Appling v. Doyle
2013 WI App 3
Wis. Ct. App.2012Background
- Wisconsin's 2006 marriage amendment prohibits a legal status identical or substantially similar to marriage for unmarried individuals.
- 2009: Legislature creates domestic partnerships (Wis. Stat. ch. 770) with some marriage-like rights and obligations.
- Appling challenges the domestic partnership law as unconstitutional under the marriage amendment; Fair Wisconsin defends it.
- Court applies a three-source test to ascertain voter intent: plain meaning, historical context, earliest legislative interpretations.
- Court concludes that 'legal status' includes rights/obligations and termination; domestic partnerships are not substantially similar to marriage; amendment not violated.
- Court declines to rely on the legislature's earliest interpretation (the 2009 domestic partnership law) as controlling authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the domestic partnership law violate the marriage amendment? | Appling: legal status cannot be substantially similar to marriage. | Fair Wisconsin: law creates a legal status not substantially similar to marriage. | Not violated; legal status not substantially similar. |
| What is the meaning of 'legal status' in the amendment? | Legal status = eligibility/formation only. | Legal status includes rights/obligations and termination. | Legal status includes rights/obligations and termination. |
| Are Wisconsin domestic partnerships 'substantially similar' to marriage under the phrase, even considering rights and obligations? | They are substantially similar on rights/obligations and other incidents. | Differences in rights/obligations and termination mean not substantially similar. | Not substantially similar. |
| What weight should be given to historical context and proponents' statements about the amendment? | Opponents' statements should be given equal weight when congruent with proponents' views. | Proponents' statements carry more weight; congruence with opponents is limited. | Proponents' statements prevail; historical context favors interpretation including rights/obligations. |
| Should the court rely on the legislature's earliest interpretation (the 2009 law) as guidance on voter intent? | Earliest interpretation strongly informs voter intent. | Do not rely on earliest interpretation to define voter intent for this issue. | Court declines to rely on the domestic partnership law as controlling; other sources support interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Doyle, 295 Wis.2d 1 (Wis. 2006) (three-source test to interpret voter-intent and amendment scope)
- Norquist v. Zeuske, 211 Wis.2d 241 (Wis. 1997) (challengers carry burden to show constitutional violation beyond reasonable doubt)
- Campbell v. Blumberg, 260 Wis. 625 (Wis. 1952) (recognition of out-of-state marriages; cross-jurisdictional principles)
- State ex rel. Carnation Milk Prods. Co. v. Emery, 178 Wis. 147 (Wis. 1922) (presumption of legislative validity; defer to legislature)
- Xiong v. Xiong, 255 Wis.2d 693 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002) (recognition of marriage formed in other jurisdictions)