The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on the case of six lesbian state employees seeking domestic partner benefits. The court will eventually decide whether to allow various local governments to intervene in the separate lawsuit the employees have against the state.
In April 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit arguing that not having domestic partner benefits for state employees violated Wisconsin's equal protection clause, according to an ACLU release.
Republicans in the state Assembly later moved to become party to the lawsuit, as did several cities and towns. The towns argue that if the employees win their case against the state, the local governments must provide domestic partner benefits as well.
Jennifer S. Lattice, an attorney representing the state workers, questioned the municipalities' right to intervene in the lawsuit.
Here the municipalities are saying they have the right to be heard,"" Lattice said. ""That's the issue, whether or not they meet the requirements of that statute.""
Michael Dean, attorney for the First Freedoms Foundation of Wisconsin, represented the municipalities and argued the importance of hearing different sides of the debate.
""I think '¦ it is imperative that this court hear all the voices that are potentially impacted as a matter of constitutional law,"" Dean said.
Paul Cates, director of Public Education for the ACLU's LGBT Project, said adding municipalities to the lawsuit would slow down justice for the state employees who need insurance and family-leave protections.
""Especially now that the state has made it clear that gay people can't marry, it's unfair and unconstitutional for the state to bar lesbian and gay people from having access to these benefits,"" Cates said.
Although questions may arise as to whether this ruling will affect the gay marriage ban passed in 2006, Cates said the decision would not reverse the ban's provisions.
According to Cates, there is no way to legitimately challenge the marriage ban in state court. The ban has become part of the state Constitution and the court cannot challenge it, Cates said.
Dean said the court must seriously consider the municipalities' right to be heard and the constitutional ramifications of its decision.
""Intervention should be granted accordingly,"" Dean said. ""This court and the people of Wisconsin deserve no less.
