,” he said. “The attorney general’s opinion in regard to the registry’s unconstitutionality may be a positive factor in helping the court to make a decision on this.”

Rep. Mark Pocan, an openly gay Madison Democrat who championed the law, said Van Hollen was trying to score political points with his conservative base.

“That’s clearly a statement by J.B. Van Hollen the politician, not J.B. Van Hollen the attorney general,” he said. “He’s trying to make a name for himself but this is the kind of sloppy political decision that hurts the institution.”

The governor and lawmakers who supported the law have expressed confidence it will be upheld since the rights granted to same-sex couples gives them only 43 of the 200 rights given to married couples.

Registering will make it easier for same-sex couples to complete legal transactions like transferring property and executing wills, and can be used to obtain health insurance through employers that extend coverage to domestic partners.

They also will be guaranteed the right to visit each other in hospitals and care facilities, make end-of-life-decisons and take off work under the Family and Medical Leave Act to care for each other. They will not have the right to jointly file taxes, among others.

The nonpartisan Legislative Council concluded the law should survive a legal challenge because it does not give “comprehensive, core aspects of the legal status of marriage to same-sex couples.” Those include the ability to divorce and to share marital property.


Login or Register to comment.

or Login with Facebook:

  • Sara Bellum Said: August 22nd, 2009 at 3:15 am
    • @footwork61:

      Though I agree that what is good for the goose is good for the gander:

      As John Moll pointed at at the end of his comment, we can discriminate between the actions of Brown and Van Hollen on the basis of the resulting effects on society. That’s not hypocrisy. The real world often requires finely drawn judgments to be made.

      We do not typically refer to black civil rights protesters of the MLK era as criminals even though they often were by the books. We do refer to those who sought to stop the protests (or civil rights progress) as at least anti-American even though they were often acting legally by the law books of the time.

      Process is not the only thing. Outcomes matter as well.

      But I think I agree that what we should be decrying is not the process here (unless one wants to make the argument that though currently unrecognized the US constitution both guarantees equality and tops this state constitution [and/or find a clause in that constitution which acts similarly]), but why can’t we name this for the chicken-hearted pandering and bigotry it is?

  • John Moll Said: August 22nd, 2009 at 2:14 am
    • Well Morgan, a state Attorney General, when sworn in, swears “under God” to uphold the laws of the state that the AG is elected in. So Jerry Brown took an oath to uphold the laws of the state of California, the California Constitution being the supreme law in California subject only to the US Constitution, and Van Hollen took an oath to uphold the laws of the state of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Constitution being the supreme law in Wisconsin, subject only to the US Constitution.

      So if Brown and Van Hollen both held reasonable, good faith beliefs that defending a law passed by the legislature or by popular initiative violated their state constitution, they would NOT have a legal duty to defend it.

      If the votes agree or disagree with that decision of the AG, it is up to them to either re-elect or boot out of office that AG, as they see fit.

      The Obama Administration, through US AG Holder, reluctantly agreed to defend DOMA – because although they disagree with this policy, they do not find it rises to the level of unconstitutionality.

      There is nothing inconsistent with the actions of of AGs Holder, Brown, and Van Hollen on the underlying legal rationale for either defending or not defending existing laws.

      Of course, on the topical legal issues presented, only AG Brown took a stance that reflects enlightened legal thinking and understands that the law must recognize LGBT people as full and equal citizens under the law.

  • randy Said: August 22nd, 2009 at 1:50 am
    • So, now the Attorney General of Wisconsin and the Chief Justice of the United States both agree that there is no obligation to defend a law they believe to be unjust.

      So how come Obama feels obligated to defend DOMA, when he clearly is not?

  • Morgan Said: August 22nd, 2009 at 12:14 am
    • Well, footwork61,

      True an AG like or not, is supposed defend a manure pile of a law no matter how rotten and vile it might “smell”. It is not up to an AG to change or to make up law as he or she goes along. It’s up to the legislature to do the law changing and the AG is supposed to defend that too. That is his job and that is what his powers are: to defend even the vilest, smelliest dung-heap of a law that passed. But however, that doesn’t mean that a law isn’t immoral and reprehensible just because it passed into law. Reprehensible simply because it denies the dignity that is the birthright of every human being. And that doesn’t mean I won’t shake his hand (because I would shake his hand if I could) for putting the dignity, value and worth of human beings over a law that should broken a million times each second.

