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

Skip to comments.

Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban
Associated Press ^ | Jun 6, 2014 5:17 PM EDT | Scott Bauer

Posted on 06/06/2014 2:48:56 PM PDT by Olog-hai

A federal judge struck down Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriage on Friday, ruling it unconstitutional.

It wasn’t clear whether U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb's 88-page ruling cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin immediately. But the ruling makes Wisconsin the 27th state where same-sex couples can marry under law or where a judge has ruled they ought to be allowed to wed. […]

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in February on behalf of four gay couples, then later expanded to eight, challenging Wisconsin’s constitutional ban on gay marriage. Messages left with ACLU’s attorneys were not immediately returned Friday. …

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: aclu; activistjudges; barbaracrabb; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; lavendermafia

1 posted on 06/06/2014 2:48:56 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
WHICH PART OF THE US CONSTITUTION DOES IT VIOLATE?

The Constitution says NOTHING about marriage.
2 posted on 06/06/2014 2:52:57 PM PDT by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Madness. Pure madness. But nobody dares to say it.


3 posted on 06/06/2014 2:55:52 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I really, really, really have a hard time believing I’m reading this crap again.

The men who wrote the Constitution would be astonished and aghast at the absurd nonsense attributed to them.

Why should we tolerate it?

Impeach these judges. A Free Society has a right to make it’s own rules.

This is the definition of freedom. These judges are taking that away.


4 posted on 06/06/2014 2:57:28 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Rogue judiciary. If Congress did its job, these judges would all be impeached and removed. All the way up to SCOTUS, if that’s what it took.


5 posted on 06/06/2014 2:58:29 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

I think hanging would be a better, more just, and more effective deterrent than mere impeachment.


6 posted on 06/06/2014 3:01:47 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
PS She's also the one who also ruled the National Day of Prayer "Unconstitutional". A famous painting is this..."The First Prayer in Congress"

Do you think these men were worried about the rights of the Transgendered to marry the farm animal of their choice?

7 posted on 06/06/2014 3:04:19 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Oh, Boy. The freaks in Madistan will be taking to the streets tonight.

*Rolleyes*


8 posted on 06/06/2014 3:04:49 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
A Jimmy Carter appointee, I'M shocked...
9 posted on 06/06/2014 3:05:45 PM PDT by Rumplemeyer (The GOP should stand its ground - and fix Bayonets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Well, I was trying to exercise restraint...

But then, my ancestors in the American Revolution did things like hanging Tory’s from Oak trees for just being brigands, so...


10 posted on 06/06/2014 3:05:52 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Judges have no power to impose laws, period


11 posted on 06/06/2014 3:06:19 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

She actually has the gall to say that the 14th amendment “doesn’t have an asterisk excluding homosexuals from its guarantee of Equal Protection.” (i’m paraphrasing)

This is the same argument my normally-conservative sister made a while back. She told me that if we wanted the 14th amendment to say “except for marriage law” and “except for homos,” then we “haters” should amend it to explicitly say so.

Ridiculous. The authors of that amendment couldn’t have imagined that our culture would fall so far to where this is seriously being argued.


12 posted on 06/06/2014 3:10:45 PM PDT by MarkRegal05
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
She will have to face them in the Judgment.


13 posted on 06/06/2014 3:10:50 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

We rail about obama and congress all the time but evil is being thrust upon us every day by the courts. It’s the Federal courts and the warped deviants sitting on their benches who are really most responsible for advancing the agenda of evil that’s fallen upon us these days. I’m amazed nobody’s gone after any of these guys.


14 posted on 06/06/2014 3:11:43 PM PDT by pgkdan (ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF THE ANTICHRIST!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

We’re all gay now


15 posted on 06/06/2014 3:17:42 PM PDT by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan

State courts too. Massachusetts supreme court was the first to pull this stunt, IIRC. They got away with it.


16 posted on 06/06/2014 3:20:04 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MarkRegal05

And the retort is, no homo is being denied equal protection.

He or She has every right to marry the person of the opposite sex of their choice.

Now for Cousin It....we gotta walk away from that one. May not have an opposite...they can always do a civil union contract


17 posted on 06/06/2014 3:22:49 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Woe to Wisconsin. . . . God will not be mocked.


