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

Skip to comments.

Wisconsin gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional
WISN ^ | 6/6/14

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; activistcourts; homosexualagenda; judicialactivism; lavendermafia; samesexmarriage; wisconsin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-114 next last

1 posted on 06/06/2014 2:44:04 PM PDT by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Barbara Crabb, Jimmy Carter appointment.


2 posted on 06/06/2014 2:46:05 PM PDT by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

I just really doubt we’re going to put up with this much longer. Let them have their fun.


3 posted on 06/06/2014 2:48:02 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Judges have no power to impose gay marriage

They cannot make law

Overturning a “ban” does not mean the state has to recognize gay “marriage”


4 posted on 06/06/2014 2:49:24 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Exactly what part of the Constitution does it violate?

The US Constitution says NOTHING about marriage.


5 posted on 06/06/2014 2:49:58 PM PDT by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

In state after state, judges overturn the will of the people... with less than 10% of the population, the homosexuals sure know how to push their cause.


6 posted on 06/06/2014 2:52:12 PM PDT by Wasichu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Wisconsin passed it’s amendment by 59% in 2006. Wiki has Wisconsin actually having a repeal referendum scheduled for 2014, doubt that happens now.

I’ll never forget what the big media story was when judges struck down the first ones in this wave after the SC’s DOMA decision—it was about a cable reality show star saying he thought gay acts were gross right before Christmas. The station suspended him, the show’s merch sold out for Christmas as folks bought it in solidarity and they reinstated him in time for the premier episode which got record ratings. That was the big story.

FReegards


7 posted on 06/06/2014 2:55:16 PM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

A gay marriage ban was not the way to accomplish what the state wanted to accomplish. Their best route would have been to join with all the other states in DOMA type legislation that included a provision that it was not reviewable by the Scotus. Then, of course, there was the marriage amendment to the Constitution: marriage shall consist of a union only of one man and one woman.

As always conseratives were sold a bill of goods about DOMA when they should have pressed for the amendment. It would have passed back then.


8 posted on 06/06/2014 3:03:38 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Marriage is the Holy union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation.

A civil union is permission from the State for 2 individuals to receive the benefits and responsibilities of a union granted by the state.


9 posted on 06/06/2014 3:03:55 PM PDT by themidnightskulker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I was for the amendment, but knew it wouldn’t pass Congress by the required margins.


10 posted on 06/06/2014 3:05:40 PM PDT by darkangel82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

“Overturning a “ban” does not mean the state has to recognize gay “marriage””

And which state will do this?


11 posted on 06/06/2014 3:07:25 PM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

No Governor has enough spine


12 posted on 06/06/2014 3:09:59 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

its impossible to look at the 14th Amendment and see what these idiot judges “see”.

the federal govt isnt the only thing that needs to be abolished by “we the people”.

the peasants need to grab torches and pitchforks.


13 posted on 06/06/2014 3:12:52 PM PDT by kingattax (a real American would rather die on his feet than live on his knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

It would appear that Cobra’s disdain for judges was totally warranted. 90% scum.


14 posted on 06/06/2014 3:13:40 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkangel82

It had a chance back then


15 posted on 06/06/2014 3:15:20 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

“Overturning a “ban” does not mean the state has to recognize gay “marriage””

Obama would send in troops.


16 posted on 06/06/2014 3:18:55 PM PDT by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

She is not well thought of according to the posts on robe probe which rates judges.


17 posted on 06/06/2014 3:21:01 PM PDT by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I think DOMA was enacted in 1996, two years or so before the first state constitutional amendments passed, Alaska(68%) and Hawaii(71%). So I think an actual constitutional maybe had a chance in the mid-late 90s. But I think there would also be a chance it would simply be repealed 20 years later.

FReegards


18 posted on 06/06/2014 3:26:13 PM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
The US Constitution says NOTHING about marriage.

You are correct, and that makes it a 10th amendment issue, completely up the the States and The People.

