Posted on 06/30/2015 6:02:36 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
“Anti Gay”? Cute.
Just because we dont want to have to be forced to deal with their gross sex habits and desires, because they cant identify as anything of substance, we are “anti gay”?
April 2015
Listening to Gov. Scott Walker, the kerfuffle over the religious beliefs of an Indiana pizzeria owner are much ado about nothing.
“I just think this is people who are chronically looking for ways to be upset about things instead of really looking at what it is,” Walker said of the media and activists bringing attention to it.
He blamed national media for adding to the “hype and hysteria” in the discussion with WTMJ host Charlie Sykes.
He made it clear he wasn’t backing down from the issue, saying, “I believe protecting religious freedom is inherent in our state constitution.
“Heck, it’s inherent in our U.S. Constitution. And in Wisconsin we’ve done it and we’re stronger for it.”
Asked if he would sign a bill similar to the one in Indiana, the governor responded, “We don’t need to. In Wisconsin we have it in our constitution. That’s the remarkable thing, for all the hype, particularly in the media, here in Wisconsin we have it in the constitution. It’s even more entrenched than anything that could be in the state statutes.”
Walker’s comments are in response to a Walkerton, Indiana pizzeria being targeted by progressives, forcing the owners to temporarily to shut down.
A high school coach threatened to burn Memories Pizza down, according to Fox News.
In response, Americans have donated over $732,000 to support the business through a Go Fund Me page.
June 29, 2015
MADISON, Wisconsin — Wisconsin Democrats on Monday called for the elimination of nullified language in the state’s constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Lawmakers held a news conference to introduce the resolution after the U.S. Supreme Court decision Friday legalizing gay marriage nationwide. State Reps. JoCasta Zamarripa, D-Milwaukee, and Mark Spreitzer, D-Beloit, applauded the court’s decision and said Wisconsin’s constitution should be amended to reflect it.
“Finally victory is ours, but with this bill we want to ensure that our beloved state of Wisconsin is on the right side of history by removing this discriminatory language from our constitution,” Zamarripa said.
The measure is largely symbolic because a federal appeals court struck down the state’s same-sex marriage ban last year. But Spreitzer said it’s important to give voters an opportunity to amend the constitution. Voters in 2006 amended the constitution to include the definition.
“Even though it’s not enforceable, it would really be embarrassing to the state of Wisconsin if this language continued to be part of our constitution,” Spreitzer said. “We really need to give the opportunity to show that the voters have changed their minds.”.....................
http://www.tribtown.com/view/story/3fc879d8c02644c4a28277c09a7b5b18/WI—Gay-Marriage-Democrats
Sayyyyyyy.
Ah, yes, “headline news.”
There is no chance of a Constitutional Amendment on the subject passing. So, this is purely posturing.
The useful thing a sitting Governor could do would be to instruct his Administration to ignore the Supreme’s anti-constitutional invention, and continue to live by the laws of his state.
Then, you’d have both effect and a pointed response to the pointed error of the Supremes.
I suppose some might have thought this was Walker "posturing" too.
They were spectacularly wrong.
Who’s against Gay’s???? Stupid Betsy....
Walker’s rep didn’t need “saving” with the right. Aside from a few haters, he has a great rep.
bttt
Exactly!
I guess I'm not sure either. Personally, I hate it that gays have hijacked the word "marriage." Apparently civil unions weren't good enough for them. Do you think this is a net win for Scott? Possibly in the GOP primary it's a plus, but in the general I'm not so sure.
Just as the Supreme Court went full-bore into unrestricted abortion years ago and have been clawing our way back to some form of sanity ever since, that same Court now sends us full-bore into gay marriage nationwide.
At first, I didn’t agree with Walker’s proposal, thinking that state-by-state laws are no longer the answer due to the mobility of the population. It makes no sense to be legally married in California, but then, following a move, to not be legally married in Wisconsin.
However, state laws are relatively easy to change, and a constitutional amendment leaving the matter to the States might just be achievable, particularly if a Convention of the States is ever called. With an amendment on the books, if it became apparent that allowing gay marriages was causing serious societal ills or leading to inexorable pressure to relax the law to include polygamy, etc., a large number of States could move to counter the Supreme Court’s ruling, and do so relatively quickly.
State-by-state determination of many of the issues attendant to gay marriage would also be a useful exercise, much as certain states are now experimenting with marijuana legalization.
It’s also relatively easy to justify such an amendment. If the country is four-square behind gay marriage, all states would authorize it so it would have no impact. If they’re not, why deny the citizens of certain states their right to establish their own law? (As was, incidentally, the case regarding marriage only a short year or so ago.)
>>“From a political perspective, I don’t understand why you would do that.”
I guess I’m not sure either. <<
Walker is very astute politically. He will hedge until he decides upon a final position, but you can tell when he’s settled upon one.
He did that with immigration, for example, when he finally stated that American jobs and wages need to be considered in any discussion of how many are allowed to immigrate. That stance subsumed the illegal issue since if we’re going to set legal immigration levels, we obviously have to stop illegal immigration or the whole exercise becomes meaningless.
As I posted above this one, I think he’s probably found a sweet spot in the gay marriage issue as well, although at first I was doubtful. He’s not dismissing the Supreme Court, but is suggesting what has to be done if the voters in any particular state are against gay marriage being legalized, or even if they believe that civil unions (or marriages) should be legal but only with certain benefits conferred, such as visitation rights, legal inheritance, etc., and certain responsibilities such as alimony payments upon dissolution, joint liability for taxes, etc.
If the issue subsides, the call for an amendment will diminish. But if the issue grows more contentious, like the abortion issue has, he will be in a good spot politically for advocating it, because it’s a reasonable response that could be quite effective in addressing the issue.
I haven’t fully worked this out in my own mind, so feel free to lodge concerns.
You know, when a buddy of mine an I were tossing Gays off the Roof of a five Story Building last week, we were discussing Scott Walker’s chances of getting the Nomination.
As disgusting as gay marriage is the younger generations seem to have no problem with it. How do you un-brainwash them on this?
No constitutional amendments are likely for anything that I can foresee. Maybe one could pass if something “free” is offered to the general public. John Q. Public will never learn.
Good dissemination.
Watching how Walker works, I’ve noticed that he has the ability to keep moving the ball in the direction he wants it to go - that he’s in it to win it (take the country back).
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.