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.
nick, Really! As a lesbian she is quite qualified to address the gay conversion provision in the Texas republican platform.
Rachel Maddow pontificating on Texas Republicans. Really..REALLY! In another shocker, Sean Hannity rips Massachusetts Democrats.
“Under the new proposed plank, the Texas GOP will “recognize the legitimacy and efficacy of counselling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle.”
Forces the Democrats to take a position – – what do you say to the child that has been sexually assaulted, that is confused as to their sexuality – – sorry kid – you’re out of luck – you were sodomized because you’re really homosexual – – no counseling available – –
Forces the democrats to come to the table and work it out – – –
To recognize the legitimacy and efficacy of counselling for those patients seeking healing”
‘To recognize the legitimacy and efficacy of counselling for those patients seeking healing”’
Is there any evidence at all for the efficacy of reparative therapy?
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd – let’s play nice.
==================
Remember that.
“This case is about power in several respects. It is about
the power of our people to govern themselves, and the
power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion
aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of
diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this
case. And even if we did, we have no power under the
Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted leg-
islation.
The Court’s errors on both points spring forth
from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the
role of this institution in America. ”
“In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will
take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated
beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the
real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing
trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is
that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’. …How easy it
is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.
As far as this Court is
concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of
listening and waiting for the other shoe.”
Scalia-Windsor
He is right on all counts and Kennedy’s opinion was just a temporary “way-stop” until the Court invalidates state laws.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/what-makes-the-texas-republican-party-special “Looking back over the last several years, there’s always been something truly hysterical – in more ways than one – about the official platforms adopted by the Texas Republican Party. Year in and year out, it’s consistently one of the more astounding documents one will find in 21st century American politics.
This year’s platform will keep the tradition alive.
The Texas Republican Party would endorse psychological treatment that seeks to turn gay people straight under a new platform partly aimed at rebuking laws in California and New Jersey that ban so-called “reparative therapy” on minors. […]
Under the new proposed plank, the Texas GOP will “recognize the legitimacy and efficacy of counseling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle.”
In case there are any doubts, let’s go ahead and note that “reparative therapy” on gay people of any age is a cruel, offensive, and potentially dangerous joke. The idea that someone’s sexual orientation can be changed through “counseling” is demonstrably ridiculous and has been thoroughly discredited by experts.
And yet, it will be the official position of the Texas Republican Party that such “therapy” is both legitimate and effective. Why? Because the Texas Republican Party says so.
But that’s not all they’re saying. The Texas GOP’s platform will also call for the complete elimination of the Voting Rights Act; policymakers at all levels should deliberately “ignore” climate change; public schools should end sex-ed and start promoting Christianity; abortion should be banned; English should be the official language of Texas and of the United States; open-carry laws should apply to gun owners statewide; and finally, “We support the establishment and maintenance of a volunteer Constitutional State Militia with assistance from County Sheriffs.”
SWM – reparative therapy was brought to us by psychologists when homosexuality was considered a mental illness.
‘same-sex marriage somehow poses a threat to heterosexual relationships’
Door Number Three is always overlooked – – the tenants and ideology of civil marriage is closeted to those of civil marriage – – Has no effect or voice within the Heterosexual Co-habit relationships. [Census data] Looking at the numbers, approx 56 million civil marriage couples, 53 million heterosexual co-habit couples, number of heterosexual co-habits continues to climb – – Few short years the institution of the Heterosexual Co-Habit will be the dominate institution – – completely free from the tenants and ideology of civil marriage – –
MikeA, I am told by women all the time that our emotions are unassailable. When you say, “This is how I feel” then the conversation is over. There is no legitimate retort. I of course don’t abide that, but many people do. I would have put you in the camp that all emotions are real and honest. I reckon I was wrong?
When I coached kids I always taught them to NEVER celebrate until the game is over. And, I used opposing teams celebrating prematurely as a motivating tool, pointing it out and getting our team to rally from big deficits to win. Judge Crabb is a lightweight, not a middleweight and certainly not a heavyweight. She is a big liberal fish in a small liberal pond. As I said, she is intelligent, gracious, and sociable. But, many groups have popped the champagne corks celebrating her decisions prematurely, only to cry in their beers when the 7th Circuit rules. You’ve been warned. Celebrate winning the pennant, but there’s still the World Series coming up.
Mike A
Nice work on ‘agenda’. Thanks.
Chuck
That will be my good news of the day – not a minor pleasure. god knows there is little in the news to feel happy about.
Thanks
No Child of Americas Plural Families shall suffer by the sword of law to exist as second class – – They shall all ‘Drink from the same Water Fountain, Eat at the same Lunch Counter and Ride as equals within the Bus – – -‘
Sword of law suffers them to be as second class – it is not the children that shall suffer by the sword, it is the pen that shall shall suffer the Sword of Law to include those children as equals . . .
Mike, I suspect that these concerns about plural marriage are brought up in same sex marriage discussions by some to point out some ‘hypocrisy’ on the part of same sex marriage advocates. If two people or more people want to exercise their right to privacy, as do women seeking abortion, who are we to stop them?
Annie:
I believe you are absolutely correct and that plural marriage will eventually receive legal recognition.
