Posted on 06/06/2014 2:44:04 PM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at m.wisn.com ...
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?
You are mostly correct. Those that typically engage in sodomite practices, both male and female, comprise about (maybe) 2% of the entire population.
Unfortunately, the hand-wringers that actively support their deviant practice would approach 10%.
Another 48% stand ambivalent as long as they aren’t the ones getting sodomized. Do the math.
To those who keep arguing the bans should be enforceable because only x% support it- that is a valid point but only if you presuppose the action does not violate the rights of another. Otherwise you turn a republic protecting individual rights into simple rule by the majority with no rights. Thus the question becomes whether any rights are violated by the ban. As shown in cases like Loving, marriage is a fundamental right according to SCOTUS. The Equal Protection clause requires application of fundamental rights equally across citizens. A fundamental right can only be overcome by the government through meeting an incredibly high burden. Ultimately the inky way you can oppose these decisions overturning bans on same sex marriage is if you overturn the rpecedent upon which they rely (e.g. loving) and are you really advocating things like banning interracial marriage (which would happen in the absence of loving)?
I will never understand how so many claim to be in favor of less government and more individual rights but if it applies to anything someone else does that makes them feel iffy about their own lives or beliefs without any direct physical harm, they demand the government step in at once.
Again, the pendulum swings.
Three ^CO-EQUAL^ branches of government mean that no single branch can be over-ruled. The courts can provide interpretation but should only be considered on the same level.
None of these levels supercede the will of the people. If the patriots of Wisconsin are smart, they should offer a referendum that thanks the court for it’s interpretation but will continue to govern under the will of the people in the previous referendum.
I think the entire world would be surprised at the number of non-Wisconsin citizens that would show up...toting full 2nd-Amendment support with them.
Doesn’t EEO language say, “race, creed or color”
Can you say nebulous and vague; followed by unconstitutional?
With the utmost of respect intended, your point is moot. Check out Turner v. Safley. Prisoners are not a particular race. The only reason I cite to Loving is that it seems to be the most well known case and the first large on point one on the subject.
Moot my ass, considering you avoided everything else especially “marriage” loll. So now we are into race and prisoners. Are homosexuals fundamentally comprised of either those two examples?
Also do you really want to fall on your FR sword over this issue? Be my guest.
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%
Wondering how much money she got?
“considering you avoided everything else especially “marriage” loll” What exactly are you talking about? Again, read Turner v. Safley. My point has never been that same sex couples are either of a racial minority group or prison inmates. However, Turner appears to expand the court’s finding of a fundamental right to marriage beyond categories of law discriminating against race (in that case, they found it unconstitutional to deprive a prison inmate of the right to marry). The case shows, despite what appears to be your claim, that the deemed fundamental right to marriage is not limited to striking down racially biased laws.
All I am doing is citing Supreme Court precedent. Since we are a common law system ultimately stare decisis is the cornerstone of our legal system. Again, if you disagree with precedent, fine. But based on precedent, I just don’t see any other way for a judge to decide the issue.
From a policy perspective, the government should be out of marriage entirely (afterall, marriage licenses weren’t issued until the progressives took over in the late 1800s/early 1900s). Leave it up to private religious and secular groups who they want to treat as married within their own groups and force no one else to recognize their decisions.
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.
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%
This poll you cite in the Milwaukee Urinal Sentinel seems to have been corrupted by homosexual activists from not only in Wisconsin, but from other states by people that will not be directly impacted by the Wisconsin ruling. Thus, the poll is not accurate and simply demonstrates that the liberals are willing to cheat in these polls in order to create an appearance that the majority sides with them.
“What are the “common laws” or “stare decisis” clauses that deconstructed the standard definition of female-male matrimony?” Clauses? stare decisis and common law are based on judicially given opinions, not a written law itself. We follow the common law here, not the continental system (which is used in places like France or Spain). To get to your point though, it seems (and I apologize if I am misreading you) that you are arguing that the definitions of marriage previously used were specifically applied only to traditional couples. While historically these were likely the facts, the language in the opinions themselves seem to not impose such restrictions. Most of the discussion of marriage has used broad statements like that Marriage is “a fundamental human relationship” [Boddie v. CT] or “an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects” [ Griswold v. CT] and it is the “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.” [Turner v. Safley]. There is no SCOTUS case, as far as I am aware, that explicitly indicates that marriage by its very definition is solely for heterosexual couples. Hence, in the absence of such a definitive language, our system applies it broadly through the 14th Amendment and, as a fundamental right, the state has an incredibly high burden to meet in restricting it.
