- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,556
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The lawsuit alleged that Wisconsin's ban violates the plaintiffs' constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, asserting the prohibition deprives gay couples of the legal protections that married couples enjoy simply because of their gender.
Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban
The key part:
Use of the term gender instead of orientation could be important for future rulings. Have not read the ruling itself yet so take the reporting for what it is worth.
It's about time a judge figured that part out and put it in their ruling.
I don't see how gender is anymore or less important than designating the ruling based on orientation. The rulings all seem to come down to equal protection on a very minimal rational basis test. I have argued that legislation passed by states legislatures is by definition meeting the due process clause, and rational basis, as our representatives have carefully considered the legislation of banning gay marriage, and if that isn't at least meeting rational basis, I'm not sure what is? The problem, (I think) eventually will come down to whether the rationale to exclude gays in marriage (mostly the preservation of and or higher regard for heterosexual familial contributions to the state over that of gay marriage familial contributions) is rational. A great many do not, I however do think that children do best with both a biological mother and father, and both gender representations is important in ways we may not even know. I've heard the arguments against this notion, such as, single parents, broken homes, bad parents etc.. And I acknowledge that those are valid concerns, but rather than use it as a whipping boy against the virtue of perfect parents in perfect worlds (Which we do not live in and never will) I, on the other hand think that we simply need to move in directions that help strengthen families, and provide a more equal and fair system for divorcing parents allowing access to both equally as the presumption. Add in several other tweaks to marriage and domestic laws and I think we can accommodate all parties concerned.
Call me old fashioned if you like, but although I can't put my finger on any one glaring benefit and articulate why a child is better suited for having both biological parents involved and attentive, I do KNOW it when I see it. I don't see why gays or polygamists or any other consensual relationship can't enjoy civil unions, but I think marriage should be held to a higher standard, and reserve that standing for those that perpetuate the best model for success, and that's heterosexual marriages.
Tim-
.....I however do think that children do best with both a biological mother and father, and both gender representations is important in ways we may not even know. I've heard the arguments against this notion, such as, single parents, broken homes, bad parents etc..
And none of those concerns have ANYTHING to do with Same Sex Marriage, because whether marriage is allowed for Same Sex Couples or not they can STILL raise children regardless. So the "Oh please think of the children" excuse doesn't fly.
Are you seriously saying that Adam and Steve being married is going to be any different than Adam and Steve the Same Sex couple in raising children? If not, your concerns don't matter because regardless they can raise children together LEGALLY whether SSM is legal or not.
You are never going to make it illegal for gays to raise children. It simply isn't going to happen.
I can get married in my home. I can't believe it ...
Excellent point. I exercise four mornings a week with a guy who is gay and is raising a two children from S. America with his partner. SSM isn't legal in my state, but they were married in Maryland (as I recall) and were raising the kids for years before that. Another person in this group is gay and has been with the same partner for about a decade. They own several businesses together, their house, etc. and aren't legally 'married' in Tennessee but are also now married in another state. I can't see the benefit of Tennessee denying either couple the benefits of marriage. It won't cause them to not be gay, or to not live together, or for the one couple to not raise the kids they adopted from an orphanage, etc. And it won't affect the many straight couples in our group with children, or my own marriage, and it won't bring together broken straight families, or cause any straight families to break apart.
It is sad that this is what the court system has become. There is something Orwellian in stating that only extending legal recognition to a traditional marital relationship is now unconstitutional. Of course, certain "liberals" who care naught for the constitution or "rights" except when it suits their policy objectives are going to cheer such a decision. When the same pseudo-constitutional approach is taken to something they oppose then there is a lot of ranting about the court making the wrong decision as there was with Citizens United. The Supreme Court was never intended to be politicized in this manner, though I suppose it was inevitable given that they are ultimately political appointees.
I'll start with this. It's actually a pretty important distinction.I don't see how gender is anymore or less important than designating the ruling based on orientation.
I'm not sure I follow. If "it was enacted" meets the rational basis test, then rational basis isn't a test at all.The rulings all seem to come down to equal protection on a very minimal rational basis test. I have argued that legislation passed by states legislatures is by definition meeting the due process clause, and rational basis, as our representatives have carefully considered the legislation of banning gay marriage, and if that isn't at least meeting rational basis, I'm not sure what is?
Preventing same-sex couples from marrying does not decrease divorce rates, it does not decrease broken homes, it does not decrease single-parent households, and it does not decrease the number of bad parents. If you think there is a rational basis for believing same-sex marriage bans do any of these things, feel free to post it. "there might be other good things to do" is not an argument for same-sex marriage bans.The problem, (I think) eventually will come down to whether the rationale to exclude gays in marriage (mostly the preservation of and or higher regard for heterosexual familial contributions to the state over that of gay marriage familial contributions) is rational. A great many do not, I however do think that children do best with both a biological mother and father, and both gender representations is important in ways we may not even know. I've heard the arguments against this notion, such as, single parents, broken homes, bad parents etc.. And I acknowledge that those are valid concerns, but rather than use it as a whipping boy against the virtue of perfect parents in perfect worlds (Which we do not live in and never will) I, on the other hand think that we simply need to move in directions that help strengthen families, and provide a more equal and fair system for divorcing parents allowing access to both equally as the presumption. Add in several other tweaks to marriage and domestic laws and I think we can accommodate all parties concerned.
Call me old fashioned if you like, but although I can't put my finger on any one glaring benefit and articulate why a child is better suited for having both biological parents involved and attentive, I do KNOW it when I see it. I don't see why gays or polygamists or any other consensual relationship can't enjoy civil unions, but I think marriage should be held to a higher standard, and reserve that standing for those that perpetuate the best model for success, and that's heterosexual marriages.
Tim-
It is sad that this is what the court system has become. There is something Orwellian in stating that only extending legal recognition to a traditional marital relationship is now unconstitutional. Of course, certain "liberals" who care naught for the constitution or "rights" except when it suits their policy objectives are going to cheer such a decision. When the same pseudo-constitutional approach is taken to something they oppose then there is a lot of ranting about the court making the wrong decision as there was with Citizens United. The Supreme Court was never intended to be politicized in this manner, though I suppose it was inevitable given that they are ultimately political appointees.
I don't see how gender is anymore or less important than designating the ruling based on orientation. The rulings all seem to come down to equal protection on a very minimal rational basis test. I have argued that legislation passed by states legislatures is by definition meeting the due process clause, and rational basis, as our representatives have carefully considered the legislation of banning gay marriage, and if that isn't at least meeting rational basis, I'm not sure what is? The problem, (I think) eventually will come down to whether the rationale to exclude gays in marriage (mostly the preservation of and or higher regard for heterosexual familial contributions to the state over that of gay marriage familial contributions) is rational. A great many do not, I however do think that children do best with both a biological mother and father, and both gender representations is important in ways we may not even know. I've heard the arguments against this notion, such as, single parents, broken homes, bad parents etc.. And I acknowledge that those are valid concerns, but rather than use it as a whipping boy against the virtue of perfect parents in perfect worlds (Which we do not live in and never will) I, on the other hand think that we simply need to move in directions that help strengthen families, and provide a more equal and fair system for divorcing parents allowing access to both equally as the presumption. Add in several other tweaks to marriage and domestic laws and I think we can accommodate all parties concerned.
Call me old fashioned if you like, but although I can't put my finger on any one glaring benefit and articulate why a child is better suited for having both biological parents involved and attentive, I do KNOW it when I see it. I don't see why gays or polygamists or any other consensual relationship can't enjoy civil unions, but I think marriage should be held to a higher standard, and reserve that standing for those that perpetuate the best model for success, and that's heterosexual marriages.
Tim-
Call me old fashioned if you like, but although I can't put my finger on any one glaring benefit and articulate why a child is better suited for having both biological parents involved and attentive, I do KNOW it when I see it. I don't see why gays or polygamists or any other consensual relationship can't enjoy civil unions, but I think marriage should be held to a higher standard, and reserve that standing for those that perpetuate the best model for success, and that's heterosexual marriages.
Tim-
Apparently you do not understand the constitution and what it means.
Invoking Orwell, eh? So where's the oppression, exactly?
Which part of your life is so dramatically affected by two dudes getting married?
It is hard to keep track when the "meaning" is constantly changing with the tide of politics. Then again, as I recall, you do not understand that "free speech" is not solely about freedom from government. So maybe this is more your problem.
No history and tradition of marriage between races prior to Loving?? The judge is either suprisingly uneducated, or thinks herself to be so powerful that she can make up history in addition to law.Nicely written ruling, makes frequent reference to Loving, stating that prior to Loving, there was no history and tradition of marriage between races, so trying to claim tradition here fails.
No history and tradition of marriage between races prior to Loving?? The judge is either suprisingly uneducated, or thinks himself to be so powerful that he can make up history in addition to law.
There ain't none.Invoking Orwell, eh? So where's the oppression, exactly? Which part of your life is so dramatically affected by two dudes getting married?
John Byron "J.B." Van Hollen (born February 19, 1966) is the Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin. A Republican, he was elected to the office in November 2006 and took office on January 3, 2007
In September 2008, Van Hollen sued the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, the state elections agency, to force it check voter registrations for accuracy. Van Hollen said that the motivation for the lawsuit was that potentially illegal votes could sway the election. On October 23, 2008, a Dane County circuit judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Van Hollen did not have standing to bring the lawsuit, because only the Attorney General of the United States can enforce federal law.
On October 7, 2013, Van Hollen announced he will not seek reelection in 2014 for a third term as attorney general.
IT IS ORDERED that
1. The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Scott Walker, J.B. Van Hollen and
Oskar Anderson, dkt. #66, is DENIED.
2. The motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs Virginia Wolf, Carol
Schumacher, Kami Young, Karina Willes, Roy Badger, Garth Wangemann, Charvonne
Kemp, Marie Carlson, Judith Trampf, Katharina Heyning, Salud Garcia, Pamela Kleiss,
William Hurtubise, Leslie Palmer, Johannes Wallmann and Keith Borden, dkt. #70 is
GRANTED.
3. It is DECLARED that art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution violates
plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any Wisconsin statutory
provisions, including those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a
“husband” and a “wife,” are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.
4. Plaintiffs may have until June 16, 2014, to submit a proposed injunction that
complies with the requirement in Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C) to “describe in reasonable
detail . . . the act or acts restrained or required.” In particular, plaintiffs should identify what
they want each named defendant to do or be enjoined from doing. Defendants may have one
week from the date plaintiffs file their proposed injunction to file an opposition. If
defendants file an opposition, plaintiffs may have one week from that date to file a reply in
support of their proposed injunction.
5. I will address defendants’ pending motion to stay the injunction after the parties
wish, they may have until June 16, 2014, to supplement their materials related to that
motion in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Geiger v. Kitzhaber not to grant a stay
in that case.
Entered this 6th day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?