| Part of theLGBTQ rights series |
Recognized |
Civil unions or registered partnerships but not marriage |
See also
|
Notes
|
 LGBTQ portal |
Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized inWisconsin since October 6, 2014, upon the resolution of a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. On October 6, theU.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of an appellate court ruling inWolf v. Walker that had found Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The appellate court issued its order prohibiting enforcement of the state's ban on same-sex marriage the next day, andcounties began issuingmarriage licenses to same-sex couples immediately. Polling suggests that a majority of Wisconsin residents support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, with a 2022 poll showing that 72% of respondents supported same-sex marriage.[1] Wisconsin had previously recognizeddomestic partnerships, which afforded limited legal rights to same-sex couples, from August 2009 until they were discontinued in April 2018.
TheConstitution of Wisconsin had precluded state recognition of same-sex marriages and prohibited the establishment of any similar legal status under another name since 2006, when 59% of voters ratified aconstitutional amendment definingmarriage so as to exclude same-sex couples. A federal lawsuit filed in February 2014,Wolf v. Walker, challenged Wisconsin's refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, its refusal to recognize same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions, and relatedstatutes. In June 2014, JudgeBarbara Brandriff Crabb of theU.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ruled for the plaintiffs and in the week before shestayed her decision county clerks in 60 of the state's 72 counties issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples and some performed marriage ceremonies for them. The stateappealed her decision to theSeventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed it on September 4 but later stayed implementation of its ruling until the U.S. Supreme Court decided whether to consider the case.
Domestic partnerships in Wisconsin afforded limited rights to same-sex couples. A domestic partnership law took effect on August 3, 2009, and provided select rights, such as the ability toinherit a partner's estate in the absence of awill, hospital and jail visitation, and the ability to access family medical leave to care for a sick partner.[2][3] The law was upheld by theWisconsin Supreme Court inAppling v. Walker on July 31, 2014. Domestic partnerships were discontinued on April 1, 2018 following the legalization of same-sex marriage in Wisconsin.
By June 2017, about 4,400 couples had registered a domestic partnership in Wisconsin, with 78% of these being opposite-sex couples.[2]
.jpg)
Prior to July 20, 1979, same-sex marriage was neither recognized nor prohibited in Wisconsin. In 1979, theWisconsin Senate andState Assembly passed a bill that definedmarriage 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 GovernorLee S. Dreyfus, and took effect on July 20, 1979. A bill that theFamily Research Institute (FRI) called a "statutory endorsement of traditional marriage" was proposed in theWisconsin Legislature in 1997.[4] It passed the Assembly on a 78–20 vote, but the Senate took no action beforeadjourningsine die.[5] Legislation in support of same-sex marriage was also proposed that year, but was not voted on by either chamber.[5]
A bill banning same-sex marriage was introduced to the Assembly on August 17, 2003,[6] and approved on a vote of 68–29 on October 23.[7] The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 22–10 on November 5.[8] GovernorJim Doyle vetoed the legislation on November 10.[9] The Assembly failed to override Doyle's veto by one vote, 63–33, on November 12.[10]
Wisconsin also has amarriage 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 forLambda 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.[11][12]
On March 5, 2004, the Assembly approved a stateconstitutional amendment by a vote of 68–27, that read:[13]
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.[14] The Senate approved the proposed amendment again on December 6, 2005, voting 19–14 along party lines.[15] The Assembly did the same on February 28, 2006, by a vote of 62–31. The question appeared as areferendum on the statewideballot for the 2006 general election on November 7, 2006,[16][17] and voters approved the amendment by a margin of 59.4% to 40.6%.[18]
In December 2023, senatorsTim Carpenter andMark Spreitzer announced their intention to file a constitutional amendment to repeal the ban and make appropriate 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.[19] A similar measure was introduced in June 2025.[20]
William McConkey, a political science instructor, filed alawsuit,McConkey v. Van Hollen, on April 9, 2009, with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, charging that the 2006 referendum which banned both same-sex marriage andcivil 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.[21] On May 14, the court agreed to hear the case, specifying two questions, whether McConkey, as an individual voter, hadstanding to sue and whether the ballot initiative presented two questions. Attorney GeneralJ. B. Van Hollen challenged McConkey's standing.[22][23] The court heard oral arguments on November 3.[24][25] On June 30, 2010, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 7–0 inMcConkey that the ballot measure was proper.[26]
