High court upholds gay marriage vote

The ban on gay marriage and civil unions here in Wisconsin will remain in place. That decision came Wednesday from the State Supreme Court.

The seven justices took a close look at whether the state constitutional amendment that passed in 2006 was constitutional. They ultimately decided it was.

• Read the full decision.

The decision was unamimous, but some believe the ruling is a step backwards.

Bill McConkey thinks banning gay marriage and civil unions is hateful.

"If two people live down the street have a civil union, how in the world does that impact my marriage?" he asked.

But when he challenged the state's constitutional amendment in court, McConkey did not argue against its merits. Instead, he challenged whether it violated a rule limiting amendments to a single subject. Voters were asked whether marriage should be limited to one man and one woman and whether to outlaw any legal status identical of substantially similar. McConkey, who has a gay daughter, believes if the questions had been separated, people may have voted differently.

"I know they would have been different,” McConkey said. “There's survey research that said they would have been different. They're two different questions"

The court rejected that argument unanimously, saying both parts of the question had the same general subject.

"To be clear," wrote Justice Michael Gableman, "the question before us is not whether the marriage amendment is good public policy or bad public policy...The issue before us is whether the marriage amendment was adopted in conformity with the constitutional requirement."

Groups that supported the amendment are celebrating the decision.

"The marriage amendment was about protecting the institution of marriage, protecting the word and the institution in that referendum,” Julaine Appling of the Wisconsin Family Council said. “Both parts supported that simple idea."

Others, including many in the gay community, have another view.

"For me, it still comes down to a separate-but-equal situation, which I categorically refuse to believe that can exist,” Andrew DeBaker of NEW Pride said. “I think our history has shown separate is not equal."

The man who challenged the amendment agrees.

"I'm angry. Anger is a good thing. Anger will inspire me to do more,” McConkey said. “I'm sad – not for me, but for the thousands of people that this hurts. It hurts them psychologically."

The amendment passed in 2006 with about 60 percent of the vote, but people still remain divided on the issue.

Wednesday, FOX 11’s Facebook page lit up with comments from people on both sides of the issue.

Cheryl writes, "I accept my friends or relatives that chose that lifestyle but I will not accept them legalizing gay marriages."

Sheila writes, "I feel that you should be able to marry whoever you want. People need to stop treating gays and lesbians as second class citizens."