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 ...
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
Freegards
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 you’d 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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.