… we have a small favor to ask. Thousands of people have placed their trust in the Racine County Eye’s high-impact journalism because we focus on solutions-based journalism.
With no shareholders or billionaire owners, we can provide trustworthy journalism that focuses on helping readers.
Unlike many others, Racine County Eye’s journalism is available for everyone to read, regardless of what they can afford to pay. We do this because we believe in information equality. Greater numbers of people can keep track of events, understand their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action.
If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future. Support the Racine County Eye from as little as $5 – it only takes a minute. Thank you.
Wendy Christensen, Racine County Clerk, ultimately has the final choice, said Racine County Executive Jim Ladwig.
“It’s ultimately Wendy’s decision but that is what our corp counsel is recommending and I believe she will follow that recommendation,” Ladwig said.
Ladwig isn’t sure when the order will be issued, he said.
The ban against gay marriage was overturned Friday by U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb, and county clerks in several communities kept later hours to process marriage licenses for same-sex couples and even perform some marriages.
State Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued a statement shortly after the decision was announced reaffirming his commitment to defending the state Constitution.
“While today’s decision is a setback, we will continue to defend the constitutionality of our traditional marriage laws and the constitutional amendment, which was overwhelmingly approved by voters. I will appeal,” he wrote. “I will continue defend our Constitution and law in whatever forum is appropriate and I would hope my successor will fulfill this same oath and obligation.”
Voters in 2006 approved a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, but four couples recently filed suit against the state, saying the ban violated their constitutional rights.
In her ruling, Crabb said she couldn’t think about religious considerations but had to instead take into account whether or not the ban created a separate class of citizens.
“Quite simply, this case is about liberty and equality, the two cornerstones of the rights protected by the United States Constitution,” Crabb’s decision reads.
[empowerlocal_campaign_offers region_id="22" subcampaign_id="8"]