By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
The inertia against state prohibition of gay marriage continues to rise. United States District Court Judge Barbara Crabb declared Wisconsin’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.
In 2006 Wisconsin voters amended the state constitution outlawing gay marriage in any form. The ACLU filed the lawsuit in February on behalf of eight couples who believe their constitutional rights to due process were violated consequently depriving them of protections married couples enjoy due to their gender.
Court clerks in Madison and Milwaukee immediately afterward opened their doors to register marriage licenses to gay couples beginning at 5:00 PM on the sixth, just over an hour after the court issued its ruling. Many couples welcomed this opportunity immediately, due in part to a belief among some that this might be a limited window of opportunity before a possible halt to the marriages during an appeals process.
Judge Crabb stated in her decision:
This case is not about whether marriages between same-sex couples are consistent or inconsistent with the teachings of a particular religion, whether such marriages are moral or immoral or whether they are something that should be encouraged or discouraged. It is not even about whether the plaintiffs in this case are as capable as opposite-sex couples of maintaining a committed and loving relationship or raising a family together.
Quite simply, this case is about liberty and equality, the two cornerstones of the rights protected by the United States Constitution.
Wisconsin Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen sought an emergency order in federal court to block the weddings, saying the ruling did not necessarily provide a clear path to gay weddings to begin. Van Hollen said confusion and uncertainty had resulted from the judge’s decision and the status quo must be preserved.
~ + ~
By Darren Smith
Source: Fox News
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Paul C. Schulte
…
Just responding to you. Short-term memory problems?
==================
No you were not “responding” … that requires an active subject … which there was none. No one but you mentioned a supreme court lottery and the odds in such an imaginary, non-existent, pulled out of thin air straw-man.
You were just making things up again.
I would say you have both short term and long term memory issues that need remedial therapy.
Dredd – let’s play nice.
bigfatmike
“How many millions of voters do you suppose would approve slavery, segregation, or Jim Crow laws.”
A majority of the voters would not approve slavery, but I get your point. Fine. Remember I said it wasn’t a matter of right or wrong. If the voters approved slavery and a single judge over ruled it, you could just as easily have voters making slavery illegal and a single judge saying the voters didn’t have the constitutional standing to make slavery illegal.
If you justify the action because of the result you have to keep in mind that the next time you may not like the result.
In any case the point is moot. Dredd pointed out that the single judge ruling is just the first step. I am embarrassed I wasn’t thinking of that.
Another aspect I wasn’t thinking is that even in cases of the Supreme Court rulings with 9 judges deciding. It will often times come down to one person – the tie breaker. There isn’t a way to prevent one person from being able to decide if the law is constitutional or not.
Just responding to you. Short-term memory problems?
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/262170971.html “This is not just a victory for gay couples; it’s a victory for equal rights for all Americans, and it follows a pattern from the civil rights era, when federal courts played the key role in striking down laws that had imposed second-class citizenship on African-Americans. These bans had done the same to gay couples; it’s good to see them meeting the same fate.
Although voters in 2006 resoundingly approved the same-sex marriage amendment, 59% to 41%, the most recent Marquette Law School poll, released May 21, found 55% of registered voters statewide now favor allowing gay marriage, while 37% oppose it and 6% say they do not know. The nation as a whole is experiencing a rapid and fundamental shift in opinion on this issue.”
swarthmoremom wrote: “The nation as a whole is experiencing a rapid and fundamental shift in opinion on this issue.”
Your statement is true, but you do not seem to recognize how this makes it even more disturbing that the courts have jumped on the bandwagon of this new political fad.
Also, why not then just put the matter back to a vote? If the people will repeal the law by vote, wouldn’t that be the proper method of changing the law? Would not this method allow for public discourse about the issue followed by a vote that most people would feel compelled to live with?
The courts are not suppose to create law or change the definitions of words within the laws. Ideally, they are suppose to interpret the law and be blind to partisan politics. If they have a problem with the law that defines marriage, the honest approach is for the court to simply declare marriage as defined by the law unconstitutional and illegal. Let the legislature fix the definitions within the law. Instead, the courts redefine the law according to their own ideal of how it ought to be written rather than how it ought to be read. There is no debate or discourse among the hundreds of lawmakers working hard to make the best law possible for everyone. In this particular case, we have one woman changing the law in a way that hurts the wholesome concept of the nuclear family for millions of people.
What we see is a court system that has lost its way. Instead of being the anchor that keeps us grounded in a long tradition of stable laws (which is the bedrock of Common Law Theory), the courts have become the means of changing and rewriting laws. It is not even this specific issue so much that is the problem. The issue only illustrates quite clearly how the courts have become a tool for activist lawyers. It also makes us aware of how untrustworthy judges have become. When that trust is lost, people will hunger for a new government created upon different principles. I tell you the truth, while some people are dancing and sending victory tweets over this court’s decision, others are drafting documents outlining new ideas of how to establish a better functioning federal government. And some people also are buying more guns.
