SAVE MONEY ON TRAVEL DEALS

Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess ruled that the constitutional amendment passed by Wisconsin voters was put together correctly and did not violate laws restricting amendments to a single "question."

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the amendment had been challenged on the grounds that it stated that its aim was to preserve the institution of marriage, but then continued on to address whether or not civil unions should be recognized.

"(The judge) missed the big picture", plaintiff William McConkey told the Madison (Wis.) Capitol Times. "It became an argument on narrow points of the law and not on the voters' ability to function, and I think that was a mistake."

McConkey's lawyers indicated an appeal might be filed.

In the meantime, proponents of the ban said they agreed with Judge Niess.

"Today's ruling affirms the judgment of nearly 60 percent of Wisconsin voters who approved this amendment on Nov. 7, 2006", the Wisconsin Family Council said in a written statement. "These voters knew they were voting for one thing: the definition and preservation of marriage in our state."

 BREAKING STORIES

McCain, Palin hit campaign trail

Store says Oprah's mom owes $150K

Study: Increased Greenland ice melt likely

Bull gores, tramples man to death

EPA announces $22 million river cleanup

La Crosse Tribune, Wis., Marc Wehrs Column: Marc Wehrs: Packers Were Fools ... GO, PACK!

Bucks' Facelift Continues As Team Acquires Ridnour

Wis. trying to restore rattlesnakes

The Fog of Favre Finally Has Been Lifted Over Green Bay

Brett Favre Mulling Packers' Monetary Offer to Remain Retired

Biological fathers not always the best

Deaths Reported in Wis. Plant Blast

Oshkosh air show honors NASA anniversary

Survey: Minority youths don't swim

Push for more Wisconsin cranberries

Claims against dioceses dismissed

Amish growth causing Wis. legal run-ins

Harley-Davidson fans flocking to museum

McCain: I'm like Teddy Roosevelt

McCain makes pitch to women voters