"The state does not recognize domestic partnership in a way that even remotely resembles how the state recognizes marriage"

Writes Dane County Circuit Judge Daniel R. Moeser, reported in the Journal Sentinel:

"Ultimately, it is clear that (the law) does not violate the marriage amendment because it does not create a legal status for domestic partners that is identical or substantially similar to that of marriage. ," Moeser wrote.

In 2006, Wisconsin voters approved with 60% of the vote a constitutional ban on both marriage and a "legal status identical or substantially similar to marriage" for same-sex couples. Wisconsin Family Action, a group that supports marriage as being between a man and a woman, filed suit against the law in September.

It argued that the state-recognized partnerships for gay and lesbian couples are "substantially similar" to marriage and therefore banned by the state constitution.... In May, Republican Gov. Scott Walker asked Moeser to allow the state to stop defending the law against the suit because he believed it violated the state constitution.

There will be an appeal, of course. Instead of commenting, I'm giving you a poll:

Assess Moeser's decision:
	It's a sincere but not very good attempt at legal analysis.
	It's a sincere and fine example of legal analysis.
	It's pure politics, and it's bad politics.
	It's pure politics, and it's good politics.
	It's a mediocre mix of law and politics.
	It's an excellent interweaving of law and politics.
pollcode.com free polls