Same-sex marriage in Wisconsin

{{main article|Domestic partnership in Wisconsin}}

Domestic partnerships in Wisconsin afforded limited rights to same-sex couples. They were legalized in the state on August 3, 2009, but were discontinued on April 1, 2018 following the legalization of same-sex marriage. Domestic partnerships in Wisconsin provided select rights, such as the ability to inherit a partner's estate in the absence of a will, hospital and jail visitation, and the ability to access family medical leave to care for a sick partner.[https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/wisconsin/articles/2017-06-15/the-latest-wisconsin-budget-panel-to-reject-self-insurance The Latest: Panel Votes to End Domestic Partner Registry][http://wilawlibrary.gov/topics/familylaw/domesticpartner.php Domestic Partnership]

By June 2017, about 4,400 couples had registered a domestic partnership in Wisconsin, with 78% of these being opposite-sex couples.

File:March down State St. (4835255826).jpg, July 2010]]

Prior to July 20, 1979, same-sex marriage was neither recognized nor prohibited in Wisconsin. In 1979, the Wisconsin Senate and State Assembly passed a bill that defined marriage as "a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential, and which creates the legal status of husband and wife." The bill was signed into law by Governor Lee S. Dreyfus, and took effect on July 20, 1979. A bill that the Family Research Institute (FRI) called a "statutory endorsement of traditional marriage" was proposed in the Wisconsin Legislature in 1997.{{cite book|title=Fact Sheet #145: Republicans Kill AB 104|date=May 1988|publisher=Family Research Institute|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fufbAAAAMAAJ|access-date=November 10, 2014}} It passed the Assembly on a 78–20 vote, but the Senate took no action on the measure before it adjourned sine die.{{cite book|last1=Rimmerman|first1=Craig A.|title=The Politics of Gay Rights|date=2000|publisher=University of Chicago Press|page=337|isbn=9780226719986|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vMghaleR8RoC&pg=PA337|access-date=November 10, 2014}} Legislation in support of same-sex marriage was also proposed that year, but was not voted on by either chamber.

A bill banning same-sex marriage was introduced to the Assembly on August 17, 2003,[http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2003/data/ab475hst.html AB475] The Proposed Legislation and approved on a vote of 68–29 on October 23.[http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2003/data/votes/av0303.pdf AV0303] The Passed House The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 22–10 on November 5.[http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2003/data/votes/sv0332.pdf SV0332] The Passed Senate Governor Jim Doyle vetoed the legislation on November 10.[http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2003/related/veto_messages/_38 AB 475 - Vetoed in Full] Vetoed The Assembly failed to override Doyle's veto by one vote, 63–33, on November 12.[http://badgerherald.com/news/2003/11/14/assembly_fails_to_ov.php Assembly fails to override anti-gay-marriage bill] Override Attempt

Wisconsin also has a marriage evasion law, which established criminal penalties of up to nine months' imprisonment and a fine up to $10,000 for leaving the state to contract a marriage that would not be valid in the state. According to a spokesperson for Lambda Legal in 2008, several states had similar laws, but Wisconsin's provided the harshest penalties. The applicability of the law to same-sex marriages was disputed, since it was designed to prevent fraud on the part of someone too young to marry legally in Wisconsin.{{cite news|last1=Forster|first1=Stacy|title=Wisconsin gay couples who marry outside state could face penalty|url=http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29412299.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090217201106/http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29412299.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=February 17, 2009|access-date= December 22, 2018 |work=Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel|date=July 3, 2008}}{{cite news|last1=Weisberg|first1=Louis|title=Prisoners of love|url=https://www.wisconsingazette.com/wisconsin-gaze/prisoners-of-love.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130911213604/https://www.wisconsingazette.com/wisconsin-gaze/prisoners-of-love.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=September 11, 2013|access-date= December 22, 2018 |work=Wisconsin Gazette|date=September 4, 2013}}

On March 5, 2004, the Assembly approved a state constitutional amendment by a vote of 68–27, that read:Assembly Joint Resolution 66, [http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2003/data/aj04_03_04.pdf Journal of the Wisconsin Assembly, March 5, 2004], p. 798.

