The chronicles of the Wisconsin Marriage Defenders of Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

Friday, May 30, 2008



Dane Co. Circuit Court Upholds the Sanctity of One Man-One Woman Marriage

Last fall, 59-percent of Wisconsin’s voting population cast their vote in favor of amending our State Constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Despite overwhelming support, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh political science professor, William McConkey, took it on himself to sue the state in an effort to repeal the widely-favored amendment. Oral arguments took place this morning. See Wisconsin Family Council's press release below for the judge's favorable ruling.

**** While the left has been attacking the sanctity of marriage through the courts, certain legislators have introduced the state version of the Equal Rights Amendment which would act to repeal our Marriage Amendment. Fortunately, the ERA bill died in committee but will likely be re-introduced during the 2009-2010 Floor Session. Here is a copy of Senate Joint Resolution 2 for your information - http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/SJR2hst.html

Court Agrees: Wisconsin Marriage Amendment is Constitutional

Judge’s ruling affirms single purpose of the amendment

MADISON ­ Earlier today, Dane County Circuit Judge Richard G. Niess ruled that Wisconsin’s Marriage Amendment is constitutional. Judge Niess said the amendment clearly dealt with a single purpose: defining and protecting marriage.

Wisconsin Family Council, represented by Alliance Defense Fund, submitted a friend of the court brief in this case, which the judge referred to several times during the arguments.

At issue was whether or not the amendment violated the Wisconsin Constitution by dealing with more than one subject. The case was initiated by William McConkey, a UW-Oshkosh professor, who alleged that the amendment violated the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. Judge Niess dismissed that portion of the case last year ruling that McConkey did not have standing as a heterosexual married man. However, the judge said that McConkey did have standing to challenge the amendment based on the “single subject” clause of the Wisconsin Constitution.

“The marriage amendment demonstrated a comprehensive legislative scheme to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman and to prevent indirect abrogation of this special legal status,” said Amy Salberg, Allied Attorney with Alliance Defense Fund. “Judge Niess recognized this in ruling that the marriage amendment represented a single-subject in accordance with the Wisconsin Constitution.

”Thomas Balistreri, Assistant Attorney General, represented Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen. Attorney Balistreri correctly noted that the two provisions in the amendment were “flip sides of one coin,” both relating to the general purpose of preserving marriage.

In his ruling, Judge Niess noted that the single purpose of the amendment was “the preservation of the unique and historical status of marriage.”

“We couldn’t agree more,” said Julaine Appling, CEO of Wisconsin Family Council. “Marriage is unique among all other institutions and must be preserved in both number and gender, exactly as this amendment does.”

“Today’s ruling affirms the judgment of nearly 60% of Wisconsin voters who approved this amendment on November 7, 2006. These voters knew they were voting for one thing: the definition and preservation of marriage in our state,” noted Appling.

Formerly known as The Family Research Institute of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Family Council is a not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) organization committed to serving Wisconsin’s citizens, churches and policymakers by informing, inspiring and involving each group in strengthening and preserving marriage, family, life and liberty in Wisconsin. For more information, visit file://www.wifamilycouncil.org/ or call 1-888-378-7395.


  • At 5:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Let me tell you this. I am gay. I am proud. and whether you veto this comment or not, I am here, and so are so many others, that have done nothing but love. love. it's such a simple word, and yet it holds the very threads of our world. and who are you to say that my love is wrong? who are you to say I am a second class citizen? who are you to judge? you cannot avoid the truth forever. we shall over come the hate someday. as for you, I would just like to say that you are a homophobic bigot, blinded by predjeduce, cowering behind the walls of a cell you built yourself, wallowing in irrationality.

  • At 7:44 PM, Blogger T.G. said…

    You may be proud, but pride is a worse sin than sodomy.

    There's nothing wrong with you loving someone of the same sex. I love my brother, my father, and many male friends. That doesn't equate to having perverted sex acts with another man.

    You are not a second class citizen. You still have the right to free speech, religious liberty, to bear arms, have a speedy trial, and the rest of the rights the rest of us have - incuding the right to marry, which is by definition, to someone of the opposite sex.

    How hypocritical to accuse me of hate right before you fly into an irrational hissy-fit of name-calling. I don't hate you at all. I love you enough to tell you the hard truth about your destructive deathstyle.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home