Marriage equality supporters in Wisconsin received the disappointing, yet expected, news June 13 that same-sex marriages had to be put on hold. U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb issued the directive one week after a previous ruling said the state's marriage banapproved by 59% of the state's voters in a 2006 referendumwas unconstitutional.
The ruling ended what was a frenzied week for gay LGBT Wisconsinites, as they rushed to wed before State Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen couldgetan injunction while he filed an appeal.
Crabb's ruling did not explicitly order that marriages could begin, so county clerks were left using their own discretion as to whether or not to issue licenses. According to USA Today, about 600 licenses were issued to same-sex couples in 60 counties. Twelve counties refused to issue the licenses, while others adhered to a five-day waiting period, leaving some people who had obtained licenses late in the week in a legal limbo.
In the June 13 ruling, Van Hollen said that allowing the marriages to continue would be ignoring legal precedent: "If I were considering these factors as a matter of a first impression, I would be inclined to agree with plaintiffs that defendants have not shown that they are entitled to a stay. However, I cannot ignore the Supreme Court's order in Herbert v. Kitchen, 134 S. Ct. 893 ( 2014 ), in which the Court stayed a district court's order enjoining state officials in Utah from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage. It is impossible to know the Court's reasoning for issuing the stay because the Court did not accompany the order with an opinion, but, since Herbert, every statewide order enjoining the enforcement of a ban on same-sex marriage has been stayed, either by the district court or the court of appeals, at least when the state requested a stay."
In a statement, Van Hollen said, "By staying this ruling, she has confirmed that Wisconsin's law regarding same-sex marriage remains in full force and effect."
Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell was the first clerk to begin issuing the licenses. He told Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "I'm disappointed ( Crabb ) stayed her own ruling but I defer to her knowledge of the federal courts and I'm looking forward to the day when I can issue same-sex marriage licenses again."
Crabb's June 13 ruling explained that she gave no directives to officials in the original decision because she was giving both sides an opportunity to file supplemental materials regarding the content of the injunction.
Plaintiffs had asked Crabb to include language that would have exempted county clerks from criminal prosecution by the state for issuing same-sex marriage licenses, and also would have allowed both same-sex partners' names to appear on their child's birth certificate. She refused those requests, maintaining they were outside the scope of the original request.
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's article is at: bit.ly/STIG0a .
USA Today's article is at: http://usat.ly/1p1taLY
.