Constitutional Law, Society

Federal Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin’s Gay Marriage Ban, Wedding Bells Ring

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor

LGBT USA Pride FlagThe 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.

Rotating Emergency LightWisconsin 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.

196 thoughts on “Federal Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin’s Gay Marriage Ban, Wedding Bells Ring”

  1. “Quite simply, this case is about liberty and equality, the two cornerstones of the rights protected by the United States Constitution.”

    And still they deny Plural Marriage – – –

    1. Monte – they won’t let that guy marry his laptop either. 🙂

  6. National Prayer Day, Housing for clergy, and many other decisions of Judge Crabb, applauded by liberals, have been struck down by the 7th Circuit. Interestingly, my wife went to the courthouse to visit a friend yesterday. The court was much more secure. It turns out Eric Holder was there. The visit did not get any media that I’m aware of. Interesting.

  7. SWM, the assertion that the 2006 referendum was placed on the ballot to defeat Democrat Doyle does not hold water. Doyle won by 9 points and the referendum, as stated previously, passed by 9 points. Voters are smarter than given credit by the duopoly.

  8. “MILWAUKEE — Dozens of gay couples got married at courthouses in Milwaukee and Dane counties early Saturday, taking advantage of what may be a small window in which to get hitched before a ruling overturning the state’s same-sex marriage ban is put on hold.

    Milwaukee County Clerk Joe Czarnezki said couples were lined up outside his courthouse at 6 a.m., three hours before it opened. Within 30 minutes of opening, about 45 couples had applied for marriage licenses.

    When U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb struck down the state’s ban on Friday, pastor Andrew Warner was among those who went to the courthouse to get a license so he could legally wed his longtime partner.

    Then he turned to perform a wedding for two members of his Milwaukee church.

    “I always felt like we were second-class citizens in not being able to get married,” Warner said after marrying Jay Edmundson on Friday evening, despite confusion over the effect of Crabb’s ruling. “And now I feel good about my state in a way I haven’t before.”

    In her ruling, Crabb asked the couples who sued to describe exactly what they wanted her to block in the gay marriage law. She said she would later decide whether to put her decision on hold while it is appealed.

    Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said there is confusion and uncertainty about Crabb’s ruling, and he doesn’t think it actually cleared the way for same-sex marriages to proceed. He asked Cragg to issue an emergency stay halting the issuing of further marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but she hasn’t done so. He is expected to petition a federal appeals court for such an order on Monday.

    Attorney Larry Dupuis, who represented the couples who sued, said the ACLU would respond to Crabb next week, and he expected her to then issue an order for the state to allow marriages.

    Clerks in Madison and Milwaukee began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples shortly after 5 p.m. Friday, a little over an hour after Crabb issued her ruling.

    In Milwaukee, Jose Fernando Gutierrez and Matthew Schreck married outside the county clerk’s office in what may have been the state’s first gay marriage. Gutierrez and Schreck then served as witnesses when Warner performed a ceremony for Christopher Martell and Mark Williams. All of the men attend Plymouth Church, where Warner is a minister.

    Williams said he and Martell had assembled documents needed to get a license in anticipation of a ruling. They expected there to be a narrow window before a court halted the ceremonies.

    “It definitely matters to us to have confidence that our relationship will be respected,” Williams said.

    In Madison, Shari Roll married Renee Currie just a block from the state Capitol.

    “I’m still up in the clouds!” Roll said.

    Voters amended the Wisconsin Constitution in 2006 to outlaw gay marriage or anything substantially similar. The ACLU filed a lawsuit in February arguing that the ban violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. It said the eight couples named in the lawsuit and others like them had been deprived of the same legal protections that opposite-sex married couples enjoy.

    Gay rights activists have won 15 consecutive lower court cases since a landmark Supreme Court ruling last summer, with Wisconsin being the latest. Many of those rulings are being appealed.

    “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,” Crabb wrote in the Wisconsin ruling. “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.””

    http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/262203761.html

  11. Nick: Before I head out, let me point out that when David calls for an insurrection because of rulings like the one being discussed here, claiming that it is tyranny to extend the right to marry to gays, that indicates an unreasonable reaction and characterization. It seems overly emotional to me.

    The strength of my marriage is unaffected by these rulings. How about yours?

    I have no desire to sleep with men because of these rulings or the gay marriage laws. My wife has no desire to sleep with women, either, no matter what I have to say about it.

    So there comes a point where, when someone’s shrieking about rebellion and insurrection, gubmint tyranny, and homosexual agender, I mean, agenda, you have to ask WTF, dude. Give it over, as the Irish say.

    Anyways, I still appreciate your thoughtful response

    1. RTC – are you sure about your wife? Maybe she just doesn’t want a threesome.

    2. RTC wrote: “… let me point out that when David calls for an insurrection…”

      I never called for an insurrection. Talk about ad hominem attacks! I’m just telling you what I see happening in our society. You seem to be as out of touch with the sentiments of society as President Obama is when he unilaterally traded five terrorist generals for Sergeant Bergdahl.

