Apparently all the media attention given to the governor's race in recent weeks has made Wisconsin state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen a tad jealous. With all of the Democratic candidates officially jumping into the fray or merely speculating about a run, one could be forgiven for forgetting that Van Hollen, himself possibly considering a campaign for the top state office, even exists.
Given this lack of publicity, it hardly seems a coincidence that this Friday Van Hollen announced his intention to not defend the state of Wisconsin against a lawsuit from Wisconsin Family Action challenging the state's recently enacted domestic partnership registry. It's hardly the first time Van Hollen has resorted to political grandstanding simply to get his name out there and score some points with conservative voters. Van Hollen's April memo reaffirming citizens' right to openly carry a firearm was political theater of a similar sort, as it held no real political clout and only served the purpose of pandering to the pro-gun crowd.
But at least the attorney general's open-carry memo didn't involve clear dereliction of duty. With his most recent decision, Van Hollen is flaking on one of the most straightforward responsibilities of his position: defending the state of Wisconsin in a court of law. This is a responsibility that by Van Hollen's own admission he must take on whether he agrees with the state or not. It is simply part of his job description. Even if the domestic partnership registry is eventually deemed unconstitutional as he claims, that is a decision to be made by the court.
However, we doubt that there is much merit to Van Hollen's claims in the first place. In the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage it states that anything ""substantially similar to that of marriage"" between gay couples will also be illegal, with the basis of the lawsuit being that the state's domestic partnerships are ""substantially similar"" to traditional marriage. But a simple glance at the protections provided by the domestic partnerships cast this into serious doubt. While a marriage license bestows hundreds of protections upon couples, a domestic partnership grants a mere 43.
In addition, numerous champions of the gay marriage ban repeatedly stated during their campaign that the amendment would not prohibit the state from granting rights to same-sex couples. State Senate Minority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, one of the authors of the amendment, admitted that the ban allows for some partner benefits. Even Julaine Appling, president of Wisconsin Family Action, seemed to admit in past statements that the amendment did not bar the state from granting many of the rights included in the domestic partnership registry.
Ultimately it seems that Van Hollen doesn't have a leg to stand on in his most recent political stunt. In the meantime, the state will rely on Madison attorney Lester Pines, who was recently appointed by Gov. Doyle to defend the partnership registry in court. But considering Van Hollen's antics, come the next election it would behoove Wisconsin voters to consider just how politicized they want the attorney general's office to be.
