Wis. Court Urged To Toss Gay Partner Suit

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/06/060705wiscCourt.htm

Wisconsin's Attorney General has asked a judge to throw out a lawsuit by gay and lesbian state workers who claim denying them partner benefits is unconstitutional.

In a brief to the court Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager says there are no guarantees to same-sex couples in the Wisconsin state Constitution. She based her argument on a 1992 appeals court that rejected a similar suit.

The current suit against the state was filed in April. Six lesbian employees said that denying same-sex couples the same rights to health insurance and family leave protections as traditionally married couples receive is a violation of the the state constitution's equal protection guarantees because gay and lesbian couples are barred from marrying in the state. (story)

[eyesroll]

1. Wow, Peg's probably gritting her teeth through this.

I know she's very much in favor of partner benefits personally, but she has to follow the law as she sees it.

[MessiahRp]

2. eyes...

This can't help her though when she has a primary likely in 2006. Her Drunk Driving thing already makes her an easy target for Republicans... this might be the nail in the coffin for her.

Rp

[eyesroll]

6. I don't see this as having an effect either way

She doesn't have a lot of choice -- her job is to represent the state, whether she agrees with the state policy or not. Civil disobedience isn't really an option for an AG. I think most people will see that.

That said -- the DWI, her health (she said she once got attacked for going into court, post-chemo, without a wig) and the fact that Jim Doyle wants her gone, will be the bigger problems. Which is too bad, in one sense -- I like her a lot, personally; she gave a good talk at RadFest, and likely will at the state convention. But, the DWI was her own doing, and that it's going to cost her is hardly something I can lament.

[ewagner]

3. Peg's doing her job

regardless of her personal beliefs.....I've gotta hand it to her....

[MessiahRp]

4. After even more thought...

Peg's totally wrong on this. I look at it like this. Precedent is an important thing yes, but in Civil Rights cases the courts must continually have the ability to have an evolving opinion. How many courts predating the 1960s awarded anything to African Americans who wanted equality or civil rights? How many were allowed to have their cases heard?

It is those very reasons why this case needs to move forward. If the courts deny them again then so be it but Civil Rights cases will need to be placed in front of the court frequently because without doing so we may set an outdated precedent in which the court system does not reflect the attitudes of it's society.

1992 is a much different time period than even now for Gay Rights and most definitely there have been changes in the national culture in relation to gays. While the Right Wingers have pushed to restrict their rights, Gays need the ability to use the laws of our land to fight and appeal the discrimination and inequities they face.

There is not a more important duty for our judiciary at this moment in history than to preside over one of the last major hurdles to global acceptance of all and to give the GLBT community a fighting chance to prove that their rights should be equal to those of the Heterosexual community.

Rp

[Inland]

5. Before 1960s, very limited judicial victories.

After 1960s, there were statutes passed by legislatures that brought civil rights.

That's the difference. Current advocates of gay rights expect that there are going to be huge judicial victories that obviate the need for statutes--and the need to win in the political arena. Instead, it is clear from the history of race and sex and other discriminations that there has to be legislation to build on, or people like the AG and the judges are going to hand down the same decisions as before.