  12. RTC, Thanks. I have said here many times I do not agree w/ a lot of things David says. But, I have gotten to know him here and find him a man of intellect and dignity. David is someone who seeks out information. He is a traveler, like myself. When you travel a lot it changes your perspective, it makes you realize the insignificance of regional, provincial mindsets. David doesn’t have a nasty bone in his body. The way he comports himself here has not made me agree w/ the thoughts he has w/ which I disagree. It has made me respect him a great deal. When you respect someone the personal stuff is only infrequent. You and I are a good example. We have gotten to know each other, we have evolved, and I can’t tell you how happy I am that occurred.

    I did miss your comment on Devil’s Lake. We camped there a lot when our kids were little. An Illinois girl was killed just last week when a storm hit and a tree fell on her. That was my neurotic daughter’s nightmare. I always slept in my van and if there was a clap of thunder she was outta the tent and squirming all night beside me.

    My sister also lived in Chicago when we did. Odd, we both are from Ct. and both ended up in Chicago serendipitously. My dad was concerned about her living alone, and hinted that maybe we she should take her in, unusual for my old man because he was a live and let live guy. But, my sister lived in what is now called Boy’s Town. This was back in the 80’s. Virtually all of her neighbors were gay. I told my old man that the biggest risk for a woman in a city is sexual assault and that was not the side of the plate her neighbors hit. He thought for a minute, chuckled, and said, “You’re absolutely right.”

  13. Paul Schulte:

    All marriages are in fact partnership contracts. Opposition to gay marriage is primarily based upon religious doctrine which seeks to merge civil and theological principles.

    1. Mike Appleton wrote: “All marriages are in fact partnership contracts.”

      If this is true, then why is the federal judge using strict scrutiny review? Most contracts use rational basis review and give State’s latitude to regulate them.

      Are you saying the federal government cannot allow the State to regulate a type of legal partnership contract that allows only one gender, such as a women’s exercise club?

      What if the partnership contract mandates being co-ed, not allowing same sex only partnerships, maybe for reasons of encouraging gender diversity? Are you saying that the federal government can step in and tell them that such partnerships are unconstitutional?

      Mike Appleton wrote: “Opposition to gay marriage is primarily based upon religious doctrine which seeks to merge civil and theological principles.”

      You keep saying that, but it simply isn’t true. Modern Natural Law Theory has sought to address the issue entirely from a non-religious perspective. I think John Finnis has done a fairly decent job doing that. Secularists want to bring religion into the debate in order to discredit the idea. Religion has become an epithet to legal issues.

  14. Schulte: Nowhere have I made an ad hominem attack today on any of the threads I’ve commented on and repeating the allegation over and over won’t make it any more true than your repeated assertions that teh gubmint is always to blame for the problems we face in society.

    And my arguments are nearly always more cogent than your own

    1. RTC –

      You were just making things up again.

      I would say you have both short term and long term memory issues that need remedial therapy

      You do not consider this an ad hominem attack?

  15. While I have cheered every time a state ban has fallen, since I am from Wisconsin, I must give an extra yah. YAAAH.

  16. Schulte: Nice try, but if you’re want to sound like a lawyer, you should use the phrases correctly.

    I mean, it’d help is all.

    1. RTC – I am not a lawyer, never said I was one. And I don’t play one on TV. However, I have as much right to think what might be the legal ramifications of a case as you do. Are you a lawyer? I know that you can use ad hominem attacks regularly, but rarely do you make a cogent argument for anything.

  17. SWM: David made flaming remarks, not inflammatory remarks, over insurrection, or was it…Oh never mind.:)

  18. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right

    Marriage is a Fundamental Right.

    “Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment.  These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process.  Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.  Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.”
     

    1. Annie, you are being deceived by the lawyers. When the courts ruled marriage to be a fundamental right, they did not even think about gay marriage. Marriage for them was between a man and woman who consummated the marriage through coitus. Reproduction was a major factor in recognizing marriage as a fundamental right. Go read those Supreme Court cases yourself, like Maynard v. Hill, and especially Skinner v. Oklahoma, which was a case about whether the State had the right to sterilize habitual criminals.

      Gay marriage is NOT a fundamental right. It should be subject to rational review by the federal courts, just like most contract law is.

  19. Kudos to the Judge that has seen clearly, the only people that can be denied access to marriage are fertile close blood opposites [guard against birth defects that could occur in the aggregate] – no others, either of close blood or of number can be so denied – – –

  20. No worries,Nick; I’m asking out of sincere curiosity. You missed my response about Devil’s Lake, but there’s a lot that I like about Wisconsin, and I’d like to know more.

    I know what you mean about the atitude that some have about this issue; I was waiting at an el station in Chicago some years back when I guy started hitting on me. I declined as politely as possible and he started going off on me for being a “homophobe” No, actually I’m just not gay, but more power to you, was my response. His attack was beyond reason, however I’ve never conflated his attitude with any of the other gays I’ve known over the years, anymore than I would assume Annie shared many of your views because you both live in Wisconsin. I treat people as individually.

    I like my gay neighbors, they fix up their homes to help keep up the property values, and they throw great parties. I think the militancy you’re sensing stems from their sense of being treated unfairly. As far as david’s issues go, that’s a whole ‘nother can o’ wax there, boy. One does not need to be a plumber to realize when the pipes are aleaking.

    As for this ruling being overturned, the S. Ct. is declining to hear these cases, so I doubt that this will be overturned.

    Sincerely, thanks for the answer. Seems rather reasonable to me.

Comments are closed.