On April 16, 2014, a lesbian couplemarried in California soughtoriginal 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 contracted in other jurisdictions a marriage that was not recognized by the state. On May 27, 2014, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, on a 5–2 vote, declined to hear the case.[27][28]
In 1971, Donna Burkett and Manonia Evans, anAfrican American lesbian couple fromMilwaukee, filed a lawsuit in theU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Milwaukee County Clerk, Thomas Zablocki, for refusing to issue them amarriage 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.[29][30]
On February 3, 2014, theAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the law firmMayer Brown filed a lawsuit in theU.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on behalf of four same-sex couples, including alesbian couplemarried in Minnesota in 2013. It challenged the State Constitution's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples and the statestatute that provided criminal penalties for leaving the state to establish a marriage that was not valid in Wisconsin. The suit named GovernorScott Walker, several state officials, and twocounty clerks as defendants.[31][32] The case was assigned to U.S. District JudgeBarbara Brandriff Crabb, who ruled on June 6, 2014 that the state's constitutional and statutory restrictions on same-sex marriage interfered with the fundamental right to marry, violating theDue Process Clause of theU.S. Constitution, and discriminated on the basis ofsexual orientation, violating theEqual Protection Clause.[33] 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.[34][35] Renee Currie and Shari Roll were the first couple to be issued a license inMadison, and were married minutes later just a few blocks away from theWisconsin State Capitol. TheMilwaukee County Executive,Chris Abele, said he would keep thecourthouse open until 9 p.m. so same-sex couples could be issued marriage licenses.[36] On June 13, after a week of legal maneuvering and a threat of legal action against the clerks on the part of Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen,[37] Crabbstayed enforcement of her decision while expressing disappointment that recent action by theU.S. Supreme Court in theUtah case ofKitchen v. Herbert compelled her to do so.[38]
On July 10, the state appealed the decision to theSeventh Circuit Court of Appeals,[39] which combined the case for briefing with a similarIndiana case,Baskin v. Bogan, and scheduledoral arguments for August 26.[40] On September 4, the Seventh Circuit, in a unanimous opinion authored by JudgeRichard Posner, upheld the district court decision.[41] Posner wrote:
The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by animmutable 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.[42] The Seventh Circuit stayed enforcement of its ruling on September 18.[43] On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court denied review of this case, allowing the Seventh Circuit's ruling to take effect.[44] 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.[45][46] 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.[47][48]
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 inObergefell v. Hodges that state bans on same-sex marriage violate theFourteenth Amendment, thus invalidating all remaining state same-sex marriage bans in theUnited 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."[49]Jerome E. Listecki, theArchbishop 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."[50]
TheIndian Civil Rights Act, also known asPublic Law 90–284, primarily aims to protect the rights ofNative Americans but also reinforces the principle of tribal self-governance. While it does not grant sovereignty, the Act affirms the authority of tribes to govern their own legal affairs. Consequently, many tribes have enacted their own marriage and family laws. As a result, theWolf ruling and the Supreme Court'sObergefell ruling did not automatically apply to tribal jurisdictions.
Same-sex marriage is legal on the reservations of theHo-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,[51] theLac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, where state law governs marriage relations,[52] theMenominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin,[53] theOneida Nation of Wisconsin,[54] and theStockbridge–Munsee Community. 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 (Menominee:ni wāwīhtamatwan)[55] "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."[53] The General Tribal Council of the Oneida Nation modified its code of laws, effective on June 10, 2015, to define marriage 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".[56] Similarly, the Stockbridge-Munsee Marriage Code has defined marriage as "a civil contract between two (2) persons, regardless of their sex, creating a union to the exclusion of all others" since February 22, 2016.[57] Marriage licenses are issued by the Tribal Court, located at the Council Building (Mohican:Peʔpootuwothut;[58]Delaware:Aachimulsikaon).[59]
