Federal judge strikes down Wisconsin ban on gay marriage

Comments (43)
NDewar wrote:

I wish the Republicans would run on the economy and the vision for smaller government. Those are winning issues. Fighting gay marriage is a non-starter and makes people like me, who agree almost entirely with Republican economic policies, question who to vote for.

Jun 06, 2014 9:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
PAlexander wrote:

Makes my heart happy to know that those who love one another can finally be able to share in the vows of marriage, overcoming years of bigotry and prejudice. Amen.

Jun 06, 2014 9:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
cyeager wrote:

Once upon a constitutional era the Representation of our Regulators was based on the intent of the People. Now we are no more than a dictatorship awaiting the next level of imposed exploitation.
Government was never designed to defy the will of the People.
With the Media promoting drug use and sexuality the People already know how powerless this Nation truly has become.

Jun 06, 2014 9:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
cyeager wrote:

Once upon a constitutional era the Representation of our Regulators was based on the intent of the People. Now we are no more than a dictatorship awaiting the next level of imposed exploitation.
Government was never designed to defy the will of the People.
With the Media promoting drug use and sexuality the People already know how powerless this Nation truly has become.

Jun 06, 2014 9:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
duke38632 wrote:

One man One woman. Not simple enough for this judge!

Jun 06, 2014 9:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
cyeager wrote:

Another federal intrusion on States rights purely against the Constitution…

Jun 06, 2014 9:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Lesson to be learned by all states/voters: Approve/vote for gay marriage or it will be approved/voted for you. That said, just do it already an save yourself the embarrassment of being labeled a bigot and homophobe.

You will accept and support the gay agenda or you will be forced to by law!

Jun 06, 2014 9:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Dreammaker711 wrote:

I hope the Judge gets struck by lightning on the way home, and that it burns off his testicals, sounds like he doesn’t need them anyway.

Jun 06, 2014 9:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ThePlantz wrote:

This is the same libtard judge who ruled the national day of prayer unconstitutional and tax free housing allowances for the clergy unconstitutional. She is your typical Madison uber-liberal and the reason that the clerks for Milwaukee and Dane Co. were ready and waiting to start performing the marriages today is because we all knew this judge would rule this way.

Jun 06, 2014 9:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jerryball wrote:

The Supreme Court of the Land refused to hear a stay order for Oregon’s marriage equality. Wisconsin say they’re going to appeal. Good luck with that LOSER.

Jun 06, 2014 9:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jerryball wrote:

The Supreme Court of the Land refused to hear Oregon’s court order to stop gay marriages. Wisconsin attorney general is going to seek a stay order. What a LOSER that one is before the stay order ink is even dry.

Jun 06, 2014 9:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jerryball wrote:

cyeager: You’re Constitutionally full of it. The Bill of Rights States “All Men Are Created Equal.” The Constitutional Amendment States: EQUAL protection of law. What part of EQUAL do you not get in your dictatorship dithering? Not only EQUAL, but there are LAWS against the tyranny of the majority taking away a minority’s RIGHTS !

Jun 06, 2014 9:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jakku wrote:

It is quite sad, that these states who are always inthe lag end of any social issue have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Jun 06, 2014 9:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Dr_Steve wrote:

I’m fond of Robin Williams’ line in the movie in which he, as a comedian, was running for President (and mistakenly elected). When asked if he thought whether gays should be allowed to marry, he quipped, “Sure, why shouldn’t they be miserable like the rest of us.”

‘Nuff said, partners.

Jun 06, 2014 10:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Current20 wrote:

The Constitution of these United States is the Supreme Law of the land…

The judge’s opinion found the voter-approved amendment in violation of the US Constitution. No matter the origin of that law, whether by legislature or “the people,” a violation of the Constitution is a violation and it is the duty of the judiciary to nullify it.

Jun 06, 2014 11:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
nobikiniatoll wrote:

Silly rabbit…the U.S. Constitution always trumps the “will of the voters”.

Jun 06, 2014 11:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Ragozzi999 wrote:

Welcome to “democracy”… LOL!

