The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard arguments today on whether a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was correctly put to voters in 2006. William McConkey, a political science professor at UW-Oshkosh, claims the amendment violates state law because it deals with two different subjects – the definition of marriage and the legality of civil unions. Attorney Lester Pines is representing McConkey:
“Our assertion is that the manner in which the question was posed to the voters actually relates to more than one subject. The first section relates to the definition of marriage, only a marriage between one man and one woman. The second section relates to something other than that,” Pines said.
Lawyers for the state told the Supreme Court they believe the amendment is constitutional. Assistant Attorney General Lewis Beilin says the authors and voters had one subject in mind, and that was to protect traditional marriage:
“The evidence is abundant and I think that the evidence taken as a whole leads only to one conclusion, and that is that the two parts of this amendment are related to the same subject and serve the same common, general purpose,” Beilin said.
The state has also argued that the professor was not harmed by the referendum, so he should not be allowed to pursue the case. A lower court decided that the professor could challenge the amendment, but that it met the single subject test. Now the high court will decide.
Share / Email
Print
This story is part of a group. Click for more.
Email a Friend
Facebook
Del.icio.us
Stumble Upon
Digg
Newsvine
