Wisconsin State Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Amendment
Good.
A legal challenge to the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage was rejected Wednesday by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
In a 7-0 ruling, the court ruled the 2006 constitutional amendment was properly put to voters in a statewide referendum.
The court rejected a lawsuit that claimed the amendment violated a rule that limits referendum questions to a single subject. The legal challenge argued that gay marriage and civil unions were two different subjects.
The suit didn’t challenge the constitutionality of gay marriage, but rather, whether the correct procedure was used for adopting the Amendment. In other words, there will be future challenges on the constitutional issue.
My concern is that today’s ruling will affect another balloting issue—Milwaukee’s Paid Sick Leave. I fear that today’s ruling signals that the paid sick leave ordinance will be held to be properly enacted.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2010 at 0914 hrs
The suit didn’t challenge the constitutionality of gay marriage
Nor did it challenge the constitutionality of banning gay marriage.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2010 at 1133 hrs
Everywhere gay marriage has been voted on, by the public - it has lost. The only way I can see things changing in Wisconsin is if we get a federal amendment for gay marriage.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2010 at 1240 hrs
“The only way I can see things changing in Wisconsin is if we get a federal amendment for gay marriage.”
Is this because the Dem. controlled House and Senate have been ignoring what the public want?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2010 at 1317 hrs
This issue is strictly an age related one.
in the future, this will be the equivalent of asking if you’re left handed,
Young people don"t care about someone’s sexuality
They do care that everyone has the same rights.
The battle is over. It’s just a matter of time
and if you don"t believe me- ask george Will
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2010 at 1411 hrs
Mark,
You may be correct, or it may be that as those same young people mature and gain perspective in life, that their opinions will change.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2010 at 1420 hrs
I accept the ruling today. I felt that the case before the court was a stab in the dark. I’m even a little surprised that the court agreed to hear the case.
That said, I am still deeply ashamed we live in a state that passed that amendment. I only see it as a bigoted attempt to discriminate against people who are gay. Ugly ugly ugly. I sincerely doubt that it is an issue of maturity. I hope this next generation DOES look back at this amendment and wonder where our collective heads were at.
We have a long way to go and I hope we get there fast.
Posted by Mike on June 30, 2010 at 1446 hrs
The “everyone needs the same rights” argument is ridiculous. Everyone has the same rights. Everyone can get married to a member of the opposite sex.
What the homosexual lobby wants is government endorsement of their behavior.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2010 at 1506 hrs
How about they want government to bug the hell off and let them get married. What’s so wrong with that?
Posted by Mike on June 30, 2010 at 1509 hrs
I admit I don’t agree with the amendment - frankly, I couldn’t case less of one is gay or not. And it’s not like there’s anything sacred about marriage among us “normal” couples nowadays.
However (for the time being at least) this issue has been decided, and name calling isn’t going to change that. The gay community and its supporters should drop the invective. Someone is not a bigot simply because he or she disagrees with you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2010 at 1521 hrs
Question: What harm comes to you if two men or two women get married? After the ceremony do they run around with yardsticks hitting straight people?
I’m an ordained minister that can perform services in this state, I’ll be more than happy to open up a gay marriage chapel, complete with complimentary fuzzy robe and slippers for the honeymoon, once this state realizes gay marriage won’t hurt anyone.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on June 30, 2010 at 1847 hrs
If gay marriage is what the people want - why did the majority (including me) vote against it.
And Jay - I’m glad I don’t go to your church.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2010 at 1918 hrs
If gay marriage is what the people want - why did the majority (including me) vote against it.
And Jay - I’m glad I don’t go to your church.
OK good, but again, how does it hurt you?
Posted by Jay4Liberty on June 30, 2010 at 1921 hrs
Gay marriage only threatens to strengthen the institution of marriage. This is very likely why many social conservatives piss their pants when they see it coming down the social legislative path.
Posted by Mike on July 01, 2010 at 0032 hrs
If I were to support it, then it would hurt me Jay - as a minister you shouldn’t have too much trouble figuring that out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 0035 hrs
Mark Nailed it earlier. It is about equal rights… We the people, as citizens of the United States are guaranteed “equal protection of the laws”, and as far as I can tell, marriage as an institution provides certain legal rights and protections.
I am a conservative. I voted “NO” on the Amendment. I don’t believe an Archangel is going to swoop down and take my first born because I feel all human beings should be treated equally under the laws of the United States, and the State of Wisconsin, or for doing unto others as I would have them do unto me.
There are arguments to be made about the negative ramifications that gay marriage might have on society, such as an increase in cost of government as more people receive benefits from their gay spouse, but the evangelical stuff is getting tiring. There have been homosexuals as long as there have been human beings, the #1 canon of Christianity is to love thy neighbor as you love thyself, goodwill towards your fellow man is very positive, and it is a tenet that should be upheld.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 0736 hrs
Nor did it challenge the constitutionality of banning gay marriage.
Are you trying to suggest that Constitutional amendments are unconstitutional?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 0753 hrs
If I were to support it, then it would hurt me Jay - as a minister you shouldn’t have too much trouble figuring that out.
How? How would you be personally harmed?
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 01, 2010 at 0832 hrs
There are arguments to be made about the negative ramifications that gay marriage might have on society, such as an increase in cost of government as more people receive benefits from their gay spouse
That is a problem with the government benefits, a thing conservatives seem to have a problem with unless it directly benefits them. Do away with the tax payer funded benefits and where’s the problem?
