Skip to comments.ACLU lawsuit challenges Wisconsin same-sex marriage ban
Posted on 02/03/2014 9:44:48 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
Madison Four same-sex couples sued Gov. Scott Walker and other public officials Monday in an attempt to overturn the state's eight-year-old ban on gay marriage.
The move comes amid a wave of challenges nationally many of them successful to limits on gay marriage.
It also comes as the state Supreme Court considers whether a limited set of benefits available to gay couples under Wisconsin law is acceptable under the state constitution's prohibition on same-sex marriage and civil unions.
Online court records show Virginia Wolf and Carol Schumacher, along with three other couples, sued Walker in federal court in Madison on Monday. The Amercian Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the couples, provided a copy of the complaint to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
Traditional marriage under assault in Madison
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
The federal goevrnment is building an oppressive unconstitutional police state with its tentacls in every aspect of our lives yet the ACLU piddles it’s time and resources away fighting for the “right” of sodomists to pretend they are man and wife.
Standing for traditional marriage is a Holy thing.
The terminology has been reversed. There is no “ban” on same sex marriages, it just isn’t being forced upon society by government yet.
It's like the pretending when I was a kid. My bro was the priest. I was the nun. Necco wafers were the catalyst.
I thought the supreme court ruled no standing
How does the ACLU have standing?
The ACLU has been suing the the Fed security state for years. The problem is they were never giving ‘standing’. So it fell on deaf ears for years. It wasn’t like there were ‘conservative’ groups suing Bush when he was expanding the state. Perhaps except for perhaps Larry Klayman.
The plaintiff has standing, because they are suing. I know this whole standing business is crazy. But I think the standing issue has to do with who defends against a lawsuit, not who files the lawsuit.
I wish one of these states being sued would just write marriage out of their legal code altogether. Return marriage to being something done by the Church and leave it at that.
Why hasn’t the ACLU complained about the Wisconsin marriage ban for first cousins?
It falls on the person suing.
The person using must be the injured party or there is no lawsuit.
Why can’t the voters of Wisconsin sue the ACLU for attempting
to undermine their constitutional right to due process?
As many as 80 percent of all marriages historically have been between first cousins!
It has only been in recent years that certain states have passed laws against the marriage of first cousins, while at the same time there are laws being passed to allow the marriage of perverted homosexual faggots and lesbians?
The ACLU is an afterbirth of the Frankfurt School.
Sodomists are always waiving around their concocted “polls” about how popular counterfeit “marriage” is, but they pour contempt on the real polls that matter, the vote of the people.
I happen to be a Wisconsin resident and have lived here all my life. I can recall in an election not so many years ago there was a referendum regarding gay marriage worded in such a confusing way that if you were against it, it was difficult to discern which answer on the ballot was the proper one. Even so... the voters by majority vote turned down Gay marriage. So now the ACLU wants to go against the voters??
More liebertarian gibberish. There is NOTHING WRONG with the state recognizing marriage - real marriage. Someone, of necessity, will need to enlist the state to officiate when marriages fail or are contested (the alternative is pistols at 20 paces.) What the state officiates, they must define.
“So now the ACLU wants to go against the voters??”
Exactly, and that's the problem.
More liebertarian gibberish.
NO, not exactly.
The thought comes from here:
16. Yet, owing to the efforts of the archenemy of mankind, there are persons who, thanklessly casting away so many other blessings of redemption, despise also or utterly ignore the restoration of marriage to its original perfection. It is a reproach to some of the ancients that they showed themselves the enemies of marriage in many ways; but in our own age, much more pernicious is the sin of those who would fain pervert utterly the nature of marriage, perfect though it is, and complete in all its details and parts. The chief reason why they act in this way is because very many, imbued with the maxims of a false philosophy and corrupted in morals, judge nothing so unbearable as submission and obedience; and strive with all their might to bring about that not only individual men, but families, also -- indeed, human society itself -- may in haughty pride despise the sovereignty of God.
17. Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.
Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Arcanum, 1880
Now I recognize that if you're not Catholic, the last thing in the world you'd want is for the Catholic Church to regulate your marriage...but the same principle would hold true regardless of with what particular group you choose to pray.
Bottom line (if you are a Christian), What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
What possible benefit to society exists by having the State regulate and license marriage?
Sure thing, having the State recognize marriage is just oh-so-wonderful.
Again, who’s going to arbitrate between two parties when serious, irreconcilable conflicts arise? One of the two parties only? What if someone contests a marriage in the case of inheritance issues, abandonment or remarriage? Will we give them pistols at 10 paces to solve the differences?
Who did so before the State took over licensing marriages and then allowing divorces?
Marriage has been going on for thousands of years. Christian marriage has been going on since Christ instituted it as a sacrament.
Up until about 150 years ago (and more recently in most places), the maximum sole function of the State (at least in Christian days) was to document what the Church had declared sacred. And in many places, the State even stayed farther away than that. Admittedly, in Northern Europe and England, where Protestants declared that marriage was not a sacrament, the State's involvement came about a lot earlier than in the Southern, more Catholic, parts of Europe. But the idea of divorce didn't really start to gain ground except as a consequence of the Enlightenment...where the influence of religion started to be minimized. Again, this hit Northern Europe earlier than Southern Europe (that's probably why Leo's encyclical, quoted above, wasn't written until 1880).
Face it, with the exception of Henry VIII, divorce didn't hardly ever happen, either in Protestant or Catholic Europe. But if separations happened, how were they handled before the State courts got involved?
“I wish one of these states being sued would just write marriage out of their legal code altogether. Return marriage to being something done by the Church and leave it at that.”
It will never happen, in my opinion.
The statists have to weaken society and the culture in order to have more reliant upon it. Conditioning people to think that marriage comes from and is defined by the state is a good way to do that. To the state it’s just a contract that be broken and resumed between any parties the state approves. To many ‘gay marriage’ can obviously exist: judges, pols, and the voting majority have decided that it exists in 18 states +, so far.
The homosexualists need a way to punish and to keep punishing those who they know will never accept ‘gay marriage.’ So they need the state defining and regulating marriage. This is why you don’t hear them making this argument.
“Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.”
—gibbering libertarian Pope Leo XIII, 1880
Great minds think alike (see post #21)
You just gotta love the American Communist Lawyers’ Union.They take the wrong position on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE in which they involve themselves.
I think they’ve always had that right. What they seem to be aiming for is to coerce others to buy into it.
But you’d take away a lucrative Dem-laden industry of “family” court and divorce lawyers and that would make rats sad.
” But youd take away a lucrative Dem-laden industry of family court and divorce lawyers and that would make rats sad.”
And the problem with that is what, exactly?
The ACLU is every bit as nutty as the Westboro Baptist lawyer group.
Bump. Someone finally framed the question right.
Conservatives have GOT to quit letting liberals put words in our mouths. To a lefty, every word is a butterfly knife.