18 posted on 06/06/2014 3:24:36 PM PDT by Maudeen ("End Times Warrior - Just a Sinner Saved by Grace")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

>> The Constitution says NOTHING about marriage.

That’s not a universally accepted position.

By virtue of references to spouses of fallen soldiers, and subsequent compensation made to them by the govt, marriage is considered, to some degree, a construction of founding law, and by inference something that deserves constitutional protection.


19 posted on 06/06/2014 3:27:05 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Maudeen

no, woe to her. wisconsin citizens overwhelmingly voted to amend its constitution to forbid gay marriage.


20 posted on 06/06/2014 3:30:00 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I have to admit, I’m one of those who predicted that same sex marriage was coming, even if a sizable chunk of the population didnt like it. I just didnt think it would be like this.


21 posted on 06/06/2014 3:33:23 PM PDT by crazycatlady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
A lot of people say it...and a lot worse. The problem is the Obammunists don't give a crap what we say, because we're gutless and lazy. We won't stand up for our beliefs, and the people we continue to send to Washington won't stand up for us, so why should the Commies listen to us? They're winning, because we're too worthless to even make a call to Congressman Jackwagon's local office.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

22 posted on 06/06/2014 3:33:27 PM PDT by wku man (Veterans, it's up to us to save the Republic...let's roll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Unfortunately the sins and poor decisions of people placed in positions of leadership have a direct effect on the masses. . . .as in our nation, churches and families. I do hope the voices of the citizens of Wisconsin will be heard throughout the nation!


23 posted on 06/06/2014 3:39:00 PM PDT by Maudeen ("End Times Warrior - Just a Sinner Saved by Grace")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Maudeen

well then jimmah carter is directly responsible. he appointed this b1tch of judge.


24 posted on 06/06/2014 3:41:16 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

That’s right. . .and who elected Jimmah :)


25 posted on 06/06/2014 3:43:19 PM PDT by Maudeen ("End Times Warrior - Just a Sinner Saved by Grace")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce; All
"The Constitution says NOTHING about marriage."

That's the key point. The Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about any issue, marriage in this case, means that government power to regulate such issues are automatically reserved uniquely to the states, not the federal government.

And the Supreme Court has clarified that power not delegated to the feds by the states via the Constitution are prohibited to the federal government.

”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Also note that since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights, the states are free to make laws which discriminate against such "rights" as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.

One remedy to the damage being caused to our system by activist judges is the following imo. Citizens need to work with both their state and federal lawmakers to make punitive laws which require judges to do the following. Judges need to be required to promptly, clearly and publicly state all constitutional clauses which influenced their case decisions. Judges that fail to do so to the satisfaction of legal voters should be minimally permanently kicked off the bench, their constitutionally questionable decisions overturned.

”3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.

26 posted on 06/06/2014 3:43:27 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Massachusetts supreme court was the first to pull this stunt, IIRC. They got away with it.

And Mitt Romney let them.

27 posted on 06/06/2014 3:44:24 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Maudeen

democrats.


28 posted on 06/06/2014 3:45:15 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MarkRegal05
Yes - there is equal protection under the law....if the law is legal within the frame of our Constitution.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution guaranteeing a right to a Gay Marriage.

Gay Marriage was put up for a vote and it LOST. End of story.
29 posted on 06/06/2014 3:48:42 PM PDT by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

The Constitution NEVER uses the word “marriage”.

Now our government does have the power to create marriage contracts and the people/voters can decide what entails a marriage contract.

The voters were asked their opinion and gay marriage LOST.


30 posted on 06/06/2014 3:50:35 PM PDT by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

The bottom line is that when conservatives are in control of congress and the presidency, that reform of the judiciary should be a major goal, with the purging of a lot of such judges in reorganizations. And yes, it means paying them for the rest of their ill-considered lives, but they won’t be able to do any more damage.


31 posted on 06/06/2014 3:51:00 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: Tzimisce

It’s my minority opinion that if the govt was not involved in the affairs of marriage, we wouldn’t have this problem.

“Homosexual marriage law” forces the citizens to support, service, and sanction homosexual behavior.