A mere popular vote isn’t going to cut it.
“Race and prisoners were specifically enumerated in your examples and maintained the standard definition of marriage. If not why wasn’t there same sex “protections” in place already and spelled-out.” Simply because SCOTUS hasn’t addressed the issue yet. Even if they had made comments on it, based on the sets of facts of the cases presented to the Court, such statements would be mere dicta and non-binding. You need an actual case presenting these facts to be heard by SCOTUS before you would get the sort of discussion you seem to be advocating.
“I believe in enumeration (Especially when adhering to Natural Laws) not your penumbras under a “living Constitution”. 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.” A “living constitution” is generally nothing more than a person trying to get away with playing politics so as to avoid the actual law. There is a difference, however, between that and the facts presented here. 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). So the question then becomes whether an individual’s rights under the U.S. constitution (or state constitution but let’s keep it to US for our purposes) are violated by the state government’s actions. Our system, as adopted from English common law, uses court precedential interpretations of written law to determine the law. Our highest court has held, in very broad terms, that marriage is a fundamental right. It has also held that the Equal Protection Clause requires, in most cases, equal application of recognized fundamental rights. Consequently, the right to marriage must be extended to everyone provided the facts meet the definition of marriage which, as noted above, has been drafted very broadly. SCOTUS has given no indication, as highest interpreters of written law, that its broad view on marriage excludes same sex couples in any way. Despite what you may want to think, this analysis is based on the clear language of precedent and how our judicial system operates, not concepts of a “living constitution.” 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.
“Also marriage licenses were issued way before the late 1800’s, especially in larger settlements.” In some cases sure but they weren’t as widespread of a requirement as once the progressives came in. On as large a scale as is currently (required for every single marriage) it is has only existed as a requirement since 1929.
Is this better?
“What are the “common laws” or “stare decisis” clauses that deconstructed the standard definition of female-male matrimony?”
Clauses? stare decisis and common law are based on judicially given opinions, not a written law itself. We follow the common law here, not the continental system (which is used in places like France or Spain).
To get to your point though, it seems (and I apologize if I am misreading you) that you are arguing that the definitions of marriage previously used were specifically applied only to traditional couples. While historically these were likely the facts, the language in the opinions themselves seem to not impose such restrictions.
Most of the discussion of marriage has used broad statements like that Marriage is “a fundamental human relationship” [Boddie v. CT] or “an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects” [ Griswold v. CT] and it is the “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.” [Turner v. Safley].
There is no SCOTUS case, as far as I am aware, that explicitly indicates that marriage by its very definition is solely for heterosexual couples. Hence, in the absence of such a definitive language, our system applies it broadly through the 14th Amendment and, as a fundamental right, the state has an incredibly high burden to meet in restricting it. A mere popular vote isn’t going to cut it.
“Race and prisoners were specifically enumerated in your examples and maintained the standard definition of marriage. If not why wasn’t there same sex “protections” in place already and spelled-out.”
Simply because SCOTUS hasn’t addressed the issue yet. Even if they had made comments on it, based on the sets of facts of the cases presented to the Court, such statements would be mere dicta and non-binding. You need an actual case presenting these facts to be heard by SCOTUS before you would get the sort of discussion you seem to be advocating.
“I believe in enumeration (Especially when adhering to Natural Laws) not your penumbras under a “living Constitution”.
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.”
A “living constitution” is generally nothing more than a person trying to get away with playing politics so as to avoid the actual law. There is a difference, however, between that and the facts presented here. 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).
So the question then becomes whether an individual’s rights under the U.S. constitution (or state constitution but let’s keep it to US for our purposes) are violated by the state government’s actions. Our system, as adopted from English common law, uses court precedential interpretations of written law to determine the law.
Our highest court has held, in very broad terms, that marriage is a fundamental right. It has also held that the Equal Protection Clause requires, in most cases, equal application of recognized fundamental rights. Consequently, the right to marriage must be extended to everyone provided the facts meet the definition of marriage which, as noted above, has been drafted very broadly. SCOTUS has given no indication, as highest interpreters of written law, that its broad view on marriage excludes same sex couples in any way.
Despite what you may want to think, this analysis is based on the clear language of precedent and how our judicial system operates, not concepts of a “living constitution.” 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.
“Also marriage licenses were issued way before the late 1800’s, especially in larger settlements.”
In some cases sure but they weren’t as widespread of a requirement as once the progressives came in. On as large a scale as is currently (required for every single marriage) it is has only existed as a requirement since 1929.
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.