Native Americans have deep-rooted marriage traditions, placing a strong emphasis on community, family and spiritual connections. Traditional Native American law does not address same-sex unions. For instance, theGreat Law of Peace (Oneida:Kayanlʌhslaˀkó) is silent on the issue,[60] only stating that members of the same clan are forbidden to marry.[61] While there are no records of same-sex marriages being performed in Native American cultures in the way they are commonly defined inWestern legal systems, many Indigenous communities recognize identities and relationships that may be placed on the LGBT spectrum. Among these aretwo-spirit individuals—people who embody both masculine and feminine qualities. In some cultures, two-spirit individuals assigned male at birth wear women's clothing and engage in household and artistic work associated with the feminine sphere. Historically, this identity sometimes allowed for unions between two people of the same biological sex.[62] Among theHo-Chunk, two-spirit people—known asteją́cowįga (pronounced[teˈdʒãtʃowĩga])—were believed to have been blessed by the spirit of theMoon, and were "holy and highly respected for special gifts such as prophesy, healing, artistry, and excelling at women's tasks".[63] Manyteją́cowįga marriedcisgender men without indication ofpolygyny.[62] Other nations also have distinct terms and respected roles for two-spirit people. TheOjibwe refer to them asniizh manidoowag (pronounced[niːʒ maˈnɪˌdoːˌwak]), many of whom were wives in polygynous households.[64] ThePotawatomi use the termmnedokwé (pronounced[mnədoˈkʷɛ], plural:mnedokwék).[65] They "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".[62]Ruth Landes reported in 1970 that they were "said to possess visions…but not to practice sorcery. [Mnedokwék] exemplified a distinct category of 'power'."[66]
Data from the2000 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 allcounties of the state, and constituted 0.7% of coupled households and 0.4% of all households in the state. Most couples lived inMilwaukee,Dane andWaukesha counties, but the counties with the highest percentage of same-sex couples were Dane (0.80% of all county households) andSawyer (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.[67]
The2020 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.[68]
| Poll source | Dates administered | Sample size | Margin of error | Support | Opposition | Do not know / refused |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Religion Research Institute | March 13 – December 2, 2024 | 574 adults | ? | 75% | 23% | 2% |
| Public Religion Research Institute | March 9 – December 7, 2023 | 494 adults | ? | 73% | 25% | 2% |
| Public Religion Research Institute | March 11 – December 14, 2022 | ? | ? | 72% | 26% | 2% |
| Marquette University | April 19–24, 2022 | 805 registered voters | ± 4.1% | 72% | 19% | 9% |
| Public Religion Research Institute | March 8 – November 9, 2021 | ? | ? | 73% | 26% | 1% |
| Public Religion Research Institute | January 7 – December 20, 2020 | 823 adults | ? | 71% | 27% | 2% |
| Marquette University | February 19–23, 2020 | 1,000 registered voters | ± 3.6% | 68% | 25% | 7% |
| Public Religion Research Institute | January 4 – December 30, 2017 | 1,522 adults | ? | 66% | 26% | 8% |
| Public Religion Research Institute | May 18, 2016 – January 10, 2017 | 784 adults | ? | 63% | 29% | 8% |
| Marquette University | June 9–12, 2016 | 800 registered voters | ± 4.4% | 64% | 28% | 8% |
| Public Religion Research Institute | April 29, 2015 – January 7, 2016 | 640 adults | ? | 55% | 36% | 9% |
| Public Religion Research Institute | April 2, 2014 – January 4, 2015 | 1,201 adults | ? | 59% | 33% | 8% |
| Marquette University | October 23–26, 2014 | 1,164 likely voters | ± 3.0% | 55% | 35% | 10% |
| 1,409 registered voters | ± 2.7% | 56% | 34% | 10% | ||
| Marquette University | October 9–12, 2014 | 803 likely voters | ± 3.5% | 63% | 30% | 7% |
| 1,004 registered voters | ± 3.2% | 64% | 30% | 6% | ||
| Marquette University | May 15–18, 2014 | 805 registered voters | ± 3.5% | 55% | 37% | 8% |
| Public Policy Polling | April 17–20, 2014 | 1,144 registered voters | ± 2.9% | 47% | 45% | 8% |
| Marquette University | October 21–24, 2013 | 400 registered voters | ± 5.0% | 53% | 43% | 4% |
| Public Policy Polling | February 21–24, 2013 | 1,799 voters | ± 2.3% | 44% | 46% | 10% |
| Marquette University | October 25–28, 2012 | 1,243 likely voters | ± 2.8% | 44% | 51% | 5% |
| 1,404 registered voters | ± 2.7% | 44% | 51% | 5% | ||
| Public Policy Polling | July 5–8, 2012 | 1,057 voters | ± 3.0% | 43% | 47% | 10% |
| Public Policy Polling | August 12–14, 2011 | 830 voters | ± 3.4% | 39% | 50% | 11% |
The April 2014Public 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.[69] 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%.[70] 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%.[71][72]
