Critics of the domestic-partner benefits proposal in Gov. Jim Doyle's budget are challenging its constitutionality in light of the 2006 constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Wisconsin Family Council and affiliated groups contend the recent proposal creates a status ""substantially similar to that of marriage,"" according to Julaine Appling, CEO of Wisconsin Family Council.
The ban on gay marriage prohibits the recognition of a ""legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals"" as stated in the Wisconsin Constitution.
""Our position is that on the face of it, this appears to be a challenge to the amendment … we have our attorneys looking at it, and we will proceed accordingly,"" Appling said.
Howard Schweber, UW-Madison associate professor of political science, said voters likely believed the 2006 amendment protected domestic partnership benefits ""since that was the position taken by the proposition's proponents.""
""The problem, of course, is that ‘substantially similar to' is a vague phrase. The question of whether the provision of benefits creates a legal status that is ‘substantially similar to that of marriage' has, as far as I know, no precedent in constitutional jurisprudence,"" Schweber said.
According to research from Fair Wisconsin, three quarters of people in Wisconsin say committed couples should have legal protections.
""People are ready for this and they understand that this is not about being gay or straight but it's about being fair and decent,"" said Katie Belanger, Legislative Director for Fair Wisconsin.
Current domestic partnerships include 43 of the 200 protections provided to married couples in Wisconsin. Belanger said it was neither the Legislature nor the voters' intent to ban domestic partnerships.
""Julaine Appling and the Chief Legislative sponsor Senator Scott Fitzgerald were both quoted on the record saying that the amendment was specifically to ban gay marriage and not domestic partnerships,"" Belanger said.
A relationship defined by every benefit of marriage would still not be substantially similar to marriage, said Lester Pines, legal council for Fair Wisconsin. He said married couples are the sole exception to state law allowing adult consensual sexual activity.
Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal council for Alliance Defense Fund and supporter of Wisconsin Family Council, said the proposal is ""obviously an assault"" on the marriage amendment.
""Marriage is much more than sexual activity and governmental benefits. Marriage is society's way of structuring,"" Nimocks said.