19 posted on 06/06/2014 3:28:24 PM PDT by Domandred (Fdisk, format, and reinstall the entire .gov system.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Domandred

It’s that darn 14th Amendent.
It should have been repealed after Recinstruction.


20 posted on 06/06/2014 3:30:05 PM PDT by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

21 posted on 06/06/2014 3:34:15 PM PDT by prairiebreeze (Don't be afraid to see what you see. -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
I don't recognize it; never will.

And I'm not afraid to say so.

I wonder how long before the backlash begins with others as well.

22 posted on 06/06/2014 3:38:15 PM PDT by daler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: daler

I’m with you


23 posted on 06/06/2014 3:38:34 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Reconstruction.


24 posted on 06/06/2014 3:43:20 PM PDT by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Another one bites the dust.

Looks like Gavin Newsom was right when he said we’d be getting fag marriage “whether we like it or not”.


25 posted on 06/06/2014 3:59:35 PM PDT by RB156
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

So, if we were to vote in a conservative president, can a liberal judge now declare the election void based on her own desires?

Right now they are doing something very similar by overturning the will of the majority on moral issues.


26 posted on 06/06/2014 4:05:42 PM PDT by Pilgrim's Progress (http://www.baptistbiblebelievers.com/BYTOPICS/tabid/335/Default.aspx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever
She's the devil...

Appeals court upholds National Day of Prayer, overturns Judge Crabb’s ruling
27 posted on 06/06/2014 4:20:15 PM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

See? Summary judgment...the will of the people thwarted.

Pray for America. We are in danger.

Do the lovers of truth have any legal right of appeal?


28 posted on 06/06/2014 4:24:07 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever
So, all marriage laws of each state are now invalid? What about states that differ on requirements regarding degrees of consanguinity, age, and competency levels? All out the window?

I could see that IF the 14th Amendment were actually relevant here, that states would have to recognize marriages from other states, but to just tell a state that THEY MUST PERFORM THESE "MARRIAGES" is beyond the pail of despotism.

29 posted on 06/06/2014 4:24:40 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Good point about the ages require for marriage.

Suppose a 15 year old girl gets married in State A where it is legal but then moves to State B where it is not legal?

Is she still married and is her 25 year old husband breaking laws?


30 posted on 06/06/2014 4:32:47 PM PDT by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Overturning a “ban” does not mean the state has to recognize gay “marriage”

WRONG.

The day after a fed ruled KY's ban on homo marriage unconstitutional, another fed judge ruled that KY MUST recognize same sex marriages.

31 posted on 06/06/2014 4:41:37 PM PDT by INVAR ("Fart for liberty, fart for freedom and fart proudly!" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever
Another state bites the dust. The GOP might as well just throw whatever principals it stands for out the door and embrace this head on.


32 posted on 06/06/2014 4:47:43 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

What would the judge do if Scott Walker refused to order the cities to issue marriage licenses?


33 posted on 06/06/2014 4:53:56 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Liberals would argue that the 14th Amendment applies to force the states to issue and recognize homosexual marriage but somehow it doesn’t apply to the 2nd Amendment.


34 posted on 06/06/2014 4:58:32 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

temper tantrum?


35 posted on 06/06/2014 5:00:26 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

Another bull dyke judge overrules the will of the people. And as usual a republican governor cowers down to her like a dog in heat.


36 posted on 06/06/2014 6:07:55 PM PDT by NKP_Vet ("Truth is like a lion. You don't have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Wasichu

I thought that number was closer to 1.5% - 2.0%


37 posted on 06/06/2014 6:19:51 PM PDT by ducttape45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Obastard has gave marching orders to any democrat federal judge to rule state same sex marriage ban as unconstitutional. It makes no diffference to this lawless POS that the people voted for these bans and the us constitution does not mention marriage. The goal is to have the majority of the states have it already “legal” when the supreme court finally hears the case. Then presto the supreme court will no reason to rule against it because activist judges have already done their work for them.To hell with the people and welcome to the Socialist States of America.