32 posted on 06/06/2014 4:05:47 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

This Wisconsin law Unconstitutional too? Marriage equality needs to be applied to all not just homosexuals/s

Wisconsin

765.21 Unlawful marriages void; validation. All marriages hereafter contracted in violation of 765.02, 765.03, 765.04, 765.16 [see below] shall be void, except as provided in [...] The parties to any such marriage may validate the marriage by complying with the requirements of
765.03(1)
(1) No marriage shall be contracted while either of the parties has a husband or wife living, nor between persons who are nearer of kin than 2nd cousins except that marriage may be contracted between first cousins where the female has attained the age of 55 years or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit signed by a physician stating that either party is permanently sterile. Relationship under this section shall be computed by the rule of the civil law, whether the parties to the marriage are of the half or of the whole blood. A marriage may not be contracted if either party has such want of understanding as renders him or her incapable of assenting to marriage.

765.04(1)
(1) If any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state who is disabled or prohibited from contracting marriage under the laws of this state goes into another state or country and there contracts a marriage prohibited or declared void under the laws of this state, such marriage shall be void for all purposes in this state with the same effect as though it had been entered into in this state.

(15) “Relative” means a parent, grandparent, stepparent, brother, sister, first cousin, nephew, niece, uncle or aunt. This relationship shall be by blood, marriage or adoption.

944.06 Incest. Whoever marries or has nonmarital sexual intercourse with a person he or she knows is a blood relative and such relative is in fact related in a degree within which the marriage of the parties is prohibited by the law of this state is guilty of a Class C felony.


33 posted on 06/06/2014 4:11:28 PM PDT by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

Without marriage contracts recognized by our government, it would make inheritances, who can visit you in the hospital and other such questions murky.

That said: it’s not a big issue. Voters can decide what constitutes a legally defined marriage.

Or they could, until these courts got involved.

Now we will have questions of polygamy, child brides, marriage to animals and inanimate objects and all kinds of other strange things.

Children give married couples tax breaks. Now I buy six mail order brides and have seven children with each and collect the refund checks on all.


34 posted on 06/06/2014 4:17:51 PM PDT by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

Couldn’t a whole lot of laws be determined to be unconstitutional based on the the decisions from these courts? Since desire to engage in an activity is now a civil right, I want the civil right to drive as fast as I want. I like to drive fast. God gave me the urge to drive fast, therefore, speed laws are unconstitutional because the punish me for simply expressing myself based on my urges.


35 posted on 06/06/2014 4:25:51 PM PDT by Yogafist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

The benefit of govt recognized marriage contracts is primarily to offset other demands made by the govt; e.g., deductions, gains, inheritance, etc. But I’m sure private institutions could adopt criteria that wouldn’t rely on govt definitions in order to keep the traditions we embrace intact.

The proposal of removing govt from marriage triggers the concern that bad things will happen despite the same bad things already happening by virtue of govt involvement in marriage.


36 posted on 06/06/2014 4:29:01 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
WHICH PART OF THE US CONSTITUTION DOES IT VIOLATE?

Don't be such a hater.

37 posted on 06/06/2014 4:33:39 PM PDT by Hoodat (Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rumplemeyer

Republican appointees are doing the SAME thing.


38 posted on 06/06/2014 4:47:48 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All

The bottom line . . . it violates God’s principles, God’s purpose of male/female creation. . . It’s kind of like vandals going in and ruining a home. We are living on borrowed time in this country. . .that is evident and most don’t seem to care.


39 posted on 06/06/2014 4:49:44 PM PDT by Maudeen ("End Times Warrior - Just a Sinner Saved by Grace")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Just in time for Pridefest. Great . . .


40 posted on 06/06/2014 5:11:19 PM PDT by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
We the People use to be the People.
41 posted on 06/06/2014 5:21:50 PM PDT by broken_arrow1 (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Barbara Crabb strikes again...

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


42 posted on 06/06/2014 6:43:27 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Why do we even bother to vote anymore in this state if Madison can run the whole show. Every time.


43 posted on 06/06/2014 6:59:35 PM PDT by Wisconsinlady (Is the GOP actually TRYING to lose in 2014 and 2016?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

Apparently she’s also ALSO in favor of taxing churches!

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/11/24/a-federal-judges-significant-decision-clergy-tax-free-housing-is-not-constitutional/


44 posted on 06/07/2014 5:58:52 AM PDT by massmike ("You only live once, but it does help if you get to be young twice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Yea

From the Wisconsin people on this thread, looks like she has ‘history’


45 posted on 06/07/2014 7:55:05 AM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | 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