By refusing to defend the state in a lawsuit challenging a new law providing benefits to same-sex partners, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is doing the same thing he's accusing lawmakers of: Playing politics and ignoring the will of the people. He's also going to cost the state money.
The Democratic-controlled Legislature included in its budget passed earlier this summer a provision to provide a handful of benefits to domestic partners who registered with the state. It was an obvious flaunting of the constitutional amendment that bans gay marriages or any other "substantially similar" arrangement, passed overwhelmingly by voters in 2006. The establishment of the domestic partnership law was an obviously political one, passed by a Legislature the Democrats took total majority control of in the 2008 elections.
For the record, the Times editorial board opposed the gay marriage ban in 2006. However, the majority of voters - the will of the people - supported it. So, too, did a majority of voters approve a Democratic-controlled Legislature in 2008. While there clearly was no mandate - or even, really, discussion - about circumventing the gay marriage ban, informed voters should have known it was a possibility when they backed Democratic Party candidates.
While establishing the domestic partnership law was a political move, it was done by officials elected by the will of the people.
Now that law is being challenged by a group called Wisconsin Family Action. It is the lead petitioner in a lawsuit the state Supreme Court currently is considering hearing. Here's where J.B. Van Hollen comes in.
As the elected attorney general, he has a constitutional responsibility to defend state law when there is a good-faith defense to be made. That good-faith defense comes in the nonpartisan Legislative Counsel's ruling earlier this year that the domestic partner law was likely to survive a legal challenge. Whether it ultimately will survive or not remains to be seen - conservatives have a 5-4 majority on the State Supreme Court. Van Hollen, whether he agrees with the domestic partnership law or not, has a responsibility to defend the law. He is wrong in declining to do so.
His refusal also will be costly to the state, which now must hire outside counsel to defend the policy.
Forgive our cynicism, but Van Hollen's decision smacks of a politician looking for ground to claim in a 2010 gubernatorial run, which the attorney general has not yet ruled out.
The Democratic-controlled Legislature included in its budget passed earlier this summer a provision to provide a handful of benefits to domestic partners who registered with the state. It was an obvious flaunting of the constitutional amendment that bans gay marriages or any other "substantially similar" arrangement, passed overwhelmingly by voters in 2006. The establishment of the domestic partnership law was an obviously political one, passed by a Legislature the Democrats took total majority control of in the 2008 elections.
For the record, the Times editorial board opposed the gay marriage ban in 2006. However, the majority of voters - the will of the people - supported it. So, too, did a majority of voters approve a Democratic-controlled Legislature in 2008. While there clearly was no mandate - or even, really, discussion - about circumventing the gay marriage ban, informed voters should have known it was a possibility when they backed Democratic Party candidates.
While establishing the domestic partnership law was a political move, it was done by officials elected by the will of the people.
Now that law is being challenged by a group called Wisconsin Family Action. It is the lead petitioner in a lawsuit the state Supreme Court currently is considering hearing. Here's where J.B. Van Hollen comes in.
As the elected attorney general, he has a constitutional responsibility to defend state law when there is a good-faith defense to be made. That good-faith defense comes in the nonpartisan Legislative Counsel's ruling earlier this year that the domestic partner law was likely to survive a legal challenge. Whether it ultimately will survive or not remains to be seen - conservatives have a 5-4 majority on the State Supreme Court. Van Hollen, whether he agrees with the domestic partnership law or not, has a responsibility to defend the law. He is wrong in declining to do so.
His refusal also will be costly to the state, which now must hire outside counsel to defend the policy.
Forgive our cynicism, but Van Hollen's decision smacks of a politician looking for ground to claim in a 2010 gubernatorial run, which the attorney general has not yet ruled out.