I’m still waiting to hear how it would personally harm any one.
djmamavek, none of this is directed at you, I just used your words as examples.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 01, 2010 at 0836 hrs
How? How would you be personally harmed?
I think he is saying he would be “spiritually” harmed.
I just don’t buy it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 0841 hrs
I think he is saying he would be “spiritually” harmed.
I just don’t buy it.
Nor do I. If we used that to determine what is allowed and what isn’t, then there wouldn’t be much we could do but sit in a windowless room and stare into space.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 01, 2010 at 0858 hrs
Nor do I. If we used that to determine what is allowed and what isn’t, then there wouldn’t be much we could do but sit in a windowless room and stare into space.
I just don’t understand how these evangelicals operate, or where the logic is in that thinking… “If I know sin is going on, I am therefore spiritually damaged.” Well, brother, I guess we’re all going to hell…
If you are not engaging in sinful behavior, I don’t think you have anything to worry about.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 0904 hrs
“the #1 canon of Christianity is to love thy neighbor as you love thyself,”
“I’m still waiting to hear how it would personally harm any one.”
Homosexuality is an atheist doctrine and out of love Christians do not want an atheist society.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1125 hrs
Homosexuality is an atheist doctrine and out of love Christians do not want an atheist society.
This is a joke, right? You do know that there are homosexual Christians, don’t you?
I know two personally, and that is outside the hundreds of Catholic priests.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1223 hrs
Furthermore, homosexuality has existed longer than either Christianity, or its opposite.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1226 hrs
diamaayek -
your ignorance overwhelms you…Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1341 hrs
diamaayek -
your ignorance overwhelms you…1.) It’s djmamayek, copy and paste, learn it… love it.
2.) What the hell are you talking about? I know homosexual Christians, there is nothing, and can be nothing ignorant about a FACT. Secondly, priests who fondle and carry on sexual relationships with boys are homosexuals, and by definition Christian.
3.) Homosexuality existed before Christianity was a religion. Christ was born around the year 0. Christianity, could not exist before the birth of Christ (duh), and we have written records of homosexual behavior in Pompeii, Rome, Greece, and Mesopotamia, all of which were in existence before the birth of Christ.
4.) I am not homosexual, nor do I necessarily condone the behavior. I just think that the constitution says that rights and privileges cannot be bestowed selectively upon Americans. I don’t know why gay people are gay, although I have a pretty strong suspicion, from - you know - actually talking to gay people, that they don’t one day wake up and choose to make themselves part of a hated class of people. The more we learn about the human brain, personality, and genetic code, the closer we get to proving that point.
I don’t really feel very overwhelmed…. huh…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1403 hrs
Former Archbishop Rembert Weakland is a homosexual, and by definition a Christion….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1405 hrs
d…yek -
How can I ever repay you for exposing your profound insight.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1445 hrs
I think it is interesting that on this pretty conservative blog, there are no substantive defenses of the constitutional amendment in question. I know that wasn’t the original subject of the post, but still, that fact makes me think that this amendment will, one way or another, be short lived.
The Defense of Marriage Act is a farce with an utterly non-sensical name.
Posted by Mike on July 01, 2010 at 1626 hrs
“the #1 canon of Christianity is to love thy neighbor as you love thyself,”
“I’m still waiting to hear how it would personally harm any one.”
Homosexuality is an atheist doctrine and out of love Christians do not want an atheist society.
and this harms you how?
Conservatives have long cried out about government intrusion into their lives where it doesn’t belong, yet they have no problem using government to intrude on other people lives for things they don’t like. No harm is committed, no victim exists, yet they will use government to make a non-crime a crime or to punish those they don’t agree with. Interesting.
Without mentioning the bible, faith or any religion whatsoever…how does gay marriage personally harm you?
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 01, 2010 at 1842 hrs
Spot on Jay. There has been no substantive defense of the amendment here. The fact of the matter is that homosexuality makes people uncomfortable, and even if they are not normally predisposed to bigotry, for some reason the idea of gay people being able to enjoy the same rights they enjoy makes their skin crawl.
I am a federalist, and I support the rights of Wisconsinites to amend the state constitution to say whatever they want. I am just perplexed by this one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1902 hrs
Wow - funny to watch you guys tie yourselves in knots on this.
I don’t hate or am afraid of homosexuals, I know several, and go out to dinner with them, movies, etc. Yes I sin just like everyone else, but it doesn’t mean I should willfully support it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 2041 hrs
Bill-
Who cares whether or not you’re afraid of the gays? What makes you think you don’t willfully support sin? Voting for that amendment and denying people rights? Odd. So if you are a sinner (schnoodling people with similar plumbing), you should have some of your rights curtailed by the state? I don’t get it. I really really don’t.Who’s all tied up in knots here? The amendment is illogical.
Posted by Mike on July 02, 2010 at 0004 hrs
We seem to have a lot of people here pretending not to know why anyone might oppose same-sex marriage. (Hint: it’s not because it “personally” harms us - an old straw man.)
Here’s a refresher:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/19/opinion/oe-blankenhorn19
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on July 02, 2010 at 0027 hrs
Here’s a refresher:
Gay people are already raising children, out of wedlock. How does banning the Social and Legal structure which provides security for them beneficial to society?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 0955 hrs
Because civil recognition is meant to promote & reinforce the best environment for children, one with a father AND a mother.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on July 02, 2010 at 1159 hrs
Then why do we allow gays to adopt?
If a loving homosexual household is better than the foster cqre system, why not promote the notion of “intact” families across the board.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 1257 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 93
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 04:44 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).