Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects challenge to state's same-sex marriage ban
ilwaukee Jpurnal Sentinel ^ | 5/27/2014 | Bruce Vielmetti

Posted on 05/27/2014 3:57:22 PM PDT by UB355

A lesbian couple's attempt to have Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage struck down has been rejected by the state's Supreme Court.

The Milwaukee couple, Katherine Halopka-Ivery and Linda Halopka-Ivery, took the unusual route of filing their action for declaratory judgment directly with the Supreme Court last month, bypassing the typical procedure of starting such an action in a circuit court.

The couple's attorney, Paul Ksicinski, claimed original jurisdiction with the high court was proper because issue was one of great importance statewide.

But according to online court records, the court denied the "petition for original action" on Thursday, with Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissenting. No written opinions were issued.

(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; samesexmarriage

1 posted on 05/27/2014 3:57:22 PM PDT by UB355
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: UB355

Meh. Dismissed for procedural issues only. Not a “victory” for us by any means.


2 posted on 05/27/2014 3:59:31 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UB355

Finally some sanity in the courts.


3 posted on 05/27/2014 4:00:09 PM PDT by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Well, it’s a victory in that, these lesbians are pissed off at what happened. They are having a hissy fit even as we speak, that the State Supreme Court didn’t naturally see the need for homosexual marriage, without the need to go through other proceedings.


4 posted on 05/27/2014 4:02:29 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego (et)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: UB355

Atta Boy, girls.


5 posted on 05/27/2014 4:04:20 PM PDT by SierraWasp (Obama is mad! He's getting madder with each crisis and now he's a real MADMAN with no temper left!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All


Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


6 posted on 05/27/2014 4:05:23 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: UB355

The federal courts will “fix” it.


7 posted on 05/27/2014 4:08:35 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UB355

You can expect these loser lesbian liberals to seek appeal and find a liberal judge that will rule in their favor.

That’s what liberals do when a court rules against them. They go to appeals until they get a decision they like.


8 posted on 05/27/2014 4:12:16 PM PDT by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo; All
The states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights. So the Constitution's silence about marriage and gay "rights" means the following.

The reason that the courts are deciding cases in favor of the gay agenda is the following imo. Pro-gay activist judges have infiltrated the courts and are wrongly legislating gay rights from the bench.

A remedy to this situation is the following. Patriots need to work with both their state and federal lawmakers to make the following laws. Judges need to be required to promptly, clearly and publicly reference all constitutional clauses which Constitution-knowledgeable voters would reasonably accept as justification to case decisions.

And in cases where the Constitution is silent about a particular issue, judges need to be required to likewise state that the issue is a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue.

9 posted on 05/27/2014 4:35:37 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Exactly. But a slight procedural delay in the unending march to Hell in a Handbasket gives the optimists among us reason to believe it’s not all going to end the way it is all going to end.


10 posted on 05/27/2014 4:35:58 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: UB355

When the federal judge overturns the ban (not "if" but "when"), the question becomes ... will Walker have the cajones to tell the federal court to go pound sand? If he does ... he is "presidential". That's a pretty big deal and will resonate. The ripple effect to the other states will be noticed. Hillary won't be able to compete.


11 posted on 05/27/2014 4:41:35 PM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UB355

Once again, homosexual marriage fails when confronted by the democracy of a referendum, as well as when confronted by responsible republican representatives, such as in this case with elected state supreme court justices.

So the only time homosexual marriage is passed, is by unelected federal judges imposing their will on the people, and by corrupt legislatures that reject what their people want.

So does “imposed law” have any legitimacy in the United States? Or is the law foisted on the people by tyrants destined to be overthrown?


12 posted on 05/27/2014 4:49:02 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UB355

Their mailMAN must have fits trying to sort out their MAIL.


13 posted on 05/27/2014 5:08:42 PM PDT by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UB355; Hunton Peck; Diana in Wisconsin; P from Sheb; Shady; DonkeyBonker; Wisconsinlady; JPG; ...

“...with Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissenting.”

Both of them need to GO!

FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.


14 posted on 05/27/2014 5:30:01 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

You may be correct. I keep reading about homosexuals demands for what to teach in schools, & it suddenly occurred to me that kids raised on pro-homosexual teachings are responsible for the percentage of pro-homosexual marriage Americans.


15 posted on 05/27/2014 6:01:19 PM PDT by NetAddicted (Just looking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: UB355

There is a sane court... I knew I would fine one...


16 posted on 05/27/2014 6:15:06 PM PDT by ExCTCitizen (I'm ExCTCitizen and I approve this reply. If it does offend Libs, I'm NOT sorry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

sounds good to me.


17 posted on 05/27/2014 8:49:55 PM PDT by Postman (Obama's USA?; France shall lead the way...http://www.cbn.com/tv/3255110732001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: UB355

Wouldn’t you know it. The womyn justices were dissenters.


18 posted on 05/28/2014 8:46:36 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever
I doubt the Supreme Court would accwept a petiion for cert from a state supreme court dismissal of an original jurisdiction petition. In general, when a Court refuses to hear a case, it is not a decision on the merits. The general exception to this rule is if the court's jurisdiction was mandatory. (Baker v. Nelson was such a case.) In nearly all states, original jurisdiction with the state's highest court is discretionary.
19 posted on 05/28/2014 9:00:27 AM PDT by Michael1977
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson