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.
You want an example of Natural Law? Read about the guy who killed his wife for not preparing his goat properly. That’s a natural law defense.
The goat is my property; my wife is my property; my wife failed to prepare the goat properly, thereby depriving me of my enjoyment of my property, so I undertook my rights, as taught to me by my father, who learned them from his father, who learned these rights as they have come down through the generations from the time of Abraham.
That’s your natural law.
And you are quite emotional on the subject of gay marriage
David: I got some verbs for you…. The lady said that the rich were being taxed into oblivion. I called her out on that as being a ridiculous statement in light of the unquestionable economic facts.
As far as your statement in this thread you said “Rulings like this one…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.”
Rulings like this one brought about by the ACLU and the homosexual agenda will precipitate an insurrection. Even when you’re claimoing to own your statements, you refuse to own your statements. No wonder you’d rather own randyjets comments.
Nick: Madison, huhhh?
David: Your errors have been pointed out to you repeatedly on this blog and you have rarely ever done anything but dig further in and double down. In fact, the degree to which you make yourself out to be an iconoclast leads me to question the “sincerity” of your wish to be judged by others.
As for your pain reading the thread conversation between me and Karen, it was the pain of seeing your ideological soulmate getting drubbed for the hyperbolic comments she made. Oblivion=out of existence=extinct; there’s no misreading the shrillness. It shows how out of touch with reality she is when every economic indication points to greater wealth increasing in fewer hands, caused by a growing income disparity, aided by innumerable tax loopholes available only to the rich. She would have had a better argument if she had said the middle class is being taxed into oblivion, which is true. There is a transfer of wealth taking place and it’s all going to the top, but your Fox Fantasy News crew has you blaming the poor instead.
But the issue on this thread is your declaration that decisions like the one in Wisconsin are tyrannical and are the reason for rebellion and insurrection. Nothing could be more ridiculous. I see no tyranny involved in allowing same sex couples the right to marry; there’s nothing forcing me to do anything. You would have a better case for saying that forcing Americans to buy health insurance is tyranny.
You, Schulte, and Karen like to repeat the nonsense you from the cast of Fox, and then claim that what you said isn’t what you heard. I recall the time you claimed the gubmint forced the banks to make all those bad subprime loans, and when nearly a dozen posters cited reports and testimony to the contrary, you said you merely meant to say how great it is to own property.
You want to be judged? You are disingenuous – at best – and it is an issue with you time and again where you simply will not own your statements.
RTC – HO HUM HO HUM
RTC wrote: “As for your pain reading the thread conversation between me and Karen, it was the pain of seeing your ideological soulmate getting drubbed for the hyperbolic comments she made.”
No, not even close. My pain was for you repeatedly showing how inept you were in understanding her basic English. No matter how much she tried to clarify the issue, you were blinded by malevolent bias to see something evil and wrong where it did not exist.
RTC wrote: “I see no tyranny involved in allowing same sex couples the right to marry…”
As I said previously, it is not even this particular issue per se. It is the way that the court breaks ranks with the Constitution in order to change the language of the law to create what they perceive to be some kind of justice based upon a perverted idea of equality. I suggest you read randyjet on this issue. He articulates the issue so much better than me.
RTC wrote: “You would have a better case for saying that forcing Americans to buy health insurance is tyranny.”
Yes, that is part of the pattern of tyranny too. New governments are rarely established over single issues.
RTC wrote: “I recall the time you claimed the gubmint forced the banks to make all those bad subprime loans, and when nearly a dozen posters cited reports and testimony to the contrary, you said you merely meant to say how great it is to own property.”
I have no idea what you are talking about. The government is responsible for causing lenders to earn millions through lending to people who could not repay their loans. I’ve never backed away from this position.
RTC wrote: “You want to be judged? You are disingenuous – at best – and it is an issue with you time and again where you simply will not own your statements.”
I always own my statements. I do not own the mistaken notions of what biased people brainwashed by the liberal media think that I am saying. I am against the notion of gay marriage on biological and scientific grounds as well as Natural Law Theory. The minds of some people are programmed to think, “you are against gay marriage? Then you are a homophobe, a hater, a racist, an evil man.” I own the fact that I am against gay marriage. I do not own the labels of homophobe, hater, racist, or evil man.
. . . serves no practical purpose to encourage or discourage civil marriage – – Does this now leave the state in the position of unconstitutionally denying the equally situated co-habits the same state benefits it affords marriage – – ?
5th Amendment – similarly-situated – –
J. Brian,
I released your comment from the spam filter.
Now, as for that “AGENDA” bit…
… Freedom and equality is an American agenda. NO?
p.s.
And pointing out the errors of ways is different than sitting in judgement of someone. The former allows an explanation and dialogue with a resolution, the latter is resolute and no dialogue is required, just dictates.
i.e. Why did you do that and how can that be avoided moving forward?
vs. You’re going to hell for “THAT”.
Well David, I’m not going to tell you where your eternal soul will spend its days, nights and weekends. And I’m not going to use the words of mankind disguised as a Holy Bible (buybull) as my context for doing so.
Letting you know how to be a better person isn’t judging you. It’s advice!
Yea David… that was an oops, as highlighted by the following post of mine.
But you knew that…
J. Brian Harris
Almost 40 years together. Congrats!!!
Oops… meant: I sit in the Lord’s judgement, not your’s.
davidm2575
Are you really suggesting that I should judge you as harshly as you sit in judgement of me? I sit in judgement of nobody BUT the Lord… and you ain’t my Lord.
Max-1 wrote: “I sit in judgement of nobody BUT the Lord…”
Is that a typo or freudian slip? You sit in judgement of the Lord? Really?
davidm2575
You can judge away to your heart’s content… THAT is about you.
That was Jesus’ message. And if you don’t want to be judged, don’t judge.
“Do unto others AS YOU would have them do UNTO YOU.”
… Judge or not?
Max-1 wrote: ““Do unto others AS YOU would have them do UNTO YOU.”
… Judge or not?”
I want to be judged. My thinking is that if people judge me now, it exposes my errors, and then I can fix my mistakes and thereby escape a harsh judgment later.
DavidM:
Many people dont want their actions judged and do not want to take responsibility for bad actions.
I dont think Jesus was a moral relativist.
I find political cultists, from both ends of the spectrum, to be the most judgmental.
Sexuality is hard wired… just ask the self professed “straight” men about their hard wiring. Women claim it was engineered by a dawg… I chalk it up to poor “choices” men make.
The mind is a beautiful thing… People can choose to use it for good or evil.
God asks that we choose to not judge… that is a mental act we make.
Max-1 wrote: “God asks that we choose to not judge… that is a mental act we make.”
Max, just as a point of theology, God says we are all gods. Well, god’s judge, so God expects us to judge. The good book also says that he who is spiritual judges all things. The often quoted passage in Mat. 7 that says “Judge not let ye be judged” is Jesus telling hypocrites not to judge because they will be judged by the same standard with which they judge. In other words, the theological synthesis is that hypocrites should not judge, but spiritual giants should judge everything. None of us should condemn another person, though, because we all need mercy because all have sinned.
J. Brian Harris, I want to let you know that I appreciated your post where you opened up about yourself. I have a few questions in the back of my mind, but I’m not really sure this is the right forum because this subject is clearly very personal to you. I am interested in hearing you, so hopefully someone can free your last post for us.
Did some unrecognizably (by me) improperly chosen words invoke the wrath of the WordPress Akismet spam filter in my comment of a few moments ago?