• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,907
Reaction score
60,363
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban

The key part:

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.

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

I can get married in my home. I can't believe it ... :)
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

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

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

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

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-

In reality, it isn't. But it makes it much harder for the states when trying to state an interest being furthered, because sex/gender is a higher level of scrutiny than sexuality/sexual orientation. The cases are easily won with the rational basis test because states cannot come up with a legitimate interest, so far. But stating that it should (rightfully) be laws that discriminate based on gender/sex rather than sexuality, because the laws are discriminating on the basis of sex/gender, not sexuality.

They didn't carefully consider these laws. They believe that homosexuality/same sex marriage is bad and therefore should be banned. Nothing was carefully considered there.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

.....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 worse 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.
 
Last edited:
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

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.

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

I can get married in my home. I can't believe it ... :)

Hey, congratulations, man! Welcome to equality.


To me, your statement is what this is all about.


Now if only my buddies in Atlanta could make this statement...someday. Soon maybe?
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

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.

Similar here. Two gay couples I know who raise children here in Nevada cannot get married, however, they have been together for 19 years and 14 years. The community knows them and recognizes them as the children's parents. The heterosexual parents from the school recognize them as their parents and in effect being married since they have been together for so long. AKA the parents in the community look at them as "normal. Being married is going to change none of that. The "think of the children" excuse is just the last ditch effort by the anti-SSM crowd and frankly it is disappointing because it is a failed argument.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

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

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.

Apparently you do not understand the constitution and what it means. This is certainly correctable and I would highly recommend you make efforts in that direction.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

I don't see how gender is anymore or less important than designating the ruling based on orientation.
I'll start with this. It's actually a pretty important distinction.

Gender has long been recognized as requiring a higher level of scrutiny than the rational basis test. Intermediate scrutiny requires that the measure in question is "substantially related" to furthering an "important state interest." A same-sex marriage ban simply cannot pass this test. While most would agree raising children is an important state interest, stopping homosexuals from marrying does not further this goal. We don't get more children, or more children in stable homes, by stopping homosexuals from marrying each other.

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?
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 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.
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.

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-

A child raised by both biological parents in a stable, loving, high-income, well-educated family is certainly a good thing. So, you are arguing that poor people without a PHD shouldn't be allowed to marry, right? Because that's not the "best" model.

As for "I don't see why," well, I don't see why you can't enjoy marriage if two dudes also enjoy marriage. If you think two dudes marrying harms your marriage, maybe the problem is that your marriage isn't as solid as you tell yourself.
 
Last edited:
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

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.

Invoking Orwell, eh? So where's the oppression, exactly? Which part of your life is so dramatically affected by two dudes getting married?
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

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-

thats an easy question to answer. and you answered your own question in a way so not sure how you dont see it
its because if this type of clear precedence is set theres nothing really to discuss about this and many other issues.

Currently sexual orientation is not directly listed among all national discrimination laws so if this precedence is set and clear, and its based on gender the precedence can be used to instantly make it national with the right push. Where orientation is a slower one.

And it would effect not only marriage laws but protection laws as well. Some states have equal rights for marriage but the ignorant and bigoted firing of gays or refusal of service, housing etc simply because they are gay is not protected

it COULD be huge just like the GSK v. Abbott Laboratories which called for heightened scrutiny referring to intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny which gender already requires. Although some rulings have already uses heightened and intermediate as interchangeable even though its not quite defined that they are.

Since its already been thoroughly, clearly and obviously established theres no rational basis to ban gay marriage and infringe on equal rights, rightfully so since there no logic based on law or rights to support somethign so asinine the issue can move even higher.

So now that rational basis isnt even a question on this issue because there is none, it moves on to intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny which gender already has.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

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-

That sure would be nice...if anyone had/has done that. But since heterosexuals have not....I'd say that ship has sailed. Gays and polygamists, etc etc have not remotely sullied marriage the way that straight people have over the centuries.

So there's really no point in reserving anything...since straight people seem to take marriage for granted and abuse the crap out of it, the legal system, each other, and their kids at the drop of a hat.

A marriage is what the couple make of it. Gays will participate in it the same as straight people have...for better and for worse. But their track record with their kids has not been shown to be inferior to that of straight couples.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Apparently you do not understand the constitution and what it means.

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.

Invoking Orwell, eh? So where's the oppression, exactly?

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.

Which part of your life is so dramatically affected by two dudes getting married?

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

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.

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

Update on this. Ruling: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Wisconsin-marriage-ruling-DCt-6-6-14.pdf

Not quoting from it since it formats to one letter per line and I am way too lazy to fix it. However, the ruling does explicitly state that some level of heightened scrutiny is required since the discrimination based on both orientation, and sex.

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

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 herself to be so powerful that she can make up history in addition to law.
 
Last edited:
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

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

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Back
Top Bottom