[Vaquero]

Take it to scotus and ignore the lower court till then.

[a fool in paradise]

“Odd” that public offices were open late on a Friday (after 5pm) to issue activist decreed same sex licenses.

Try to do any other public business with the state after 4:30pm on a Friday and you are SOOL.

And taxpayers have to pay for that overtime.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

The effort now should be, as it stands, is to eliminate State (political, elcetorate, “people’s rights”) recognition of anything that may be considered marriage and leave such things to the people by court order AFTER popular referendum.

All the while knowing that popular referendum cannot and will not be constitutionaly upheld; in the state, federal courts hold all the power (I leave it to the reader to contemplate that further.)

Riddle me this, Batman: when was the last time Judge Crabb was sodomized and how soon should that happen again?

[rephope]

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel poll:

Do you agree with U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb’s ruling overturning Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriages?

http://www.jsonline.com/polls/262164541.html?results=y

Currently: Yes-64% No-36%

[Jim Noble]

Suppose, just suppose for a minute that there is such a thing as a "fundamental right to marry". I suppose it could even be construed as a retained right under the IX Amendment.

HOW ON EARTH does that translate into a "fundamental right" to contract a non-marital relationship and require others to call it what it obviously is not?

Marriage does not require states to define it as an opposite-sex relation (although states have the right to do so). It just IS that, and that's not subject to change.

These men and women HAVE the right to contract a marriage, and many of them have done so over the millennia. They just have to make that contract with a member of the opposite sex.

[Republican Wildcat]

First of all, it isn’t a gay “marriage” ban - you can’t ban something that does not and cannot exist. It simply affirms language - the definition of marriage - and no gay “marriages” were taking place prior to this law, either, because two men or two women “marrying” each other does not fit the definition of marriage. Two men cannot be husband and wife, nor can two women. Language is not unconstitutional - it is simply reality.

[Michael1977]

What is the purpose of same-sex “marriage”? In 2003, the Massachusetts Senate had certified a question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court asking if a proposed civil unions bill that EXPLICITLY provides that “eligible same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities afforded to opposite sex couples by the marriage laws of the commonwealth, without entering into a marriage” and that “spouses in a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a marriage” Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 440 Mass. 1201, 802 N.E.2d 565 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. 2004) Several gay rights groups submitted amici briefs arguing that the civil unions bill would violate the Massachusetts ERA, on the basis that civil unions are “separate and unequal” and a form of “segregation”, GLAD Brief in Opinions, SJC-09163, at 12, because they denied the “social recognition” that comes with marriage, Id. at 24,they would “mark [same-sex couples] as inferior to their heterosexual counterparts and diminish their status in the community” regardless of whether they provided “the same benefits, protections,rights and responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a marriage”, Civil Rights Brief in Opinions at 12 , and that civil unions “would not constitute equality, because their relationships still would not be recognized by the rest of society as being as valued as heterosexual relationships.” id. at 13 And in Li v. State of Oregon, 338 Or 376, 388, 110 P3d 91 (Or. Sup. Ct. 2005) plaintiffs had argued that civil unions would be “inherently stigmatizing” and “inherently separate and unequal” Reply Brief of Plaintiff-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, Li, at 10. And in Jackson v. Abercrombie, the plaintiffs are suing because of the “special status” of marriage, not just the “bundle of rights” which the civil union law would allow them. See Complaint in Jackson v. Abercrombie, CV11-009734-ACK-KSC, at 13, quoting Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 315 at 289, 957 A.2d 407 at 416 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2008) The underlying fallacies of these arguments are the assumptions that the social recognition and social value, and social status of marriage is independent of the male-female dynamic, and that heterosexual relationships are valued BECAUSE they are called marriages. If this be so, it is not because of anything in the proposed civil unions acts, but the solely due to the construction buggerist fundamentalists choose to put upon it. In other words, the purpose of same-sex “marriage” is to make buggerist fundamentalists feel better about themselves.

[deks]

Barbara B. Crabb

[Eleutheria5]

Stupid gas. It’s in the air.

[PLD]

Read all of this and you will see why the communist is all for queers..

http://hillbuzz.org/is-barack-obama-gay

Why won’t the agenda-driven media report on Barack Obama being gay, sexually harassing male actor Kal Penn, and frequenting Chicago bathhouse Man’s Country…you know, the way they leaped to trash Herman Cain with unsubstantiated sexual innuendo?

[Thorliveshere]

Sadly,it seems more has poured from Pandora’s box, and there’s no going back. It’s all in God’s hands now. Pray and pray some more.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Another “judge” just doing what his massas down at the DNC tell him to do. America’s black robed tyrants. With this new version of government, what the American people want doesn’t matter anymore. What the politicians and their “judges” want trumps what the American people want.

[longtermmemmory]

another judge who is bought into the myth of “ born that way “. (never mind B. F. Skinner and real science)

[SoConPubbie]

Another failure for the “States-Rights” faux approach to Gay Marriage.