Subscribe for 17¢ / day
blind lady justice judge court istock file photo (copy)

The state Supreme Court has declined to hear a direct challenge to Wisconsin's constitutional ban on gay marriage. A federal lawsuit challenging the ban is still pending.

iStock photo

The state Supreme Court last week declined, without comment, to hear a direct challenge to Wisconsin’s constitutional ban on gay marriage.

A Milwaukee County couple, Katherine and Linda Halopka-Ivery, asked the high court to directly hear their lawsuit, which claimed Wisconsin was violating the U.S. Constitution by limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

The couple married in December in California, where same-sex marriage is legal. The lawsuit sought to force Wisconsin to recognize their marriage and to allow them to qualify for all of the benefits that married heterosexual couples have.

But the high court, in a decision filed Thursday, declined to hear the case. Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissented, also without comment.

Wisconsin’s constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage is being challenged by a lawsuit filed in February in U.S. District Court in Madison by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of four couples. Four other couples have since joined the suit.

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said last week that based on recent court decisions, he expects Wisconsin’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage to be struck down in that case. Eighteen states plus the District of Columbia now allow gay couples to marry. Such marriages will become legal in Illinois on Sunday. 

The plaintiffs asked U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb to rule on the matter before trial, scheduled for Aug. 25. Van Hollen asked Crabb to stay any decision she makes in the case to allow the state the opportunity to appeal.


(6) comments


So this is where our state is at, people can't even get heard, and better yet, the justices won't even give an explanation. What a great state we have here.


The people of this state spoke when the majority supported the ban on gay marriage, Why does the minority Gay and lesbian community think they rate higher than the majority and think the majority should change for them. Marriage is between a man and woman and the Majority needs to stand strong in their belief and not bend.The Liberal Courts need to stop rewriting the laws to benefit the liberal agenda.


Very true on your "majority" statement. Just one problem! Your statement was true in 2004 when the ban was implemented. Latest Marquette poll shows 55% approve of it, and that number keeps increasing.


This ruling was expected...since a ban on gay marriage is spelled out expressly in the Wisconsin Constitution. The IMPORTANT ruling will come from the federal district court (Judge Barbara Crabb).


Sledder, there were people like you in the 1950s and 1960s arguing against interracial marriage. Discrimination is not something protected by the US Constitution. Bigotry will not win in the end.

I would accept that all government provided benefits for marriage are ended in lieu of allowing gay marriage, letting the churches decide who is married. But that won't happen, so we have to let all consenting adults have the choice of who they marry.


You said the Liberal courts need to stop rewriting the laws to benefit the Liberal agenda? I suppose ending collective bargaining was a Liberal move? How about voter ID, is that a Liberal move? What about ending taxes for corporations, I suppose Liberal again, right? I will agree with you on saying the majority needs to stand in their belief, the majority want the ban lifted.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.