      The time will come when a young generation coast to coast will come of age and say what the hell were these blighted state governments thinking of when they passed worthless trash for legislation that needs to thrown into and buried deep in a landfill as soon as possible.

      I won’t argue over the rights and wrong of what Jerry Brown did or didn’t do, but he is hero in my book for not putting up with discriminatory and oppressive legal filth and rubbish and for putting the right to equality for all California citizens first over a vile, wretched and dehumanizing law.

  • LightsOfPhoenix Said: August 21st, 2009 at 11:43 pm
    • I am sick and tired of “the voters” getting to put amendments to state constitutions that deny LGBT people their rights.

      Oh my, the people of Wisconsin voted to deny LGBTQ people the basic rights that any heterosexual couple takes for granted.

      You can bet that this man has a right-wing agenda above and beyond his role as AG.

      I don’t give a damn what those yahoos in Wisconsin think: NO ONE should be able to determine the civil rights of others!

  • Morgan Said: August 21st, 2009 at 11:30 pm
    • Weeelll Drewwwwwski,

      If it wasn’t for theeeem thar cowwwz cheewin’ thaat cuud, yuu miiight neever haaav sum milllk!! Miiiilk doon’t cuum fram a caartun, it cuums fram a cowwww!

  • footwork61 Said: August 21st, 2009 at 11:05 pm
    • Let’s not get too hypocritical here: when Jerry Brown announced that he decided to refuse to defend Prop. 8 because he thought it was unconstitutional, everyone hailed him for his good sense and courage.

      Now when the AG of another state makes the same decision – concerning a law with the opposite viewpoint – he is being pilloried.

      So, which is it? Does a state attorney general have a right to refuse to defend legislation he or she believes is unconstitutional or not?

  • Drewski Said: August 21st, 2009 at 9:31 pm
    • @Wayne M–you’re right. It sounds like some inbred, seersucker-wearing stereotypical Southerner taking some suicidal, pointless, obstructionist last stand for Dixie. Which is essentially what it is, except you can replace the spanish moss on the live oak with cud-chewing cows on the square in front of the courthouse (hey, sometimes imagery requires stereotyping for maximum effect).

  • Wayne M. Said: August 21st, 2009 at 9:19 pm
    • In short, the Attorney General of Wisconsin has made it clear that instead of carrying out his responsibility to defend and enforce the law and break down discrimination, he will break the law and encourage discrimination. This reminds me of the southern law enforcement authorities who broke the law by continuing to enforce segregation.

  • Amarie Said: August 21st, 2009 at 6:55 pm
    • While I am angered to read that the Wisconsin AG will not defend the domestic partnership law, I find it hypocritical to say that he’s not doing his job by determining the law is unconstitutional and so refusing to defend it, but in the same breath get pissed at the Justice Department for defending DOMA when they could refuse to do so on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

      What I think we should really be upset about is the fact that these people refuse to defend pro-gay measures, while staunchly defending the anti-gay ones. It’s not really about whether the Attorney General can choose to refuse to defend a statute…because he/she most certainly can if doing so would be to uphold the state or federal Constitution.

  • teachermahn Said: August 21st, 2009 at 6:12 pm
    • OMG really! An Attorney General that does not want to defend a law! I think he needs to lose his job. As a teacher, if I decided that I didn’t like the math curriculum and decided to not teach it, I would lose MY job. Really! How many times are we going to let elected officials decide NOT to do their jobs and keep them in office?

  • Alex Said: August 21st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
    • So much for government officials being obligated to defend any law on the books regardless of whether they agree with it or not. This may not be the federal government but such a gross neglect of duty should result in this guy being fired immediately. That being said, it’s a damn good thing he isn’t the one defending the law because he’s made it quite clear that he would not do so to the best of his abilities, another reason he needs to be removed.

  • Jay Said: August 21st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
    • I think the state should have to pay for the defense and then charge the attorney general for neglecting his duty.

  • bama-stu Said: August 21st, 2009 at 5:28 pm
    • Is there a gay attorney who can defend this on a pro bono basis so the State won’t have to foot the bill. That would send a message as well!

  • LostMetroid88 Said: August 21st, 2009 at 5:14 pm
    • I’ll garentee you that the supreme court of Wisconsin will strike the partnership registry down. This is the same court that made it legal to have sex with animals. Yeah, that’s my home state for yeah…

 
Login

Register
Lost your password?


or Login with Facebook