Domestic partner benefits for gay and straight folks are in danger in Wisconsin. Unfortunately, the assault stems from the well-intentioned attempt to secure these rights for employees of the state of Wisconsin.
In 2005, several gay state employees backed by the American Civil Liberties Union sued the state for greater access to domestic partner benefits. Since then, the voters of Wisconsin amended the constitution to ban gay marriages and ""substantially similar"" unions, a move this editorial board vehemently opposed.
Now, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court will be deciding whether the domestic partner benefits, for which the ACLU sued, are constitutional in light of the recent amendment.
Considering the ambiguous wording of the term ""substantially similar"" unions in our state amendment, it is quite possible the court could interpret the amendment to ban domestic partnership benefits as well as gay marriage.
That is precisely how an appeals court in Michigan ruled in February. Michigan's amendment has a similarly ambiguous second clause banning ""similar unions"" in addition to gay marriage. Wisconsin's Supreme Court should not make the same mistake as the appeals court judges in Michigan.
While the second clause of our amendment is ambiguous, we think the majority of Wisconsin's amendment supporters intended only to protect a traditional understanding of marriage, not deny rights to both heterosexual and homosexual relationships that are currently eligible for domestic partner benefits.
Although nearly 60 percent of voters approved the amendment in November 2006, a Badger Poll from July of that year, conducted by the University of Wisconsin Survey Center, showed that about 60 percent of those polled approved of civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. Civil unions are more ""substantially similar"" to marriages than domestic partner benefits.
Unfortunately, the people of Wisconsin won't have an opportunity to rule on the case working its way through the courts. In the end, it will be our Supreme Court justices who decide whether domestic partners are allowed by the state's constitution.
But there is hope. Voters get to vote for Supreme Court justices and there just happens to be an election in April.
