Walker not defending WI's domestic partner registry

Status
Not open for further replies.

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/121956273.html

Madison - Gov. Scott Walker believes a new law that gives gay couples hospital visitation rights violates the state constitution and has asked a judge to allow the state to stop defending it.

Democrats who controlled the Legislature in 2009 changed the law so that same-sex couples could sign up for domestic partnership registries with county clerks to secure some - but not all - of the rights afforded married couples.

Wisconsin Family Action sued last year in Dane County circuit court, arguing that the registries violated a 2006 amendment to the state constitution that bans gay marriage and any arrangement that is substantially similar.

Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen refused to defend the lawsuit, saying he agreed the new law violated the state constitution. Then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, hired Madison attorney Lester Pines to defend the state.

Walker, a Republican, replaced Doyle in January and fired Pines in March. On Friday, Walker filed a motion to stop defending the case.

"Governor Walker, in deference to the legal opinion of the attorney general that the domestic partner registry...is unconstitutional, does not believe the public interest requires a continued defense of this law," says the brief, filed by Walker's chief counsel, Brian Hagedorn.

Hagedorn told Dane County Circuit Judge Daniel Moeser that if he could not withdraw from the case, he would like to amend earlier filings to reflect Walker's belief that the registries conflict with the state constitution.

Even if Walker is allowed to withdraw from the case, the law would still be defended in court because gay rights group Fair Wisconsin intervened in the case last year.

Fair Wisconsin attorney Christopher Clark said the governor's move raises legal questions.

"It's not clear to me that a defendant in a lawsuit... can simply walk away from a lawsuit or withdraw," he said.

Pines said Walker's aides never gave him an explanation when they told him to stop working on the case. He said he was troubled by the latest court filing.

"The governor of this state has an obligation to defend laws he doesn't like. And for that matter, so does the attorney general," Pines said. "This shows an utter disrespect for the rule of law."

Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie disagreed.

"We don't believe it is in the best interest of the state and its taxpayers to spend additional time and resources defending the legislation," he said in an email.

In 2006, 60% of state voters signed off on changing the constitution to ban gay marriage and a "legal status identical or substantially similar to marriage" for same-sex couples.

Wisconsin Family Action advocated for the amendment. The group first sued the state over the same-sex registries shortly after they were created in 2009, taking its case directly to the state Supreme Court in hopes of getting a quick verdict.

The high court declined to hear the case, and the group then filed a lawsuit last year in Dane County circuit court.

The registries allow same-sex couples to take family and medical leave to care for a seriously ill partner, make end-of-life decisions and have hospital visitation rights. But according to Fair Wisconsin, they still confer only about a quarter of the rights associated with marriage, lacking provisions to allow couples to file joint tax returns or adopt children together.

As of August 2010, about 1,500 same-sex couples had registered with counties.

Objectively, I can see how the domestic partner registry could be interpreted as unconstitutional... but morally and ethically I find the amendment, Wisconsin Family Action, Walker, Van Hollen, and anyone who supports any of them on this issue to be among the most idiotic people on Earth. Fortunately, Wisconsin's demographics are not in their favor long-term.. and nothing would make me happier than to see them permanently in the minority on this.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,585
126
14th Amendment to the US Constitution:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

The two parts I bolded are the two parts that Walker is violating here.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Isn't this a repost of your own thread??

How many threads about this do we need?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
The two parts I bolded are the two parts that Walker is violating here.

Walker isn't violating anything. Try to keep up. There is a law in place. A group has sued, claiming that the law is unconstitutional. The AG (who provides the governor with legal opinions in these matters) has indicated he believes the law is unconstitutional, so the governor is saying "hey, why should I fight to defend a law in court that my AG tells me is unconstitutional?".

This is exactly what obummer is doing with DOMA.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,585
126
Walker isn't violating anything. Try to keep up. There is a law in place. A group has sued, claiming that the law is unconstitutional. The AG (who provides the governor with legal opinions in these matters) has indicated he believes the law is unconstitutional, so the governor is saying "hey, why should I fight to defend a law in court that my AG tells me is unconstitutional?".

This is exactly what obummer is doing with DOMA.

But the difference here is that Walker is trying to stop defending a law that provides rights, Obama is stopping defending a law that violates rights. One of these men is protecting the US Constitution, the other is directly violating it. Can you guess which? I get the feeling you'll guess wrong.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
But the difference here is that Walker is trying to stop defending a law that provides rights

You're seeing things through the prism of emotion again instead of logic. Regardless of your position on the law itself, the procedure is perfectly constitutional and legal, part of a process in place for a long time.

Nothing to see here.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
But the difference here is that Walker is trying to stop defending a law that provides rights, Obama is stopping defending a law that violates rights. One of these men is protecting the US Constitution, the other is directly violating it. Can you guess which? I get the feeling you'll guess wrong.
Um, no. There is no guarantee that a law establishing new rights is Constitutional. It's exactly the same thing as Obama refusing to defend DOMA.

We need a short Constitutional Amendment that states that the federal government (and by extension lower governments) cannot control with whom you cohabit or marry, as long as that person is of age and is not a close and direct blood relative (whatever degree is likely to cause birth defects.) That makes this whole tired issue go away. No government discrimination, against anyone, is acceptable.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,585
126
Um, no. There is no guarantee that a law establishing new rights is Constitutional. It's exactly the same thing as Obama refusing to defend DOMA.

We need a short Constitutional Amendment that states that the federal government (and by extension lower governments) cannot control with whom you cohabit or marry, as long as that person is of age and is not a close and direct blood relative (whatever degree is likely to cause birth defects.) That makes this whole tired issue go away. No government discrimination, against anyone, is acceptable.

Which I would support wholeheartedly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.