Jun 06, 2014 11:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
GodIsNotHappy wrote:

Leviticus 18
21 … I am the LORD.
22 ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
23 ‘Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
24 ‘Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.
25 ‘For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.
(NASB)

Jun 06, 2014 12:05am EDT  --  Report as abuse
yaoguai wrote:

@AshBB
You’re correct that the gay viewpoint will never be accepted by all. There are millions still living in ignorance who have no desire to change their bigotry and intolerance.
As for the “gay agenda” you mention, you might not consider it an “agenda” if it came down to an entire legal system preventing you and your loved one from legal marriage. I think your perspective might change if you were the one being discriminated against.
Make no mistake; this law, upheld by the majority of Wisconcin voters, was blatant discrimination born of mass hysteria/paranoia.

Jun 06, 2014 12:08am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jaggiwow wrote:

SO MANY BUTTHURT CONSERVATIVES.

Have fun growing old before your time because you live lives of hatred instead of love.

Jun 06, 2014 12:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
yaoguai wrote:

It’s really funny to see these so-called “Constitutionalists” getting their panties in a bunch over this blatantly discriminatory law.
You love the Constitution when it supports your right to deny gays marriage, but when it is proven time and again that such a law is unconstitutional, you start whining like someone took your freedom away.

Here is a simple explanation; let’s say Wisconsinites overwhelmingly vote to bring back slavery, how long would that law live before the Fed court struck it down? Any fool can get the 10,000 signatures to put a measure on a ballot.

It’s pretty simple actually; you still have your right to vote the way you want–so long as your measure does not rescind the freedoms of others. The Wisconsin vote is based on ignorance and hysteria, not on equality and justice for all. That’s both unconstitutional and un-American.

Jun 07, 2014 2:11am EDT  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

What the heck, gays may as well be as miserable as other married couples.

Jun 07, 2014 2:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
eirwinrommel wrote:

cyeager, by your logic the Jim Crow laws and segregation should still be the law on the south. By the way drug use and sexuality were around before the ‘media’.

Jun 07, 2014 3:06am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:

AshBB asks:
“And if all people are equal, why can’t children marry?”

As a society, we’ve agreed children don’t have the full agency to enter a contract such as marriage. Next stupid question?

Jun 07, 2014 3:52am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:

@jim_in_nc wrote:

“These amendments pass by voter majorities after long, hard fought campaigns. A single judge then overturns the whole thing!”

Yup, and it’s a damn shame that time and time again that’s how civil rights in the U.S. works.

Jun 07, 2014 3:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
REnninga wrote:

The dominoes continue to topple, state by state, as Americans are repeatedly reminded that our Constitutional Republic is a nation built and sustained on the premise that all men and women are created equal, and that Americans do not vote to subvert or deny the equal rights and equal protections of others.

And it is gratifying that these Federal Courts decisions are causing the most virulently hateful and intolerant bigots in our society to reveal themselves to us, by their words and actions, and in so doing shame themselves in full view of average, compassionate and tolerant Americans so that we can express to them our disdain for their inhumanity.

Jun 07, 2014 6:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Diminias wrote:

As a resident of Wisconsin I’m glad to see the federal constitution strike down a law that discriminates. I was deeply ashamed by the people in my state when this ammendment to the state constitution was passed. The fact that anyone mwould choose to defend such a law is beyond imagining.

Jun 07, 2014 8:05am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Marla wrote:

CIVIL RIGHTS are for everyone, not just people you like or agree with! Regardless of my personal feelings about same sex marriage, I am capable of understanding that a civil marriage license is a legal construct between the state and two consenting adults, period. It is not my right to say that laws only apply to some people and not others, therefore it only makes sense that civil marriage be afforded to whomever wishes to enter into that legal status.

Jun 07, 2014 8:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
crod526 wrote:

Good once again it shows that voters cannot discriminate minorities in a free country.

Jun 07, 2014 8:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JL4 wrote:

Congratulations to same-sex couples in Wisconsin.

How do I know marriage is a civil union and not a religious union? Try upholding a divorce settlement agreement in church.

Jun 07, 2014 10:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:

@Daniel77 wrote:
“Get the Feds out of state legislation. Homosexuality is depravity and an abomination in the sight of God.”

Danny here doesn’t seem to know our government is expressly set up so State legislatures are partially controlled by the Federal government, and completely separate from the Bible.

Jun 07, 2014 11:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
wayner1 wrote:

There is a delicious bit of irony here. Although the Judge declares the Wisconsin Constitution Amendment offensive, she can only “enjoin” the state authorities from enforcing it. She cannot remove the offending amendment from the Wisconsin Constitution. It will remain as a monument to the Wisconsin bigots who passed it and it is they who will have to explain their vote to their grandchildren. Good luck to them, since now 77% of people under age 30 have no problem with gay marriage, so grannie and gramps may well be remembered for their bigotry. Of course, the Wisconsin residents can always eat crow and go through the motions of removing this putrid provision from their constitution, but the 2006 voters will always be remembered as the first bigots to have successfully used the Wisconsin Constitution to illegally deprive other citizens of their fundamental rights.

Jun 07, 2014 1:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
tatman wrote:

the freedoms of americans and their rights to equal protection under the constitution should NEVER BE UP FOR PUBLIC VOTE. the mob mentality is not to become a tool used to subvert the constitution and perpetuate discrimination and the delegation of americans into a second class citizen status.

the hatred spewing from the many conservative voices above only goes to demonstrate why the courts are needed to correct the misguided repression of americans by the majority, and further underscores how backwards, ignorant and hateful the conservative right wing movement in america has become.

it was american citizens who voted for slavery and subsequent segregation laws which caused countless horrors, abuses and misery upon people in this nation. and it was the wisdom of the court and champions for freedom who overturned this repression.

regardless of your views on the lgbt community, we have a fundamental right to exist and enjoy the freedoms and protection of our constitution, whether you haters want it or not. my freedom is not up for vote by the tyranny of the majority. period.

Jun 07, 2014 1:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BeBopman wrote:

NDewar wrote:

I wish the Republicans would run on the economy and the vision for smaller government.
——-
Except that Republicans don’t really believe in smaller government. They just believe in having a larger government serving the elites instead of the people. Most of the national debt is the result of Republican leaders, starting with Reagan leaving office with the 8 largest budget deficits of all time, not to mention GW Bush leaving office with the first trillion-dollar deficit, after Clinton had left him a surplus. Since Reagan was first elected, there have been only 2 Democratic presidents, and both substantially reduced giant deficits left to them by Republican presidents. And yet, some people still think it’s the Republicans who produce “smaller government.” ….. If you really want “smaller government”, OK. But, if that’s true, you need to find someone else to vote for instead of the Republicans. Bill Clinton can’t run again.

Jun 07, 2014 1:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
2tellthetruth wrote:

One by one, justice gets done.

Jun 07, 2014 2:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
carnivalchaos wrote:

NDewar: To add to BeBopman’s excellent comments, I implore you to be specific about what you want cut from government. Just taking the axe to anything run by the government can be disastrous.

For example, we cut funding for the IRS even though there are increasing numbers of people in our country and, thus, more tax forms to process, so the IRS is forced to do with less. So, as one of their functions they have to determine which groups applying for tax-exempt status actually qualify. So they come up with ways of streamlining the process, like using a software program that flags the names of groups with strong political references, like “tea party” or “progressive”. Since these groups can’t spend more than 49% of their money on political advocacy and still qualify for tax-exempt status, the IRS takes a closer look at the groups with names associated with politics. The groups who get flagged by the software program get closer scrutiny. Doesn’t mean they’re rejected. They just get closer scrutiny. If they qualify, then they get tax exempt status. Period.

But then the same folks who insisted on “cutting government” lose their minds because they think the IRS is discriminating against conservative groups, despite the fact that there were no instances of conservative groups who qualified being turned down for tax exempt status. Point being, you can’t have it both ways.

So just “cutting government” isn’t good enough. For it to do any good, we have to know what we’re cutting and why. God forbid, but it’s entirely possible that increasing spending in some areas would be the best thing for our country. Our country continues to grow and it’s needs and priorities are always changing. We need to proceed logically and not just cling to the latest popular bumper sticker.