Hey you guys upthread. Don’t knock Mississippi too much. After all, the City Council of Jackson, MS just voted a resolution endorsing equal rights for LGBT people. Vote was 3-1. The significance of that is that Jackson is the largest city in Mississippi, and is the state capitol. Jackson now joins seven other Mississippi cities passing diversity resolutions, Those include Starkville, Hattiesburg, Greenville, Magnolia, Bay St. Louis, Oxford, and Waveland.
Factoid: Waveland, MS is the Gulf Coast town that was ground zero for Hurricane Katrina to make landfall. Nine years later they are still rebuilding from the devastation. I assume that Mayor David Garcia’s leadership in Waveland’s resolution assuring equal rights for all citizens Is probably part of that rebuilding. Mayor Garcia was quoted as saying,
davidm:
We have still not had the natural law debate on marriage I promised some time ago. That is only because I am still working through my thoughts on issues like complementarity. However, while I respect your sincere opposition to same-sex marriage, I believe that defining the movement as a “fad” demeans the debate and unfairly labels the opinions of homosexuals as unworthy of serious reflection. Moreover, I have yet to see a persuasive argument supporting the proposition that same-sex marriage somehow poses a threat to heterosexual relationships.
I have also criticised use of the phrase “homosexual agenda” with its implication of unprincipled militancy. Every historical movement, from abolitionism to labor unionism to women’s suffrage to voting rights, has faced resistance in various forms, including claims that the movement’s supporters had an “agenda” comprised of goals beyond those publicly acknowledged. This type of assertion is intended to suggest that a movement has hidden and dangerous motives which, if disclosed, would destroy the movement’s legitimacy and credibility. It is a form of slander by innuendo intended to divert attention from a consideration of the controversy on its merits. The truth, of course, is that no expansion of our understanding of the elements of human freedom has ever achieved acceptance in the absence of a period of militant advocacy. Therefore, the claim that a supporter of gay marriage is advancing a “homosexual agenda” is both self-evidently true and emotionally dishonest.
Mike Appleton wrote: “I believe that defining the movement as a “fad” demeans the debate and unfairly labels the opinions of homosexuals as unworthy of serious reflection.”
As I have said many times before, I am not convinced by the “marriage equality” argument. It is a carefully orchestrated ruse crafted to destroy the institution of marriage. Already you have indicated that you do not view marriage as an institution, but simply as a partnership contract.
The word “fad” aptly describes it because the institution of marriage has been around longer than the English language, yet the popularity of “gay marriage” has risen astronomically in just the last decade. I do not believe that most people who support gay marriage have seriously studied and considered the ramifications of what gay marriage means to civil society and the nuclear family. The strongest argument I have seen for gay marriage is that traditional marriage already is practically non-existent, so why not redefine it to let same sex partners marry?
I am late to the party, but I continue to be astonished how anyone can consider the ability to marry the person you love as a fad or something a majority of the voters can prohibit. You are either equal under the law or you are not. Good article Darren!
I know you love your laptop Paul, but I hate to break it to you, it’s not human.
‘I know you love your laptop Paul, but I hate to break it to you, it’s not human.’
That is so specieist.
The relevant question is can the laptop give informed consent – and that is only a matter of time.
BFM,
Maybe his smartphone can.
Annie and BFM – I think the better question is, are any of them of legal age to give consent?
” I think the better question is, are any of them of legal age to give consent?”
If you are thinking of tying the knot with an IBM PS/2, it is likely old enough to give legal consent, but maybe not smart enough. Anything newer is probably a felony in any state in the union.
bfm – I have a trash 80 that should be old enough. 🙂
Annie – I have no love for either my laptop or my desktop, but I think you are a too long a distance to decide whether it is human or not.
“People have been prosecuted under this since the 1950s…There is no cohabitation clause anymore, that was struck down, the court did what we suggested. Utah now has a conventional bigamy law…Many people are confusing bigamy with polygamy. Bigamy is having multiple marriage licenses. That’s a crime that is committed almost exclusively by people who hold themselves as monogamists. It is not a crime that is generally committed by polygamists who traditionally have one marriage license and the rest are spiritual marriages. So what Utah has now is it says that anybody, regardless of the structure of your family, with more than one license can be prosecuted. We have no problem with that. Polygamy is legal. In the same way that homosexual was decriminalized in Lawrence v. Texas. It is now legal to be plural in a family. Polygamy does not mean having multiple marriage licenses, it means having a plural family.”
“Reynolds in my view is one of the most infamous decisions the court has ever handed down. It was filled with rather racist and hateful statements directed against Mormons. The language the courts used was clearly to denounce what it considered to be an amoral practice that it associated with Africa and Asia. It’s an opinion that I recommend that people read, because it’s truly horrific. It’s astonishing that it has never been overturned. In fact, it is the foundation for what are called morality laws. The most interesting aspect of Judge Waddoups’ opinion is it shows a clean break from our long history of morality laws that banned everything from fornication to adultery to cohabitation. These are laws in which the majority simply criminalizes things they consider to be fundamentally immoral. This case represents part of a trend in which we’re moving away from those laws and in my view we’re a better nation for it. I happen to think that the Sister Wives’ case is a victory for morality in the sense that it lets every family follow its own faith and values so long as they don’t harm others. For me that’s a victory for morality, and it’s also a victory for privacy. In fact, I think this has a lot more to do with privacy than it does with polygamy.”
***********************************
Who said this?
Monte, I agree that plural marriage should be legal too.