September, 22 2009, 10:58am EDT
Domestic Partners Seek To Intervene In Lawsuit Challenging Wisconsin's Domestic Partner Law
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion before the
Wisconsin Supreme Court today on behalf of five same-sex couples asking
that the couples be allowed to participate in a lawsuit that will
decide whether the state's newly enacted domestic partner law violates
Wisconsin's anti-gay marriage amendment. Anti-gay activists have asked
the Wisconsin Supreme Court to strike down the domestic partner law as
inconsistent with the marriage amendment.
MADISON, Wisconsin
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion before the
Wisconsin Supreme Court today on behalf of five same-sex couples asking
that the couples be allowed to participate in a lawsuit that will
decide whether the state's newly enacted domestic partner law violates
Wisconsin's anti-gay marriage amendment. Anti-gay activists have asked
the Wisconsin Supreme Court to strike down the domestic partner law as
inconsistent with the marriage amendment. The couples also ask the
Court to reject the petition and send the case to a trial court so that
evidence can be presented to show that the domestic partner law does
not violate the anti-gay marriage amendment that passed in 2006.
"While the domestic partner law falls far short of marriage, we were
grateful when it passed that we would no longer have to worry about
being able to visit each other in the hospital," said Jayne Dunnum who,
along with her partner of 17 years, Robin Timm, registered to become
domestic partners when the law went into effect this summer. "But with
this lawsuit those fears are back, and we'd like the opportunity to
explain to the courts how this affects us."
According to the motion filed by the ACLU, the five same-sex couples
meet all the legal requirements for becoming a party to the litigation
and would suffer harm if the court overturns the domestic partner law.
"We're hopeful that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will recognize that
lesbian and gay couples have the most at stake in this lawsuit and
deserve their day in court," said Larry DuPuis, Legal Director of the
ACLU of Wisconsin. "Only same-sex couples can describe what it's like
to fear not being able to visit a partner in the hospital or being left
with nothing when a partner dies without a will. And only same-sex
couples can explain what it means to be shut out of marriage and have
to accept a poorly understood second-class status as domestic partners
with 43 legal protections versus more than 200 that come with
marriage."
The anti-gay activists who are seeking to take away the legal
protections for registered domestic partners have claimed that they
need a speedy resolution and are entitled to go directly to the
Wisconsin Supreme Court because the modest legal protections granted to
same-sex couples through the law somehow affect the marriages of
straight couples. Rather incredulously, they also claim that it would
be in the best interest of lesbian and gay couples to have a speedy
resolution even though they are asking the court to strip domestic
partners of all legal protections.
According to the ACLU, there are important factual issues in the
case, such as the many ways in which domestic partnership differs from
marriage, that call for the kind of testimony that same-sex couples can
provide to the Court. To consider this important evidence, the Court
should refuse to accept this case directly but instead allow a circuit
court to develop the factual record.
During the political campaign for the anti-gay marriage amendment
that is the basis for this lawsuit, these same anti-gay activists told
the voters that domestic partner benefits would not be affected by the
amendment and that the state would be allowed to pass a law giving
same-sex couples some legal protections.
"The anti-gay activists misled the voters into passing the amendment
by saying that it would not affect the rights of domestic partners.
Then they tried to prevent the legislature from providing modest legal
protections for same-sex couples. And soon after the bill went into
effect, they brought a lawsuit to take those protections away, based on
the amendment that they said would not affect such rights" said John
Knight, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT Project. "It's
incredible the lengths they will go to deny committed couples basic
protections for their families."
The same-sex couples asking to be allowed into the lawsuit include:
Jayne Dunnum and Robin Timm from Plattsville, WI, have been
together for 17 years. After Timm was injured on their farm and had to
be rushed to the emergency room, they worry about being able to visit
each other in the hospital and are hoping the domestic partner law will
put an end to these worries.
Carol Schumacher and Virginia Wolf from Eau Claire, WI, have
been together for 34 years. As they enter their senior years, the
domestic partner law would ease their worries about being shut out of
conversations about each other's medical care and other end-of-life
decisions and guarantee that they are not barred from sharing a room if
they end up in a nursing home.
Wendy and Mary Woodruff from Milwaukee, WI, have been
together for 12 years. As a minister for the Metropolitan Community
Church, Rev. Wendy Woodruff has had to console a congregant who lost
everything, including her home and furniture, when her partner was
killed and the partner's relatives claimed their entire estate. They
fear the same thing would happen to them without the inheritance
protections of the domestic partner law.
Judith Trampf and Katy Heyning from Madison, WI, celebrated
their 20th Anniversary this summer. A few years back, Heyning had a
seizure that left her unable to drive for six months. Unable to take
family leave, Trampf had to use her vacation time to drive Katy to
doctor's appointments and to and from work. Under the domestic partner
law, the couple would finally gain access to family leave protection.
Diane Schermann and Missy Collins from Eau Claire, WI, have
known each other for 10 years and have been a couple for five. The
couple is raising seven children, including Diane's two children from a
previous marriage, a new baby that Missy gave birth to through in vitro
fertilization and four foster children, two of which are relatives of
Collins. Like many couples their age, the couple has put off making
wills because of the expense. The domestic partner law would guarantee
that at least half of their joint property automatically passes to each
other.
Lambda Legal also filed papers today to intervene in the Appling v. Doyle
case on behalf of Fair Wisconsin, the statewide equality organization,
and its members. Lambda Legal, like the ACLU, says domestic
partnerships and marriages are not "substantially similar."
Linda Hansen, David Froiland, Jason Plowman, Daniel Manna and David
Goroff of Foley & Lardner, LLP are assisting ACLU attorneys DuPuis
and Knight in representing the couples.
Additional information about the ACLU's motion, including bios and
photographs of the couples and the legal documents filed today, is
available at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/41068res20090922.html.
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular