This case is not about whether the Wisconsin or United States Constitutions require, on equal protection or other grounds, that same-sex couples have the right to a legally recognized relationship that is identical or substantially similar to marriage. To the contrary, for the domestic partnership law to pass muster here, the "legal status" created by that law may not be "substantially similar" to the "legal status" of marriage. Because the legal and evidentiary arguments of the parties persuade us that the two are not "substantially similar," we affirm the circuit court's decision holding that the domestic partnership law does not violate the marriage amendment.

Same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] remains controversial throughout the US, with states taking various approaches. Earlier this week the Montana Supreme Court [official website] affirmed [JURIST report] a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit seeking legal status for same-sex relationships. Like Wisconsin, Montana also has a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Earlier this month Washington Governor Christine Gregoire certified the results of Referendum 74 [JURIST report] which legalized same-sex marriage in the state. Washington had previously recognized domestic partnerships [JURIST report]. Also in December the US Supreme Court [official website] agreed to rule [JURIST report] on two cases dealing with same-sex marriage. In Hollingsworth v. Perry [docket] the court will consider the validity of Proposition 8 [JURIST news archive], a California referendum that revoked same-sex marriage rights. In United States v. Windsor [docket] the court will examine the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text; JURIST news archive].