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."