She is an avid supporter of civil rights, energy independence and renewable fuels, stem cell research and the woman’s right to choose.

Baldwin has been working vigorously in the fight for health care reform. She has voiced her opinion on how much the legislation affects the LGBT community, and advises everyone to pay much more attention to the universal health care debate.

Tammy Baldwin earned her law degree in 1989 from the University of Wisconsin Law School, but was first elected to political office in 1986.

She was one of 133 members of the House to vote against the invasion of Iraq and in 2008 she was a superdelegate to Hillary Clinton.

Today, Baldwin lives in Madison, Wisc., with her partner Lauren Azar. She is one of three openly gay members of Congress.

“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.

Monday was their first chance to sign up and obtain dozens of the same legal protections as spouses.

Fifty-six-year-old Janice Czyscon (SIZE’-kon) and her partner of 29 years, 57-year-old Crystal Hyslop, arrived at the Dane County offices in Madison at 5:12 a.m. and waited in the rain until the doors opened.

Wisconsin is the first Midwestern state to enact protections for same-sex couples through legislation. Gov. Jim Doyle proposed the plan, and the Democratic-controlled Legislature approved it in the state budget.

Some who want the law invalidated say it conflicts with the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Wisconsin Democrats elected Mike Tate as their new chairman Saturday at their convention in Green Bay. He just turned 30 in March.

Tate has been involved in state Democratic politics for more than a decade.

He has worked for several politicians and led the Fair Wisconsin campaign in 2006 that attempted to defeat a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Tate is straight, but he has said, “I’ve always felt that this is a state where everyone gets a fair shake. This is too important to not become involved. If you’d told me 2 years ago that this is what I’d be doing, I wouldn’t have believed you, but I believe that it’s the civil rights fight of my generation.”

A ruling striking down the amendment would not legalize same-sex marriage because state law still defines marriage as a union between husband and wife. However, it could pave the way for lawmakers to eventually allow it, or for advocates to file lawsuits seeking that right.

The court will review a challenge by political science instructor William McConkey, who claims the referendum on the constitutional amendment illegally put two questions to voters: whether to ban gay marriage and whether to outlaw civil unions. The state constitution limits referendums to a single subject.

A Dane County judge upheld the referendum last year, and McConkey appealed. Last month, a Madison-based appeals court asked the high court to take the case immediately because of its statewide significance.

Justices announced Thursday they decided to take the case and gave lawyers 30 days to file initial briefs. Oral arguments are not yet scheduled but are expected this fall, with a decision potentially before the end of the year.

Fair Wisconsin, the state’s largest gay rights group, praised the court’s decision to take the case.

“The constitutional amendment is definitely something we see as a stain on the constitution. It sort of enshrines discrimination,” said its legislative director, Katie Belanger. “We are really looking forward to the Supreme Court making a fair decision about whether or not the amendment was put to the people in the legal and constitutional way.”

A spokesman for Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen pledged a vigorous legal defense of the amendment, which was approved by nearly 60 percent of voters.

“We have defended the voter’s choice, and we will continue to do so,” Bill Cosh said.

Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle has already tried to chip away at the amendment’s impact. Lawmakers are considering his plan to create a statewide domestic partner registry and give same-sex couples 43 benefits enjoyed by married couples, including the right to visit one another in the hospital and inherit each other’s property.

The 2006 referendum asked whether to rewrite the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman and outlaw the state from granting a similar legal status to unmarried individuals.

The justices are expected to decide two issues. The first is whether the two-part question violated the clause in the constitution that limits referendum questions to a single subject.

The second is whether an individual voter such as McConkey, a straight man who has a gay daughter, has the legal standing to sue. Van Hollen argues he does not.

McConkey’s lawyer, Lester Pines, said he was not surprised the high court decide to take the case since the law was unclear on both issues. He said the court had only three times interpreted the single-subject rule, most recently in 1984.

Pines said he was already looking forward to “a spirited and fun oral argument.”

“This is a very significant legal issue,” he said. “It’s really not necessarily only about marriage. It’s really about how things are supposed to be submitted to the voters.”

The suit was filed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of a graduating senior and several families in the district, challenges the Elmbrook School District’s decision to hold graduation ceremonies for Brookfield Central High School and Brookfield East High School at Elmbrook Church.

“Public schools should schedule graduation ceremonies at public venues where families of all faiths or none will feel welcome,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Some parents and children do not feel comfortable attending commencement in this religious setting. Graduation is too important to leave some families out.”

The graduation ceremonies are scheduled for June 6 and 7.

The plaintiffs, who have chosen to remain anonymous, assert that they are extremely uncomfortable attending graduation at the church, given its religion-permeated environment.  The plaintiffs also feel unwelcome at the church because it teaches that non-Christians like the plaintiffs, and even some denominations of Christians, will go to Hell.

Elmbrook is a theologically conservative evangelical Christian church with strong views on contentious religious and political issues. The church says homosexuality is “not an acceptable lifestyle” and is “contrary to God’s will,” attacks atheists as people “who think they are smarter than God” and condemns TV talk show host Oprah Winfrey for promoting “a spirituality that is at fundamental odds with the historic biblical faith.”

The church displays a large cross in its sanctuary, and the facility includes other religious iconography as well. Church officials have refused to cover the cross. On at least one occasion, members of the church passed out religious literature to graduation attendees in the lobby, the suit said.

