State Supreme Court decisions often matter a great deal, and the opinions written on those decisions become important in the legal world. As citizens, we have a right to expect prudent decisions and on-point, respectful analysis of the issues and the arguments. Apparently, however, sometimes that’s just too much to ask.

In March of 2005 six current and former state employees and their same-sex partners, with the help of the ACLU of Wisconsin filed a lawsuit against the state claiming it was unconstitutional to deny them health care and family leave because they were, in their words, “similarly situated” to married employees and their spouses or in the words of the law, “dependents.”

A number of local municipalities soon saw that if the courts eventually ruled it was unconstitutional to deny state same-sex employees and their same-sex partners health care and family leave benefits, then it would also be unconstitutional for them to do so and that the decision could significantly affect their budgets and that their local control on this issue would be stripped by the whim of the gavel. Eventually eight local municipalities joined together, represented by Attorney Michael Dean from Brookfield, seeking to join the lawsuit to protect their interests.

Until last week, no final answer had been given regarding the municipalities’ standing. But that answer did come, and it came from the state’s highest court on a 4-3 vote—and the answer was “no,” the municipalities would not be allowed to join the lawsuit.

The four justices voting to keep the municipalities off the playing field were Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justices Louis Butler, Ann Walsh Bradley and Patrick Crooks. Voting in favor of the municipalities were Justices David Prosser, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler. Chief Justice Abrahamson wrote the majority opinion, in which she argues that the local governments lacked “sufficient” interest to join the lawsuit. That’s interesting, because as Justice Prosser points out in his dissenting opinion, changing the definition of the word “dependent” to include unmarried same-sex partners would “likely have a wide effect” on those involved at the municipal level.

I submit to you that these municipalities have at least a “sufficient” interest in the lawsuit, both in their own right and as representatives of every municipality in the state of Wisconsin, and the individual citizens who pay for those health care benefits through their taxes.

The most disturbing part of the Supreme Court’s ruling was the arrogance of Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson’s majority opinion and Justice Louis Butler’s concurrence. Instead of addressing the issue at hand, Chief Justice Abrahamson used five pages to belittle the arguments made by Justice Prosser in the dissenting opinion. She clearly evidences her own fear that the dissents’ opinion might make Wisconsin citizens aware of the weakness and arrogance of her own arguments. She makes four sweeping comments alleging that the dissent is attempting to negatively influence the reader’s opinion of the majority decision.

In Justice Butler’s concurrence, he accuses the dissenting justices of trying to turn the case into a “political referendum,” and quite unprofessionally concludes that argument by stating, “Give me a break.”

Justice Prosser, in his articulate and logical dissent, points out that granting intervener status to interested parties allows the public to take part in the legal process that directly and indirectly affects them. In stead of personally attacking the intelligence of the majority justices and worrying about how readers will construe his comments, Justice Prosser addresses the facts of the case and point-by-point disputes the majority’s decision.

As parties to the case, the municipalities could have presented evidence and oral arguments to make their case. They could have contributed to the material the justices will need to analyze in order to make an informed decision. Now, as Justice Prosser points out, the public interest is kept off the field and left in the stands to wave rally flags, even though they could be significantly impacted by the court’s decision in this case.

We’re disappointed in this Supreme Court decision. However, we’re even more disappointed in the attitude conveyed by Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Butler in their opinions. We expected much better from the justices on our state’s highest court; obviously our expectations were much too high. In Justice Butler’s words: Give me a break.

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

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