MADISON, Wis. (AP) – The Legislature and several local governments cannot join the fight against a lawsuit seeking taxpayer funded benefits for partners of gay and lesbian public employees, a judge ruled.

Dane County Circuit Judge David T. Flanagan ruled that state law gives the Department of Justice the authority to defend the state’s interests, and the department is already doing so in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed by six lesbian state employees and the American Civil Liberties Union in April, claims the state’s refusal to provide health insurance to their partners violates the equal protection clause of the Wisconsin constitution. The lawsuit names several state agencies as defendants, but not the Legislature.

In May, a legislative committee led by Republicans voted to hire the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based Christian legal firm, to represent their interests in the case free of charge.

They argued that Department of Justice lawyers could not be trusted to defend the case because Gov. Jim Doyle and Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager support state-funded domestic partner benefits.

ADF filed a motion to intervene in the case, arguing the Legislature, not the courts, should decide who gets benefits.

A group of eight municipalities led by the city of Green Bay also filed a motion to intervene, arguing that a ruling forcing the state to grant benefits in the case would force them to follow suit.

But Flanagan ruled against ADF and the municipalities, saying neither party has a legal interest in the lawsuit. Both the ACLU and Lautenschlager had asked Flanagan to keep the outside parties out of the case for that reason.

“It’s certainly a great disappointment,” said Glen Lavy, a lawyer for ADF, which pledged to appeal. “We thought that we had a very strong position and frankly I was surprised when the judge ruled.”

Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, agreed with the judge that state law gives the Department of Justice, headed by Lautenschlager, power to represent the state in the case.

But he argued that this is a unique case that warrants outside counsel because Lautenschlager has expressed support for gay rights and even appeared on stage with the plaintiffs at a gay rights rally in July.

“There’s a real question as to whether her allegiance is greater to the ACLU or the taxpayers of the state,” he said.

In court papers, Lautenschlager has called such claims “at best highly speculative conjecture, at worst an irresponsible allegation.” She said she can defend the case regardless of her personal opinion.

She has asked Flanagan to dismiss the case, arguing that a state appeals court in 1992 ruled against gay and lesbian workers seeking the same benefits. That decision should have precedence over the lower court, she argues.