Friday 1 August 2014

Wisconsin registry for gay couples upheld by state's supreme court

Justices rule that registry does not violate the state's ban on gay marriage
Interior of Wisconsin Supreme Court

Same-sex couples still can't get married in Wisconsin but they can continue to register to have some of the rights heterosexual married couples automatically have.
The state's supreme court ruled Thursday (31 July) that a 2009 that established a registry for same-sex couples in 2009 does not violate the state's ban on gay marriage.
The registry grants same-sex couples such things as insurance benefits under their partner's plan, the right to inherit assets upon the death of their partner as well as hospital visitation and medical leave to care for their partner.
More than 2,000 couples are part of the registry which was established three years after a gay marriage ban was approved by Wisconsin voters.
A lawsuit challenging the registry was filed in 2010 by the anti-gay group Wisconsin Family Action which argued that the registry is too similar to marriage under state law.
'We’re thrilled that Wisconsin same-sex couples can keep the limited but very important protections that the domestic partnership registry grants them,' said Lambda Legal Counsel Christopher Clark in a statement.
'Gay and lesbian couples in Wisconsin no longer have to fear that the protections they have will be taken away by unnecessary anti-gay legal action.'
The plaintiffs said in a statement that the court's ruling defies the will of Wisconsin’s voters.
'While we are disappointed that the Wisconsin Supreme Court did not agree with us, what’s important is that marriage remains between one man and one woman in Wisconsin and that even in this ruling, the court recognized that marriage is unique and nothing like relationships formed by same-sex couples,' said Julaine Appling, one of the plaintiffs in the case and president of Wisconsin Family Action.
The Wisconsin ban on same-sex marriage is already on thin ice legally after a federal judge in June ruled that it is unconstitutional. The ruling is on hold as it is being appealed by the state.

No comments:

Post a Comment