38 posted on 06/06/2014 6:20:22 PM PDT by NKP_Vet ("Truth is like a lion. You don't have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

The American population has been set up. The liberals have been putting their crony judges in place for just a time as this, and now we see the real reason folks like Dirty Harry wanted the nuclear option to ensure he can keep putting his fellow dirt bags in judgeships across the nation.


39 posted on 06/06/2014 6:21:39 PM PDT by ducttape45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

The right of marriage lies with the states EXCLUSIVELY as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment. There is no such thing as a federal marriage license.


40 posted on 06/06/2014 6:28:02 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

“What would the judge do if Scott Walker refused to order the cities to issue marriage licenses?”

The judge would do nothing.

The president would send troops to Wisconsin and federalize the Wisconsin National Guard.


41 posted on 06/06/2014 6:29:24 PM PDT by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Are we still praying for Ted Kennedy. Come on!!!!!! One last time just for fun’!!!!!!!!! Prayers up for the lion of the senate.


42 posted on 06/06/2014 6:50:02 PM PDT by Doctor 2Brains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daler

Others???
Most people on this site will be too busy praying for Ted Kennedy to engage in this backlash you speak of.


43 posted on 06/06/2014 6:52:31 PM PDT by Doctor 2Brains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
1)Judges have no power to impose gay marriage 2) They cannot make law

1) Agreed they have no power to enforce anything.

2) In case you hadn't noticed during the past 6 years, the Article II branch has been exercising its nonexistent power to make laws, so I would guess the judicial branch is saying to itself "Hey the Constitution is kaput, we might as well get in on this lawless business of making laws also!!"
44 posted on 06/06/2014 7:26:07 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Once again, the whim of a judge usurps the will of the people.


45 posted on 06/06/2014 8:00:29 PM PDT by clearcarbon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

.

- Obama has a golf date scheduled with Bowe as soon as he gets out of the hospital...


46 posted on 06/06/2014 8:31:34 PM PDT by devolve (-Tell VLADIMER after my ERECTION I have more 90% more FLEXIBILITY - pre-1899 Colt SAA frames needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

I do not get this. There has never been legal “gay marriage” and I doubt that any of its proponents could define what “gay marriage” is. The constitution says nothing about the exercise of bizarre behaviors which have never been tolerated in civil society. Yet, somehow, it is unconstitutional to say that marriage is the relationship between a man and a woman who are driven by instinct to form pair-bonds?


47 posted on 06/06/2014 11:41:24 PM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

I really wish one of the Governors of the states that keep having an activist judge rule homo marriage unconstitutional stand up and say that marriage is a state issue so as a federal judge, you have no standing to rule on it and then go on to say that any marriage certificates given to so called “same sex” marriage will not be recognized.


48 posted on 06/07/2014 12:37:58 AM PDT by mikefive (RLTW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wasichu

There’s a pattern to all this that involves judges in states like Utah (before Christmas), Michigan, Arkansas and now Wisconsin (late Friday afternoons) issuing rulings at just the moment that appeals courts closed for several days.

The judges knew what they were doing. They were deliberately creating a window for marriage licenses to be issued to gay couples and ceremonies to be performed before an appeal could reach a higher court to stay their orders.

Its possible an appeals court could agree with their rulings but unlikely since their rulings were ones with immediate effect not suspended pending appeal.

These rulings including the latest one in Wisconsin are very deliberate in your face shoving against existing marriage laws.

If higher courts rule against the lower ones those given licenses and “married” become “victims” for the media and plaintiffs for lawsuits to go beyond man-woman marriage to legalize same sex marriage.


49 posted on 06/07/2014 12:46:28 AM PDT by Nextrush (OBAMACARE IS A BAILOUT FOR THE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I and this family will never accept these people as married, yes they can pretend they are married, but if any of them ever states to me they are married they will be corrected.

So according to these activist judges polygamy should be legal under the 14th amendment and so should everything else.


50 posted on 06/07/2014 2:43:59 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-114 next last

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