“Graduating seniors should not be forced to choose between entering a religious environment of a faith to which they do not subscribe and missing their own graduation,” said AU Senior Litigation Counsel Alex J. Luchenitser.

” Graduation should be a joyous occasion for students and their family members, and it should not be ruined by such religious coercion.”

The lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction barring the school district from holding its graduation ceremonies at Elmbrook Church or any other house of worship.

In its complaint, Americans United notes that there are other facilities available for graduation ceremonies and that virtually all of them are non-religious in nature.

In sending the case to the justices, the appeals court said the issue was a matter of significant public interest and had statewide implications.

The high court has not indicated if it will take up the case.

The amendment to the Wisconsin state constitution was passed in 2006 by 59 percent of voters. The lawsuit was filed the following June by University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh political science instructor William McConkey.

McConkey, who describes himself as a “Christian, straight, married” father of nine and grandfather of seven, said in the lawsuit that the question put to voters was illegal because it contained two questions – one regarding marriage and a second involving civil unions. Wisconsin law requires only one question be put to voters at a time.

The lawsuit also claims that the amendment violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The state asked Dane County Judge Richard Niess to dismiss the suit because McConkey suffered no harm and therefore did not have legal standing to sue.

But Niess accepted McConkey’s argument that his rights as a voter could have been harmed by the way the question was put to voters.

Without ruling on the specific merits of the case itself, Niess said there were sufficient grounds for the case to proceed to trial.

“I believe there is a demonstrable injury to any voter who is required to vote on a question that is constitutionally defective,” Niess said in his written ruling.

“Voting is the very bedrock, the very lifeblood of the democracy we have.”

When the case reached the appeals court the judges referred the case directly to the Supreme Court.

Doyle slipped the measures into his budget, submitted this week to the legislature.

It would require counties to allow same-sex couples to register their relationships. Once registered partners would have the right to visit significant others in hospital and make medical decisions if the partners were unable to do so themselves.  It would allow partners to make end of life decisions, inherit property and have the same pension rights as married couples.

Madison and Dane counties already have registries.

“It is also time to make sure our state takes some basic steps towards fairness and decency,” the governor said in presenting the budget.

Of his plan to include health insurance for the partners of state employees Doyle said. “I don’t want the state to be less competitive at our university and other institutions because we don’t treat people fairly.” 

Democrats control the legislature and both the partner registry and the benefits plan have the support of leaders in the House and Senate.  But Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan warned it won’t be easy getting the measures passed.

“There will be a lot of debate going back and forth on that issue,” Sheridan told WMTV. “This is the first day of a thousand mile journey and I think we’ll be taking a close look at that.”

In 2006, Wisconsin voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen said his office will study the wording in Doyle’s proposals to be sure they do not violate the amendment.

“There are an awful lot of areas of the law where there’s room for movement, and an awful lot of others areas of the law where there’s room to overstep.”

Rep. Mark Pocan (D), one of two openly gay state lawmakers, told WMTV he is not worried. “It said you couldn’t have something that was marriage or substantially similar. Having a simple domestic partnership entity created that provides hospital visitation and end of life disposal remains is hardly an equal balance. I think it will be just fine where it’s at.”

LGBT rights group Fair Wisconsin hailed the Doyle proposals.

“This is an important step toward ensuring that someone in a committed relationship is able to care for his or her partner,” said Glenn Carlson, Executive Director of Fair Wisconsin.  

“No one should ever have to worry about being blocked at their partner’s hospital room door, or have to make the heartbreaking decision to quit their job in order to care for a seriously ill partner.  This isn’t about being gay or straight-it’s about being decent.”

Melody Rose, 35, is represented by Lambda Legal and the AIDS Resource Center of Wisconsin. The lawsuit names Dr. Steven Cahee, Agnesian HealthCare, Inc., and Fond du Lac Regional Clinic.

“Discrimination in healthcare remains a major problem for people living with HIV,” said Peter Kimball, Director of the Legal Services Program at the AIDS Resource Center of Wisconsin.

“In violation of both federal and Wisconsin law, Dr. Steven Cahee refused to provide needed medical treatment to our client, Melody Rose.”

The court papers say that Rose experienced health problems with her gallbladder while incarcerated at Taycheedah Correctional Institution in Fond du Lac. Ultimately, her physician referred her to Dr. Steven Cahee at the Fond du Lac Regional Hospital to have her gall bladder removed.

The court filing alleges that Cahee refused to perform the surgery after learning Rose is HIV-positive. Some time thereafter, a surgeon at a different medical facility removed Rose’s gallbladder in a laprascopic procedure, which is considered routine surgery.

“Dr. Cahee’s actions fly in the face of ethical behavior for a medical professional,” said Scott Schoettes, Staff Attorney with Lambda Legal’s HIV Project.

“Long ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention established that using universal precautions — which are required in all sorts of medical situations, including surgeries — makes it extremely unlikely for the virus to be transmitted in this setting.”

The complaint filed today alleges that the defendants violated four different state and federal laws.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and its state law counterpart, which both prohibit disability discrimination by places of public accommodation (including healthcare providers); the Rehabilitation Act, which requires recipients of federal financial assistance not to discriminate against people with disabilities; and a Wisconsin law addressing HIV discrimination specifically, which forbids healthcare providers from denying services to people (or humiliating and degrading them) based solely on their HIV status.

The health center has not commented on the suit.