Skip to comments.Wisconsin gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional
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 ...
Barbara Crabb, Jimmy Carter appointment.
I just really doubt we’re going to put up with this much longer. Let them have their fun.
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”
Exactly what part of the Constitution does it violate?
The US Constitution says NOTHING about marriage.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was for the amendment, but knew it wouldn’t pass Congress by the required margins.
“Overturning a ban does not mean the state has to recognize gay marriage”
And which state will do this?
No Governor has enough spine
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.
It would appear that Cobra’s disdain for judges was totally warranted. 90% scum.
It had a chance back then
“Overturning a ban does not mean the state has to recognize gay marriage”
Obama would send in troops.
She is not well thought of according to the posts on robe probe which rates judges.
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.
You are correct, and that makes it a 10th amendment issue, completely up the the States and The People.
It’s that darn 14th Amendent.
It should have been repealed after Recinstruction.
And I'm not afraid to say so.
I wonder how long before the backlash begins with others as well.
I’m with you
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”.
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.
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?
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.
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?
The day after a fed ruled KY's ban on homo marriage unconstitutional, another fed judge ruled that KY MUST recognize same sex marriages.
What would the judge do if Scott Walker refused to order the cities to issue marriage licenses?
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.
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.
I thought that number was closer to 1.5% - 2.0%
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Are we still praying for Ted Kennedy. Come on!!!!!! One last time just for fun’!!!!!!!!! Prayers up for the lion of the senate.
Most people on this site will be too busy praying for Ted Kennedy to engage in this backlash you speak of.
Once again, the whim of a judge usurps the will of the people.
- Obama has a golf date scheduled with Bowe as soon as he gets out of the hospital...
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?
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.
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.
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.