Just over a year ago, in a glorious victory for God’s plan for marriage and family, the people of Wisconsin passed the Marriage Protection Amendment with a strong 59% to 41% majority vote. The message was clear: we the people affirm traditional marriage—between one man and one woman—as the only legal form of marriage in Wisconsin. Sad to say, apparently, the expressed will of the people is not good enough for some.

In July of this year, Prof. Bill McConkey from Door County filed suit against Gov. Doyle and Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, in their official capacities, with the Dane County Circuit Court, claiming the amendment was unconstitutional. Because McConkey, a heterosexual, married man, and a self-proclaimed “Christian” could not prove he had been directly injured by the amendment, the court appropriately ruled that he did not have standing to bring the suit.

However, the court failed to dismiss the case and instead entertained briefs from both sides, along with a motion to intervene filed by McConkey’s daughter and her same-sex partner. Because of the considerable education work Wisconsin Family Council did on the amendment in the months leading up to the vote, the court granted us permission to submit a “friend of the court brief,” which we did on November 2 nd.

Since his unsubstantiated bid for standing failed, Prof. McConkey submitted a brief pleading that the Amendment was unconstitutional because it covered two purposes. Article XII, Section 1 of the Wisconsin constitution states that, “…[I]f more than one amendment be submitted, they shall be submitted in such a manner that the people may vote for or against such amendments separately.”

Wisconsin ’s Marriage Amendment addresses one issue, and one issue only—marriage—and it could not be more straightforward. The amendment states, “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.”

The amendment clearly and simply affirms traditional marriage and defines it for legal purposes in the state of Wisconsin. The purpose of the amendment is forthright: to protect marriage. The first part defines and protects the word marriage, and the second part protects the institution of marriage—without which the first part is meaningless.

The overwhelming majority vote in favor of the amendment unequivocally proves that the people of Wisconsin have spoken on the subject of marriage. The amendment passed the appropriately rigorous requirements set by the Wisconsin constitution. Now, one person is attempting to overturn the decision of the majority of Wisconsin’s voters with a court ruling. Wisconsin Family Council believes this is a frivolous case that is wasting taxpayer dollars. The decision of the people should stand, and we are confident that it will.

Precedent supports our position—in every state where a marriage amendment has been passed and subsequently challenged in court, the amendment has withstood judicial scrutiny. Kentucky is a great example. The Kentucky amendment, which was worded exactly the same as ours, was passed in 2004 and immediately challenged on the two-purpose issue. The courts upheld Kentucky’s amendment, rejecting the two-purpose argument.

On Wednesday, November 28 th, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Richard Niess ruled that Prof. McConkey, had standing on the two-purpose issue. Although the ruling does not deal with the merits of the issues of the case, it does mean that the case will proceed to a trial on the two-purpose issue.

There’s a good possibility that this case will eventually reach the state Supreme Court. If that happens, it would add a new dimension to the Supreme Court primary election in February 2008 and the general election in April. If the past is any precedent, those who support the homosexual agenda will do everything in their power to oppose Supreme Court candidates who are committed to upholding the constitution versus legislating personal agendas from the bench.

For now, however, the case is still in a Dane County Circuit Court. It is primarily up to Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen’s office to defend the state in this case. We trust AG Van Hollen and his staff will aggressively conduct their sworn duty to protect the will of the people and the constitution of the state of Wisconsin.

Emblazoned in gold in the Governor’s Conference Room in the State Capitol is the maxim, “The will of the people is the law of the land.” We’re poised to see if this is rhetoric or reality as it relates to the people’s will regarding the most foundational of all of our social institutions.

For Wisconsin Family Council, I’m Julaine Appling, reminding you the Prophet Hosea said, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.