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 ...
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.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
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!
well then jimmah carter is directly responsible. he appointed this b1tch of judge.
That’s right. . .and who elected Jimmah :)
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.
And Mitt Romney let them.
democrats.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don't be such a hater.
Republican appointees are doing the SAME thing.
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.
Just in time for Pridefest. Great . . .
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.