{{blockquote|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 Senate approved the same language by a 20–13 vote on March 12, completing the first of two legislative approvals required to place the amendment on the ballot.Assembly Joint Resolution 66, [http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2003/data/sj040311aEX.pdf Journal of the Wisconsin Senate, March 11, 2004], p. 717. The final vote was taken shortly after midnight on March 12. The Senate approved the proposed amendment again on December 6, 2005, voting 19–14 along party lines.Senate Joint Resolution 53, [http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2005/data/sj051206.pdf Journal of the Wisconsin Senate, Dec. 6, 2005], p. 488. The Assembly did the same on February 28, 2006, by a vote of 62–31. The question appeared as a referendum on the statewide ballot for the 2006 general election on November 7, 2006,Senate Joint Resolution 53, [http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2005/data/aj06_02_28.pdf Journal of the Wisconsin Assembly, Feb. 28, 2006], p. 862{{cite web |url=https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2005/proposals/sjr53 |title=2005 Senate Joint Resolution 53 |publisher=Docs.legis.wisconsin.gov |access-date=December 2, 2013}} and voters approved the amendment by a margin of 59.4% to 40.6%.[http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=10049&locid=47 Canvass Summary], Wisconsin State Elections Board, Fall General Election, November 7, 2006.

In December 2023, senators Tim Carpenter and Mark Spreitzer announced their intention to file a constitutional amendment to repeal the ban and make appopriate changes in statutory law. "One of the worst days in the Legislature was when that constitutional amendment passed in 2006, and some of my colleagues came up to me afterwards and said, 'Don't take it personal'. It's been personal, and it's been in our constitution for about 17 years and it's time to repeal it. It's time to pass a constitutional amendment that brings back a person's civil rights", said Carpenter.{{cite web|url=https://www.wpr.org/politics/wisconsin-democrats-propose-protections-same-sex-marriages|title=Wisconsin Democrats propose protections for same-sex marriages|work=Wisconsin Public Radio|date=December 13, 2023|first=Anya|last=Van Wagtendonk}}

William McConkey, a political science instructor filed a lawsuit, McConkey v. Van Hollen, on April 9, 2009, with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, charging that the 2006 referendum which banned both same-sex marriage and civil unions in the state, violated the State Constitution because it proposed more than one question in a single ballot proposal, which is illegal under Wisconsin law.{{cite news|url=http://www.wkbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=10156939&nav=menu239_2 |title=Wisconsin amendment supreme court |publisher=Wkbt.com |date=November 14, 2013 |access-date=December 2, 2013}} On May 14, the court agreed to hear the case, specifying two questions, whether McConkey, as an individual voter, had standing to sue and whether the ballot initiative presented two questions. Wisconsin Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen challenged McConkey's standing.{{cite news|title=State to reevaluate gay marriage ban |url=http://badgerherald.com/news/2009/05/14/state-to-reevaluate/ |access-date=February 3, 2014|newspaper=Badger Herald |date=May 14, 2009}}"[http://www.wicourts.gov/news/view.jsp?id=123 Supreme Court accepts four new cases]", Headlines Archive, Wisconsin Court System, May 21, 2009. The court heard oral arguments on November 3.{{cite news |first=Christopher |last=Magnum |url=http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/11/03/Wisn_Supreme_Court_Hears_Gay_Marriage_Case/ |title=Wis. Supreme Court Hears Gay Marriage Case |publisher= The Advocate |date= November 3, 2009 |access-date=February 3, 2014}}{{cite news|last=Marley|first=Patrick|title=State Supreme Court hears arguments on gay marriage amendment|url=http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/68894217.html |access-date=February 3, 2014|newspaper=Milwaukee Journal Sentinel|date=November 3, 2009}} On June 30, 2010, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 7–0 in McConkey that the ballot measure was proper.{{cite news |url=http://host.madison.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/wisconsin-supreme-court-unanimously-upholds-gay-marriage-ban/article_b8006134-8442-11df-b57d-001cc4c03286.html |title=Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously upholds gay marriage ban|publisher=Wisconsin State Journal|date=June 30, 2010 |last=Foley|first=Ryan J.|access-date=March 12, 2014}}

On April 16, 2014, a lesbian couple married in California sought original jurisdiction in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. They claimed the state's "parallel civil marriage and domestic partnership structure" denied them access to federal benefits. They also challenged Wisconsin's statute imposing criminal penalties on residents who contract in other jurisdictions a marriage that is not recognized by the state. On May 27, 2014, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, on a 5–2 vote, declined to hear the case.{{cite news|last=Ksicinski|first=Paul (Attorney for Plaintiffs)|title=Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Halopka-Ivery v. Walker, No. 2014AP000839-OA|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/218730633/Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-Petition-for-Declaratory-Injunctive-Relief|access-date=May 14, 2014|newspaper=Wisconsin Supreme Court via Scribd|date=April 16, 2014}}{{cite web|url=http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/wis-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-case/ |title=Wis. Supreme Court declines to hear same-sex marriage case |publisher=Lgbtqnation.com |date=May 27, 2014 |access-date=August 21, 2014}}

In 1971, Donna Burkett and Manonia Evans, an African American lesbian couple from Milwaukee, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Milwaukee County Clerk, Thomas Zablocki, for refusing to issue them a marriage license. The couple sought "an order compelling the clerk of Milwaukee County to issue them an application for a marriage license." Zablocki moved to dismiss the suit. The plaintiffs failed to submit timely briefs in response to the clerk's motion, and the court dismissed the case in 1972.{{cite web|url=https://buddybuddy.com/t-line-1.html|title=Legal Marriage Court Cases — A Timeline|website=www.buddybuddy.com|accessdate=August 7, 2022}}{{cite journal|url=https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.ch/&httpsredir=1&article=1320&context=mulr|title=Choice of Law: Will a Wisconsin Court Recognize a Vermont Civil Union?|journal=Marquette Law Review|first=Elaine M.|last=De Franco|volume=85|date=2001|page=261}}

{{Main|Wolf v. Walker}}

On February 3, 2014, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the law firm Mayer Brown filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on behalf of four same-sex couples, including a lesbian couple married in Minnesota in 2013. It challenged the State Constitution's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples and the state statute that provided criminal penalties for leaving the state to establish a marriage that was not valid in Wisconsin. The suit named Governor Scott Walker, several state officials, and two county clerks as defendants.{{cite news|last=Geidner |first=Chris|title=ACLU Filing Lawsuit In Wisconsin Seeking Marriage Equality |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/aclu-filing-lawsuit-in-wisconsin-seeking-marriage-equality |newspaper=Buzz Feed|date=February 3, 2014|access-date=March 12, 2014}}{{cite news|last=Johnson |first=Chris |title=Wisconsin latest state to face marriage lawsuit |url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/02/03/wisconsin-lawsuit/ |access-date=February 3, 2014 |newspaper=Washington Blade|date=February 3, 2014}} The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Barbara Brandriff Crabb, who ruled on June 6, 2014 that the state's constitutional and statutory restrictions on same-sex marriage interfere with the fundamental right to marry, violating the Due Process Clause of the Constitution of the United States, and discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, violating the Equal Protection Clause.[http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/wolfvwalker.pdf Wolf v. Walker], 14-cv-64-bbc, (W.D. Michigan June 6, 2014) p 3 In response to the decision, though Crabb had yet to issue any order enforcing it, county clerks in increasing numbers began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and in some cases performing marriage ceremonies for them.{{cite news|url=http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Gay-couples-get-licenses-in-41-Wisconsin-counties-5538647.php|agency=Seattle Post-Intelligencer|date=June 9, 2014|access-date=June 9, 2014|title=Gay couples get licenses in 42 Wisconsin counties}}{{cite web |last=Johnson |first=M.L. |title=Gay couples rush to marry at Wisconsin courthouses |url=http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140607/us-gay-marriage-wisconsin-9d02f0128c.html |date=June 7, 2014 |work=AP News |access-date=June 7, 2014 }} Renee Currie and Shari Roll were the first couple to be issued a license in Madison, and were married minutes later just a few blocks away from the Wisconsin State Capitol. The Milwaukee County Executive, Chris Abele, said he would keep the courthouse open until 9 p.m. so same-sex couples could be issued marriage licenses.{{cite web|url=http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/6/wisconsin-gay-marriage.html|title=First same-sex couples wed in Wisconsin after judge strikes down ban|website=Al Jazeera|date=June 6, 2014}} On June 13, after a week of legal maneuvering and a threat of legal action against the clerks on the part of Wisconsin Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen,{{cite news|url=http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/van-hollen-clerks-issuing-licenses-to-gay-couples-could-be-charged-b99289932z1-262892731.html|title=Van Hollen: Clerks issuing licenses to gay couples could be charged |last1=Marley |first1=Patrick |last2=Ferguson|first2=Dana |date=June 12, 2014|work=Milwaukee Journal Sentinel|access-date=June 13, 2014}} Crabb stayed enforcement of her decision while expressing disappointment that recent action by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Utah case of Kitchen v. Herbert compelled her to do so.{{cite news|last1=Crabb|first1=Barbara (U.S. District Judge)|title=Opinion and Order, Wolf v. Walker, No. 14-cv-64-bbc |url=http://www.lgbtqnation.com/assets/2014/06/Wisconsin-Injunction-and-Stay.pdf|work=U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin|agency=PACER Document 134|publisher=Scribd.com|date=June 13, 2014}}

On July 10, the state appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,{{cite news|title=State appeals ruling allowing gay marriages|url=http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/2014/07/10/gay-marriage-wisconsin-appeal-ruling/12490705/|access-date=July 10, 2014|work=Post Crescent |agency=AP |date=July 10, 2014}} which combined the case for briefing with a similar Indiana case, Baskin v. Bogan, and scheduled oral arguments for August 26.{{cite news|last1=Marley |first1=Patrick|title=Appeals court to fast track state's gay marriage case with Indiana's |url=http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/judge-wont-lift-her-stay-on-same-sex-marriages-in-wisconsin-b99309278z1-266778601.html|access-date=July 14, 2014|work=Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal-Sentinel|date=July 11, 2014}} On September 4, the Seventh Circuit, in a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Richard Posner, upheld the district court decision.{{cite news|first=Chris|last=Johnson|url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/09/04/7th-circuit-rules-marriage-bans-wisconsin-indiana/ |work=Washington Blade| date=September 4, 2014| access-date=September 4, 2015|title=7th Circuit rules against marriage bans in Wisconsin, Indiana }} Posner wrote:

{{blockquote|The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction–that same-sex couples and their children don't need marriage because same-sex couples can't produce children, intended or unintended–is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously. To the extent that children are better off in families in which the parents are married, they are better off whether they are raised by their biological parents or by adoptive parents.}}

On September 9, Van Hollen asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case.{{cite news|last1=Geidner |first1=Chris|title=Indiana, Wisconsin Officials Take Marriage Cases To Supreme Court|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/indiana-wisconsin-officials-take-marriage-cases-to-supreme-c#3h452jn|access-date=September 16, 2014|work=BuzzFeed News |date=September 9, 2014}} The Seventh Circuit stayed enforcement of its ruling on September 18.{{cite news|last1=Stein|first1=Jason|title=Wisconsin's gay marriage ban to stay in place until U.S. Supreme Court rules|url=http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/gay-marriage-ban-to-stay-in-place-until-us-supreme-court-rules-b99353767z1-275484751.html|access-date=September 18, 2014|work=Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal-Sentinel|date=September 18, 2014}} On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of this case, allowing the Seventh Circuit's ruling to take effect.{{cite news|author=Liptak, Adam|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/us/denying-review-justices-clear-way-for-gay-marriage-in-5-states.html|title=Supreme Court Clears Way for Gay Marriage in 5 States|work= New York Times |date=6 October 2014|access-date=6 October 2014}} Attorney General Van Hollen responded by stating, "the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision holding Wisconsin's Marriage Protection Amendment unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has declined the opportunity to examine that decision. It is now our obligation to comply with those court decisions." Governor Walker also instructed county clerks to comply and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.{{cite web|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/06/same-sex-marriages-states/16803631/|title=Across the USA: Reaction to same-sex marriage decision|work=USA Today|date=October 6, 2014}}[https://www.doj.state.wi.us/news-releases/statement-wisconsin-attorney-general-jb-van-hollen-matter-wolf-et-al-v-walker-et-al October 6 2014 - Wisconsin Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney-General] Same-sex couples began marrying in Wisconsin the following day, Tuesday, October 7, 2014, after the Seventh Circuit and the District Court issued their mandates.{{cite news |title=7th Circuit lifts stays, ending Indiana, Wisconsin same-sex marriage bans |url=http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/10/7th-circuit-lifts-stays-ending-indiana-wisconsin-same-sex-marriage-bans/ |access-date=October 11, 2014 |work=LGBTQ Nation |date=October 7, 2014}}{{cite news|last=Meyer |first=Holly |title=Same-sex couples can marry in the Fox Valley |url=http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/2014/10/06/sex-couples-can-marry-fox-valley/16837973/ |access-date=October 11, 2014 |newspaper=Appleton Post-Crescent |date=October 7, 2014}}

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in Obergefell v. Hodges that state bans on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment, thus invalidating all remaining state same-sex marriage bans in the United States. Governor Walker said the ruling was a "grave mistake" and called for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, "The only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage."{{cite web|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150628220247/https://fox11online.com/news/local/wisconsin-same-sex-marriage-supporters-opponents-react|title=Wisconsin same-sex marriage supporters & opponents react|url=https://fox11online.com/news/local/wisconsin-same-sex-marriage-supporters-opponents-react|date=June 27, 2015|archive-date=June 28, 2015|work=FOX11}} Jerome E. Listecki, the Archbishop of Milwaukee, called it "a sad day for the sacrament of marriage". Karen Gotzler, the executive director of the Milwaukee LGBT Community Center, welcomed the court decision, "It's really a joyous day for us." Joseph Czarnezki, the Milwaukee County Clerk, said "We're expecting an influx of people, same-sex couples, who desire to get married. I've talked to people in the community who said they are specifically waiting for the Supreme Court ruling so that their marriage would be legal in all 50 states."{{cite web|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201001135922/https://www.wisn.com/article/wisconsin-reaction-to-u-s-supreme-court-gay-marriage-ruling-mixed/6327421|url=https://www.wisn.com/article/wisconsin-reaction-to-u-s-supreme-court-gay-marriage-ruling-mixed/6327421|date=June 26, 2015|archive-date=October 1, 2020|work=WISN|title=Wisconsin reaction to U.S. Supreme Court gay marriage ruling mixed|first=Max|last=Seigle}}

Same-sex marriage is legal on the reservations of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, which legalized same-sex marriage when the Ho-Chunk Nation Legislature voted 13–0 on June 5, 2017 to approve a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry,{{cite web|url=http://www.hocakworak.com/article.aspx?headline=Same-sex+marriage+provisions+approved+by+Ho-Chunk+Legislature|title=Same-sex marriage provisions approved by Ho-Chunk Legislature|work=Hocak Worak|last=Luchterhand|first=Ken|access-date=July 8, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170708011227/http://www.hocakworak.com/article.aspx?headline=Same-sex+marriage+provisions+approved+by+Ho-Chunk+Legislature|archive-date=July 8, 2017}} the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, where state law governs marriage relations,{{cite web|url=https://www.ldftribe.com/Courts/CHAP30%20Domestic%20Relation%20Ordinance.pdf|title=Tribal Code of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Chapter 30: Domestic Relations|accessdate=August 16, 2022|archive-date=December 5, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141205015127/https://www.ldftribe.com/Courts/CHAP30%20Domestic%20Relation%20Ordinance.pdf|work=Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa}} the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin,{{cite web|url=https://ecode360.com/documents/ME2727/source/LF932954.pdf|title=Tribal Ordinance 16-28, Amendment to the Code of Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, Chapter 409-Marriage|website=ecode360.com|accessdate=August 15, 2022}} the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin,{{cite web|url=https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/local/2015/05/28/oneida-tribe-legalizing-sex-marriage/28090955/|title=Oneida Tribe legalizing same-sex marriage|publisher=Green Bay Press Gazette|date=May 28, 2015|first=Doug|last=Schneider}} which legalized on June 10, 2015,{{efn|The General Tribal Council of the Oneida Nation modified its code of laws to define marriage ({{langx|one|watʌ́·nyoteˀ}} or {{lang|one|yenyáktʌˀ}}){{cite web|url=https://www.uwgb.edu/dictionary/sound.aspx?citation=wat%CA%8C%CC%81%C2%B7nyote%CB%80&pos=derived%20noun|title=Oneida Dictionary: watʌ́·nyoteˀ|work=UW-Green Bay|access-date=May 5, 2024}} as "the civil contract to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential, and which creates the legal status of spouses".{{cite web|url=https://oneida-nsn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Chapter-701-Marriage-Law-BC-05-25-16-A.pdf|work=Oneida Nation of Wisconsin|title=Title 7. Children, Elders and Family - Chapter 701 Marriage|access-date=May 5, 2024}}}} and the Stockbridge–Munsee Community, which legalized on February 22, 2016.{{efn|The Stockbridge-Munsee Marriage Code defines marriage as "a civil contract between two (2) persons, regardless of their sex, creating a union to the exclusion of all others".{{cite web|url=http://www.mohican.com/mt-content/uploads/2016/03/chapter-61-marriage_appvd-2-22-2016-1.pdf |title=Chapter 61 Stockbridge-Munsee Tribal Law Marriage|accessdate=August 15, 2022}} Marriage licenses are issued by the Tribal Court, located at the Council Building (Mohican: {{lang|mjy|Peʔpootuwothut|italics=yes}};{{cite web|url=https://mohicanlanguage.com/phrasebook/?p=69|title=Public Buildings|work=mohicanlanguages.com|access-date=May 5, 2024}} {{langx|del|Aachimulsikaon|italics=yes}}).{{cite web|url=https://www.talk-lenape.org/getting-started|title=Lenape Talking Dictionary|access-date=15 April 2024|archive-date=27 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210227144905/https://www.talk-lenape.org/getting-started|work=talk-lenape.org}}}} The Menominee Tribal Council voted 6–0 on November 3, 2016 to legalize same-sex marriage. The Tribal Code now reads "'Marriage' is a civil contract between two (2) persons, regardless of their sex, creating a union to the exclusion of all others." The tribal Licensing and Permit Department will issue a marriage license ({{langx|mez|ni wāwīhtamatwan}}){{cite web|url=https://www.menominee-nsn.gov/Files/Intermediate%2012-6-13.pdf|title=Oma͞eqnomenēweqnaesen Wēhcekanan, Menominee Dictionary|access-date=May 5, 2024|work=menominee-nsn.gov|first=Monica|last=Macaulay|date=2012}} "upon receiving a completed application form from two unmarried persons, regardless of sex (or gender), and in the absence of any showing that the proposed marriage would be invalid under any provisions of this code."

While there are no records of same-sex marriages as understood from a Western perspective being performed in Native American cultures, there is evidence for identities and behaviours that may be placed on the LGBT spectrum. Many of these cultures recognized two-spirit individuals who were born male but wore women's clothing and performed everyday household work and artistic handiwork which were regarded as belonging to the feminine sphere. This two-spirit status allowed for marriages between two biological males or two biological females to be performed in some of these tribes. The Ho-Chunk people have traditionally recognized two-spirit individuals, known in their language as {{lang|win|teją́cowįga}} ({{IPA|win|teˈdʒãtʃowĩga|pron}}), which translates to "blue ocean woman".{{cite encyclopedia|url=https://hotcakencyclopedia.com/ho.BerdacheOriginMyth.html|title=Berdache Origin Myth|first=Richard L.|last=Dieterle|encyclopedia=Ho-Chunk Encyclopedia|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240208195315/https://hotcakencyclopedia.com/ho.BerdacheOriginMyth.html|archive-date=February 8, 2024|access-date=May 5, 2024}} They were believed to have been blessed by the spirit of the Moon, and were "holy and highly respected for special gifts such as prophesy, healing, artistry, and excelling at women's tasks". Many {{lang|win|teją́cowįga}} married cisgender men without indication of polygyny.{{cite book|title=Men as women, women as men: changing gender in Native American cultures|url=https://archive.org/details/menaswomenwomena0000lang|url-access=registration|author=Sabine Lang|publisher=University of Texas Press |year=1998 |isbn=0-292-74701-2}} Two-spirit people are known in the Ojibwe language as {{lang|oj|niizh manidoowag}} ({{IPA|oj|niːʒ maˈnɪˌdoːˌwak|pron}}). Many were wives in polygynous households.{{cite book|title=Encyclopedia of Gender and Society|volume=1|last=O'Brien|first=Jodi|date=2009|publisher=SAGE|isbn=978-1412909167|page=64}} Potawatomi society has traditionally recognized two-spirit individuals, known as {{lang|pot|mnedokwé}} ({{IPA|pot|mnədoˈkʷɛ|pron}}, plural: {{lang|pot|mnedokwék}}),{{cite web|url=https://wiwkwebthegen.com/dictionary|title= Potawatomi Dictionary|access-date=April 22, 2024|archive-date=April 7, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240407083953/https://wiwkwebthegen.com/dictionary|work=Wiwkwébthëgen}} who "sought out female company" from an early age, possessed the "work skills" of both sexes, "talked like women", and were regarded as "esteemed persons with special spiritual powers". Ruth Landes reported in 1970 that they were "said to possess visions…but not to practice sorcery. [{{lang|pot|Mnedokwék}}] exemplified a distinct category of 'power'."{{cite thesis|url=https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/224565/Pyle_umn_0130E_22615.pdf?sequence=1|title=Folks Like Us: Anishinaabe Two-Spirit Kinship and Memory Across Time and Space|last=Pyle|first=Kai|publisher=University of Minnesota|date=July 2021}}

Data from the 2000 U.S. census showed that 8,232 same-sex couples were living in Wisconsin. By 2005, this had increased to 14,894 couples, likely attributed to same-sex couples' growing willingness to disclose their partnerships on government surveys. Same-sex couples lived in all counties of the state, and constituted 0.7% of coupled households and 0.4% of all households in the state. Most couples lived in Milwaukee, Dane and Waukesha counties, but the counties with the highest percentage of same-sex couples were Dane (0.80% of all county households) and Sawyer (0.78%). Same-sex partners in Wisconsin were on average younger than opposite-sex partners, and more likely to be employed. However, the average and median household incomes of same-sex couples were lower than different-sex couples, and same-sex couples were also far less likely to own a home than opposite-sex partners. 16% of same-sex couples in Wisconsin were raising children under the age of 18, with an estimated 3,783 children living in households headed by same-sex couples in 2005.{{cite web|url=https://escholarship.org/content/qt6619f2v3/qt6619f2v3_noSplash_f91549635e831b9479bf4616cfffe6da.pdf?t=lnq3wu|title=Census Snapshot|accessdate=August 30, 2022|work=Williams Institute}}

The 2020 U.S. census showed that there were 8,310 married same-sex couple households (3,251 male couples and 5,059 female couples) and 7,800 unmarried same-sex couple households in Wisconsin.{{cite web|url=https://data.census.gov/table/DECENNIALDHC2020.PCT15?t=Families%20and%20Living%20Arrangements&d=DEC%20Demographic%20and%20Housing%20Characteristics|title=PCT1405 Couple Households, By Type|access-date=11 December 2023|work=United States Census Bureau}}

The April 2014 Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey found that 47% of Wisconsin voters thought same-sex marriage should be legal, while 45% thought it should be illegal and 8% were not sure. A separate question on the same survey found that 71% of Wisconsin voters supported the legal recognition of same-sex couples, with 43% supporting same-sex marriage, 28% supporting civil unions but not marriage, 26% favoring no legal recognition and 3% being unsure.{{cite web|url=http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_WI_424.pdf |title=Clinton leads Ryan, Walker in Wisconsin |date=April 24, 2014 |access-date=April 24, 2014}} In August 2011, the PPP placed support for same-sex marriage at 34%, civil unions but not marriage at 33%, no legal recognition at 31%, and no opinion at 2%.{{cite web|url=http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_WI_0826.pdf |title=WI bullish on Packers, hate Favre, want Dem-controlled Sen. |access-date=December 2, 2013}} In July 2012, it placed support for same-sex marriage at 39%, civil unions but not marriage at 30%, no legal recognition at 28%, and no opinion at 3%.{{cite web|url=http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_WI_072012.pdf |title=Wisconsin narrowly opposes gay marriage |access-date=December 2, 2013}}{{cite web|url=http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_WI_022813.pdf |title=Clinton would beat Walker, Ryan in Wisconsin in 2016 |access-date=December 2, 2013}}

• LGBT rights in Wisconsin
• Domestic partnerships in Wisconsin
• Same-sex marriage in the United States

{{notelist}}

{{reflist|30em}}

• {{cite web|url=http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/wolfvwalker.pdf|title=Wolf v. Walker (Opinion and Order)|work=United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin|date=June 6, 2014|archive-date=January 5, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150105070654/http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/wolfvwalker.pdf}}

{{Same-sex marriage in the United States}}

Category:2014 in LGBTQ history

Category:LGBTQ in Wisconsin

Wisconsin

Category:2014 in Wisconsin