Skip to comments.Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects challenge to state's same-sex marriage ban
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 ...
Meh. Dismissed for procedural issues only. Not a “victory” for us by any means.
Finally some sanity in the courts.
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.
Atta Boy, girls.
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!
The federal courts will “fix” it.
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.
The 10th Amendmendment automatically reserves "government" power to legislatively address marriage issues uniquely to the states, not the federal government.
The states can make laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay agenda issues, marriage in this example. But such laws cannot also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
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.
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.
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?
Their mailMAN must have fits trying to sort out their MAIL.
“...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.
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.
There is a sane court... I knew I would fine one...
sounds good to me.
Wouldn’t you know it. The womyn justices were dissenters.