Paul, The amendment was passed in 2006. Many people have changed their minds about gay marriage since 2006 even the president. I doubt it would pass today. Wisconsin is not Mississippi. Although amendments like this pass and republicans get elected in off year elections, Obama did win the state twice.
swarthmoremom wrote: “Many people have changed their minds about gay marriage since 2006 even the president.”
How comforting it is to know that the civil concept of the nuclear family is being destroyed by a fad.
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd – if you are keeping up with your civics 101 then you would know that the Supreme Court only actually hears some 200 cases a year. So you can petition all you want, but if you are not a lucky winner in the Supreme Court lottery, it is going to stop in some circuit court.
=======================
The odds of being granted a writ of certiorari is not a topic on this thread.
No coffee yet?
SWM – Oddly enough the United States Constitution was passed (ratified) in 1788, yet we still spend money to defend it.
Little by little we are “we are slouching to Gomorrah.” Like of old, I shall still keep my own council in these turbulent times. Governments can make people heel, but to what purpose ?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/02/iowa-gay-marriage-ruling-a-turning-point-for-justices/7237453/ Iowa is the other state that borders Wisconsin. It is legal there, also.
” but it ignites the kind of spark that leads to rebellion and insurrection.”
How true.
Some things are worth fighting and dying for – like preventing people from living together, forming families and raising children through adoption or IVF.
“That being said I don’t feel that a single judge should be able to overturn a law approved by 1.3 million voters.”
How many millions of voters do you suppose would approve slavery, segregation, or Jim Crow laws.
It seems to me that what is fundamental is not how many voters support a law but whether it violates a fundamental principal.
Even Scalia, himself, pointed out there are certain things we take out of democracy; we don’t get to vote on them.
David “Rulings like this one lead us not only toward confusion, but it ignites the kind of spark that leads to rebellion and insurrection.” Gay marriage is legal in both Minnesota and Illinois. Many people live in one state and work in another and that is what causes the confusion. Do you really think the people of Wisconsin are going to rebel against this ruling? They need to get out and vote Walker and his republican AG out of office. They are wasting the taxpayers money on these appeals.
SWM – since the voters (taxpayers) passed the amendment I hardly think they are wasting the tax payers money by appealing.
davidm2575
Rulings like this one lead us not only toward confusion …
=======================
It only confuses those who don’t keep up on their Civics 101 …
Bernard
…
It should take at least 3 judges to overturn laws passed by the states voters.
======================
This was debated hundreds of years ago when the constitution was written.
If Scottie appeals it will go before a tribunal (3 appellate judges) and more if an en banc hearing ever materializes.
Then the Supreme Court of nine justices can be petitioned to hear the case (at least 4 justices must vote to grant the writ, i.e., grant a supreme appeal).
Dredd – if you are keeping up with your civics 101 then you would know that the Supreme Court only actually hears some 200 cases a year. So you can petition all you want, but if you are not a lucky winner in the Supreme Court lottery, it is going to stop in some circuit court.
Rulings like this one lead us not only toward confusion, but it ignites the kind of spark that leads to rebellion and insurrection. Nobody can abide tyranny for too long, and that is what the ACLU and the homosexual agenda has brought us. They force their view of right and might against the populace in order to further their secular agenda. Nobody in this camp learned any lessons from King Louis XVI.
I am 100% for gay marriage. There is no logical reason not to allow them. That being said I don’t feel that a single judge should be able to overturn a law approved by 1.3 million voters.
It isn’t a matter of whether she is right or wrong in this particular ruling. It is the fact that she – like all of us – has a bias. She has her own opinions of right and wrong that may have nothing to do with her interpretation of the constitution.
A single judge can and does make rulings from time to time that are effected by their views on things other than the facts. Also, again speaking in general terms and not this specific case, but a single person having that much power makes that person a target for people who want to convince her to rule a certain way. With a single person it is far easier to sway her ruling using one method or another.
It should take at least 3 judges to overturn laws passed by the states voters.
Paul C. Schulte
Isn’t it interesting how much control of the states has been taken over by federal judges?
===================
Yep.
That mean old constitution put federal judges over state judges in federal constitutional matters.
Imagine that.
Dredd – clearly your ox has not been gored by the federal courts lately.
Well, its not the 19th century any longer and movement is much easier and more common and the actions of one state have much further reach than they used to. So, no, its really not all that surprising.
Isn’t it interesting how much control of the states has been taken over by federal judges?
I find it sweetly ironic that, for a second time, it was the opinion of Fat Tony that justified the ruling. When you work as hard as he does to pervert the law into meaning what you want it to for your short-term gain the fact that it should come back and bite your corrupted flesh amuses me.
It surprises me that he does not add the Gore v. Bush disclaimer on every one of his opinions.
Gov. Scott Walker is on a losing streak in the federal district courts.