Jun 07, 2014 4:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

@GodIsNotHappy- You have the best of all the posts. It does not get much clearer than that, does it?

Jun 07, 2014 9:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

Carnivalchaos wrote: “So just “cutting government” isn’t good enough. For it to do any good, we have to know what we’re cutting and why. God forbid, but it’s entirely possible that increasing spending in some areas would be the best thing for our country. Our country continues to grow and it’s needs and priorities are always changing. We need to proceed logically and not just cling to the latest popular bumper sticker.”

Since it is difficult to get a consensus among both sides, what makes the most sense is an across the board percentage cut. Yes, you could argue that this agency or that agency needs more money than another program or vice versa, but that is BS. Just cut the spending on a percentage basis starting with a small percentage. Don’t play games like pretending you are cutting by not increasing a program as much as was asked for. A cut should be just that, less money than was spent last year. Keep doing a small cut each year and we would be where we need to be in a few short years. Forget the tax increase BS because that will exaggerate the pain for the economy. It really is not that difficult but the politicians want you to believe it is because they have an addiction to spending our money and money equates to power for them. Throw them out of office and put in some fiscal conservatives. Keep in mind that not all republicans are conservatives and that no liberal is a fiscal conservative.

Jun 07, 2014 9:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Speakerbliss wrote:

@4825, why continue to spread the myth that raising taxes hurts the economy? Tax revenues do not disappear into a black hole. Taxes dollar immediately go back into the economy.

At best you can say taxes are a method to redistribute wealth and move money into business sectors the government believes will generate growth.

Many states, NV, AZ and NM for example import more tax dollars than they export. Try closing a military base, and the first round shouting is the area will lose jobs and will hurt the local economy.

Why do you think defense companies spread manufacturing across many states? Simple to tie in government spending into those sectors to a number of local economies, so the local congressman will defend those assets.

During this last recession one area that shed a high percentage of jobs that hurt the local economy was government jobs as tax revenues fells from fall property valuation and foreclosures and governments cut spending and jobs. Government spending is an important part of the economy, cutting government spending will not mean there is more private sector spending.

Jun 08, 2014 1:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Speakerbliss wrote:

@dualcitizen funny how through out the animal kingdom, you see single-sex pairing. Un-natural? by whose definition? Your?

Godisnothappy? really, a book of fiction based on old nomadic tribal laws dating back thousands of years? Does that mean we take that book literally? If my brother dies, I must marry his wife? or have multiple wives? or slavery is okay? seriously, we can be glad over form of government protects us from religious nuts and their silly rules.

Jun 08, 2014 1:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

@speakerbliss- You seem to have some issues that you need to work through in your life. Do you enjoy kicking on another man’s religious belief like you did with GodIsNotHappy’s post above? Who are you to say what is or is not fiction when it comes to the history in the bible? Were you there? It is pretty obvious that you have no understanding of the history, laws, people and customs from the bible.

Jun 08, 2014 8:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
LinwoodCamp wrote:

Ah, the ‘tyranny’ of civil rights!

Jun 09, 2014 11:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:

@ GodIsNotHappy,, interesting point. However, just to make sure you’re not selectively picking from the Bible, please confirm that you also believe (1) polyester / cotton blends should be outlawed by more than the fashion police (2) the entire NFL should be executed, as they regularly work on Sundays, (3) eating shrimp, crab, or lobster is disgusting, even if you have butter, (4) your barber should not touch your temples when getting a haircut, and (5) it is perfectly fine to enslave Mexicans and Canadians.

Once again, please confirm that you believe ALL of the above it true, lest you be revealed to be a hypocrite that should reread Matthew 7: 1-5. A because of your fondness for citing Biblical verses, I offer the passages from the English Standard Version of the Bible for you to reference. I look forward to your response.

(1) Leviticus 19:19 – “You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.”

(2) Exodus 35:2 – “Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.”

(3) Leviticus 11: 10 – “Anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. “

(4) Leviticus 19:27 – “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.”

(5) Leviticus 18:44 – “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.”

Jun 09, 2014 7:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.