Wisconsin gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional

WISN ^ | 6/6/14

[Oliviaforever]

A United States District Court judge has ruled that Wisconsin's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional.

Judge Barbara Crabb issued a motion of summary judgment for the paintiffs, stating that Article XIII of the Wisconsin Constitution "violates planitiffs' fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

[rollo tomasi]

"In some many cases sure... (Last Para. is not an eyesore so...)

way before the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act when the Feds needlessly stepped in. However Church issued/State licensing was a norm, especially in relation to receiving pension/spousal benefits from the Feds which regulated marriage in the first place, hence Feds ability to regulate marriage, duh (Especially after the 1836 expansion of pension laws).

Also clauses = opinions, if I meant laws I would of specified.

[rollo tomasi]

Better, but full of relative crap.

"It has also held that the Equal Protection Clause requires, in most cases, equal application of recognized fundamental rights."

"It" is an irrational creature driven by emotions not original intent, common sense, or Natural law. Under this definition, I can marry my mom or dad.

"I don’t disagree with you- except maybe on natural law (I don’t oppose the idea but to have any real power it has to be reduced to writing, as our founders did in drafting the constitution to reflect the principles of the Declaration). Despite your efforts to smear me, I also don’t believe in a “living constitution.”"

Fundamentals are an enemy of relativism, hence there was no reason why the definition needed to be challenged pre-sexual revolution. Since fundamentals and original intent are gone, no thanks to your twisted "everything is relative" thinking, deconstruction persists as your latching to a living Constitution shines brightly with your responses.

"The U.S. constitution is silent on marriage largely because it is, and should be, a state issue since it is not a power enumerated to the Federal government (which btw may strike out DOMA even if there was no P&I clause)."

Yet the Feds regulated the standard definition of marriage under Article I Section 8 when pension laws continued on from the transition from the AOC. There is a long established traditional definition of marriage by the Feds.

The Equal Protection Clause is a absurd mess. Homosexuals were not denied equal treatment since heterosexuals were confined to marrying members of the opposite sex as well. Where is marrying for "love" enumerated at. Heck, Colonial times, arranged marriages were the norm in a lot of situations.

"A “living constitution” approach would instead say “well all prior cases said marriage is between a man and woman but society has changed to the point where that distinction shouldn’t matter anymore.” I am not, and have not, said that. Instead I am applying the law on its face to the facts. Sorry it produces an outcome you don’t find desirable."

Your "facts" are comprised of a "relative" mess, ignoring original intent, historical evaluation, libertarian trollish talking points, and yes an attachment to a "living constitution" since United States v. Windsor majority which you seem to agree with basically said "well all prior cases said marriage is between a man and woman but society has changed to the point where that distinction shouldn’t matter anymore" where no fundamental opinions are laws were documented that backed this emotional perversion. Scalia pointed that out, yet crickets from you, hmmm

[rollo tomasi]

Sorry, ...where no fundamental opinions are or laws were documented that

[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.

[Republican Wildcat]

And what would happen if they simply repealed all of their marriage laws? Would that constitute a “ban” or elimination of marriage? Of course not - it was not created by law to begin with. They act like gay “marriage” existed prior to these laws being passed (which it is ridiculous they had to be passed to begin with - how stupid is it not to know a man cannot be a wife and a woman can’t be a husband that you actually have to codify this so activist judges know that two men or two women can’t get married?)

[Republican Wildcat]

Exactly - these rulings act like marriage is defined by physical attraction and love. Hopefully those things exist in most marriages, but it was never what defined them and isn’t a requirement to get married under any statute. And as you said, two “heterosexual” men cannot be husband and wife (or two women) anymore than two “homosexual” men or women.

[rollo tomasi]

But stare decisis has a loooonnnggggg tradition in the United States that has established/decided two men being husband and wife as well as two women exists, lol, and get this, through Equal Protection.

Just ask the legal “Constitutionalists” explaining this looonnngggg traditional definition, especially when avoiding Pandora's Jar being cracked open when the absurdity is brought to light.

[max americana]

I dont recognize the fag crap either, guess we’re breaking laws now eh LOL

[Wally_Kalbacken]

It could have passed with 99%, it wouldn’t matter.

1. The federal Constitution trumps State Constitutions and statutes.

2. Federal equal protection jurisprudence clearly is inconsistent with state laws or state constitutional provisions prohibiting same sex marriage. You don’t have to like that, but you do have to recognize it.

3. This leaves only one path to prohibition of same sex marriages - a federal constitutional amendment which prohibits such marriages.

4. No one seems interested in pursuing such an amendment, thus...

5. It is only a matter of time before there is same sex marriage in all 50 states.

[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.

[brotherjohann]

If the clerks refuse to comply with a request deemed legal, then gay couples could sue them for lots of money.

[brotherjohann]

Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele is paying for the overtime out of his own pocket there. The offices were open as usual this morning. Here’s the story:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-overturns-wisconsins-gay-marriage-ban-b99286138z1-262161851.html

[luvie]

Barbara Crabb...lesbian?

[WXRGina]

Exactly what part of the Constitution does it violate? The US Constitution says NOTHING about marriage.

Which is exactly how it violates the Constitution! The powers of the federal government, which includes the judiciary, are few and limited. The federal judiciary has no place to interfere in the states' ruling on these matters.

[deks]

Judge Crabb ruled on April 15, 2010, that the “National Day of Prayer,” which was established by Congress in 1952, was unconstitutional.

http://judgepedia.org/Barbara_Crabb

[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?

[Baladas]

OMG, maybe I’m a little weird, but she looks like Jimmy Carter in a pink blouse to me.

Another DU judge.

[Rodamala]

I thought 10A was fairly clear. Guess not.