Page 3 of 53 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 524

Thread: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287:411]

  1. #21
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,985

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    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.
    perez v. sharp came before loving and it was a case involving interracial marriage decided before Loving.
    "If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
    Break, By Three days grace

    Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016

  2. #22
    Paying To Play
    AJiveMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    wisconSIN
    Last Seen
    05-15-15 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,775

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]


  3. #23
    Paying To Play
    AJiveMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    wisconSIN
    Last Seen
    05-15-15 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,775

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Invoking Orwell, eh? So where's the oppression, exactly? Which part of your life is so dramatically affected by two dudes getting married?
    There ain't none.

    It's called faux outrage, or, poutrage.

  4. #24
    Paying To Play
    AJiveMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    wisconSIN
    Last Seen
    05-15-15 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,775

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    About Wisconsin's attorney general;

    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
    This sounds all too familiar with republicans wasting a court's time and taxpayer money;

    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.
    You would think a legal scholar would know this before filing a frivolous lawsuit.

    And, filing an emergency appeal or legal brief to halt gay marriage in the state is his last act;

    On October 7, 2013, Van Hollen announced he will not seek reelection in 2014 for a third term as attorney general.

  5. #25
    Paying To Play
    AJiveMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    wisconSIN
    Last Seen
    05-15-15 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,775

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    The ORDER;

    http://media.jrn.com/documents/Wolf+v+Walker.pdf

    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
    Judge overturns Wisconsin's same-sex marriage ban - TODAY'S TMJ4

  6. #26
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,803

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    The Orwellian aspect is that by declaring it unconstitutional based off an amendment that has existed for nearly 150 years they are, in effect, saying it was always unconstitutional for states to only extend legal recognition to traditional marriages. Given that the people who wrote the amendment sure as hell were not desiring or envisioning forcing recognition of gay marriage on the states, this is effectively rewriting the amendment to say something it never said and was never meant to say.
    So, the state's right to decide who we can marry is being oppressed? Oooh, I'm quivering.



    You are asking the wrong question, especially since I have no problem with it being legal as this is about the means rather than the end result. How many ways could the Supreme Court "reinterpret" the constitution in an unprecedented fashion that would affect your life? If you endorse these decisions because they favor your political views, without considering whether a faithful application of the constitution truly merits the reinterpretation, then you should consider whether there are any ways the Supreme Court could act against your political views using the same sort of legal gymnastics.
    I did ask that question, and it does merit this interpretation. You blather about the means, but you haven't actually provided any rebuttal to the actual legal argument being made. Same-sex marriage bans definitely do not pass the test of intermediate constitutional scrutiny.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #27
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,803

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    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.
    Interracial marriage bans were around, and were "traditional," the "will of God," the "will of the people," etc.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #28
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,190

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    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.
    Personally, I think it's enlightening and in a way comforting that your thread has received so little attention/comment. It seems that as time goes on, these outcomes are less and less newsworthy or controversial - which is a good thing. DP may be different from the normal interaction/discussion people have in their daily lives, but I doubt it's too different.

    For me, the issue has always been getting government out of the marriage business, not more entrenched in it. On that basis, wake me when efforts start taking place to restrict government's ability to discriminate based on marital status so that all individuals, married or not, can expect the same tax and benefit treatment from their government.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  9. #29
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:33 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,328
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Personally, I think it's enlightening and in a way comforting that your thread has received so little attention/comment. It seems that as time goes on, these outcomes are less and less newsworthy or controversial - which is a good thing. DP may be different from the normal interaction/discussion people have in their daily lives, but I doubt it's too different.

    For me, the issue has always been getting government out of the marriage business, not more entrenched in it. On that basis, wake me when efforts start taking place to restrict government's ability to discriminate based on marital status so that all individuals, married or not, can expect the same tax and benefit treatment from their government.

    The thing is, government is not going to get out of the marriage business any time soon. It just is a nonstarter. It is important symbolically for couples, it is a huge benefit to society in promoting stability, it is simply a convenient way to bundle a bunch of legal stuff together in one easy package.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #30
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Except that is not the case here. Again, a little reading on your part would illuminate how this is very consistent with other equal protection claims.
    It is supposed to seem consistent, because that is how effective legal gymnastics works. Sort of like calling the individual mandate a tax or proclaiming corporations to be people with the same rights as individuals. The whole point is to provide a valid-sounding argument. Were these judges to just state outright "I support this policy and therefore I am making this ruling" then no one would could get all sanctimonious about "rights" and "the constitution" as it would be obvious the decision was political rather than legal in nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    So, the state's right to decide who we can marry is being oppressed? Oooh, I'm quivering.
    The reference is to the whole "we at war with Eastasia, we have always been at war with Eastasia" bit in 1984. What is Orwellian is suddenly deciding that an amendment made to the constitution nearly 150 years ago has actually always meant that gay marriage must get legal recognition from the government.

    I did ask that question, and it does merit this interpretation. You blather about the means, but you haven't actually provided any rebuttal to the actual legal argument being made. Same-sex marriage bans definitely do not pass the test of intermediate constitutional scrutiny.
    As I said, it comes down to legal gymnastics. People with fancy law degrees who ignore the intention of the Constitution, even ignore the intention of previous court rulings, and instead just try to find some plausible-sounding argument for why x policy is good or bad will have no trouble coming up with some line that will pass muster. Certainly, partisans who care naught for the law or rights except when it suits them will be more than pleased with any decision that favors their political perspective.

    I could argue that the invocation of "intermediate scrutiny" on the basis of "gender discrimination" is completely unfounded and a perversion even of the original intent of the court rulings, or that even if one accepted the bizarre assertion that it still easily meets the standard. The problem is that when judges make political decisions, this effectively ends the discussion as the only way to undo their decision is to get another judge to overrule them and then act like that judge is more smarter than the other judges. It seems unlikely to happen in this case. When this gets up to the Supreme Court then the current partisan balance of power all but assures these decisions will be affirmed.

    Unfortunately, all one has to do to get an idea of how these decisions will play out is to look at their political affiliations. That is not how it should be and diminishes the credibility of their rulings.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

Page 3 of 53 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •