Maybe Van Hollen doesn't want to be AG anymore

I'm confused. Isn't the state Attorney General supposed to defend the state against lawsuits challenging state laws? Or are AGs allowed to pick and choose which laws they'd like to defend at any given time?

JB Van Hollen, Wisconsin's current AG, has just announced that he will not defend the state in a lawsuit filed by Wisconsin Family Action challenging the same-sex domestic partnership registry that was passed as part of this year's budget and went into effect on August 3.

This is interesting simply because of all the speculation over Van Hollen's ability to put his presumably non-partisan job over his politics (he's a registered Republican) that first arose when he initially ran for the office. The allegations again surfaced when he was pushing for what could have been massively disruptive voter registration checks during the fall elections.

It gets especially fascinating when taken alongside the federal Department of Justice's decision to defend DOMA against a lawsuit brought by a gay couple that wishes to be married. Though the DoJ has since issued a memo stating that they, along with the Obama Administration, believe DOMA to be discriminatory and in need of repeal, but that they're still obligated "to defend federal statutes when they are challenged in court. The Justice Department cannot pick and choose which federal laws it will defend based on any one administration's policy preferences."

(Of course, the fact that the DoJ has, historically, done just such picking and choosing seems to fly right over their heads here, but technically they're still correct that they're supposed to defend all federal laws--if they are looking to see it eventually overturned, though, they'll need to start using less inflammatory language in their legal briefs)

I'm of the personal opinion that defense of such blatantly discriminatory laws is not warranted, and that our national charter of equality for all should always trump deeply flawed legislation. But I can also understand if, legally, the DoJ is supposed to defend them all regardless.

So then I'm particularly impressed at Van Hollen's apparent dismissal of his own job description. He was elected by the people of Wisconsin to uphold the state's laws, no? Of course, his public argument seeks to get around all that:

"My decision isn’t based on a policy disagreement," he said. " As Attorney General, I prosecute and defend laws that I wouldn’t have voted for if I were a policymaker. That is what I believe the job entails.

"But I will not ignore the Constitution. My oath isn’t to the legislature or the governor. My duty is to the people of the State of Wisconsin and the highest expression of their will -- the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin. When the people have spoken by amending our Constitution, I will abide by their command. When policymakers have ignored their words, I will not."

What if the amendment is illegal, though? There's also a lawsuit currently pending that challenges the legality of the law because it allegedly violates the rule that you can't have a single vote for two or more issues. Wisconsin's marriage amendment does, in fact, appear to violate that rule by including the ban on gay marriage as well as a ban on "anything substantially similar" to marriage.

Staunch amendment backers like Julaine Appling of WFA were careful to vehemently deny that the law would effect things like domestic partnerships, but that's exactly what they're now trying to do. And it looks like Van Hollen is on their side.

All of this hubbub could make for a great case when the lawsuit challenging the legality of the amendment goes to court. Clearly, it was talking about more than one thing, otherwise Van Hollen and WFA wouldn't be up in arms about the domestic partnership registry (which, it's important to remember, only affords 40 of the 200 rights married heterosexual couples get).

I still have to wonder, though - can we recall Van Hollen for dereliction of duty while we're at it?

The many untruths and bald lies of Wisconsin Family Action

Wisconsin recently became the first state with a standing constitutional ban on gay marriage to go ahead and enact same-sex domestic partnership rights. Gov. Doyle worked the provision into his 2009 budget, and after a memo from the Legislative Council Staff confirmed that the rights did not give "comprehensive, core aspects of the legal status of marriage to same-sex couples" (and thus did not violate the constitutional amendment), the legislature went ahead and voted it into law.

It's a big step in the right direction, and a most welcome advance after the depressing amendment vote in 2006.

Of course, not content to abide by their own promises or common decency, Wisconsin Family Action decided to file a lawsuit challenging the provision, arguing that it does, in fact, violate the ban by creating something "substantially similar to marriage."

This is funny (not "ha ha" so much as "oh c'MON!") in that several WFA spokespersons, including everyone's favorite closet case Julaine Appling, took great pains to assure the public that the amendment would not negatively affect domestic partnership benefits.

I quote:

Appling also said that the amendment would not jeopardize domestic partner benefits or other legal protections for gay couples and their children.

"That's a smokescreen," she said.

(OWN points out a few other gems of this nature here)

I do not think she knows what that word means. Either that or, gasp! she lied. It's almost as though she and the rest of the WFA cadre were desperate to hide from middle-of-the-road voters the fact that they were simply out to institutionalize discrimination against a particular group of people, rather than just "saving traditional marriage" and all that soundbite-y goodness.

Of course, I doubt very much they really understand much about "traditional marriage," or the great variety of traditions all over the world and throughout history that have governed what marriage is. Heck, Appling herself hasn't ever been married - what does she know about it?

There's all kinds of mind-warping nonsense in this current lawsuit, though. Think about it: Not only does it fly in the face of their repeated statements that the amendment wouldn't be used in exactly this way, but it also makes clear the fact that said amendment was illegal in the first place, in that it contained two separate clauses: one banning gay marriage, the other civil unions, etc. I can only hope that Bill McConkey's lawsuit addressing that very issue is successful.

And there's one other issue here--the WFA is arguing that, as signed into law by Doyle, these domestic partnerships are...

... prohibited by Art. XIII, sec. 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution by creating and requiring recognition of a legal status substantially similar to that of marriage....Such domestic partnerships are entered into by same-sex partners and are officially created and acknowledged in essentially the identical way that marriages are entered into by a man and woman and are officially created and acknowledged.

As far as I can tell, though, couples registering for these benefits will be given only 40 of the 200 main rights enjoyed by straight married couples in Wisconsin. And come federal tax time, the differences will become all the more stark. How in the heck are they identical, then?

They aren't, and gay marriage or domestic partnerships don't harm a soul, but that's not really what the WFA and folks like Appling are really up in arms over. They're ignorant and scared and flailing out against positive change in any way they can conjure up. It's discrimination and disdain at its most ridiculous. Plain and simple.

Further reading: A remarkably thorough run-down of the whole debacle via an AP writer.
Further further reading: A lovely, insightful post about the issue from someone whom it effects directly.