Wis. Supreme Court takes domestic partner case

There are 12 comments on the Jun 15, 2013, WMTV Madison story titled Wis. Supreme Court takes domestic partner case. In it, WMTV Madison reports that:

The registry grants same-sex couples a host of legal rights. Members of the conservative group Wisconsin Family Action filed a lawsuit in 2010 alleging the registry violates a 2006 state constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage or anything substantially similar.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WMTV Madison.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1 Jun 15, 2013
The best thing that could possibly happen is Wisconsin Family Action winning the case. That would open Wisconsin's law to challenge under the Romer precedent. Ironically, we could sweep away the amendments in the most homophobic states, while the mildly homophobic bans would remain.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#2 Jun 15, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
The best thing that could possibly happen is Wisconsin Family Action winning the case. That would open Wisconsin's law to challenge under the Romer precedent. Ironically, we could sweep away the amendments in the most homophobic states, while the mildly homophobic bans would remain.
You bring up a general legal point, whether purposely or no, which deserves attention.

As more and more time passes and more and more cases reach verdicts, the pro-gay will have more and more *legally precedented ways* of fighting for the rights of gay people.

I'm reminded of a general point of view which is commonly known to anyone who observes attorneys, but few people ever think about it or delve. Basically, any attorney worth his salt can be given ANY set of circumstances and can argue legally for ANY case. No matter what the antigay claim, the pro-gay attorneys can endlessly and continually -- no joke -- cite EXACTLY what the antigay said in a sense of, "See? More evidence that gay people must have equal rights!" It's the way attorneys think, and in a sense, it's their job.

Olson, for instance: No matter what you throw at him, he unwaveringly sees it as PROOF THAT HE IS RIGHT, hahahaha. I love that kind of stubbornness where larger matters of social justice are concerned; I love that the pro-gay grow more and more sure-footed each day that they are SO damned right about all this it's barely worth considering the antigay arguments as anything but snot-nosed drivel -- which, of course, they are.

Think about this case.

FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER, because it does NOT affect them and has NOTHING to do with their lives, this LYING shit-for-brains group that describes itself as "pro-family" -- and is anything but -- is HARANGUING the gay populace of a state all the way to the supreme court in an attempt to FORCE the state to DEPRIVE them of rights.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Same as all the antigay, they have *zero* to do with goodness, virtue or god. They might as well be begging satan to **** their faces some more. It's unreal.
howdy howdy hoo hoo

Justice, IL

#3 Jun 15, 2013
hi hi wrote:
As more and more time passes and more and more cases reach verdicts, the pro-gay will have more and more *legally precedented ways* of fighting for the rights of gay people.
Nope, listen:

Verdicts are never precedent.

Precedent is at the appellate level and above.

You need to:

(a) Study Strunk and White's Elements of Style

(b) then write an admission on Topix that you are the gayest gay of all the gays who ever lived

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Jun 15, 2013
It's going to take a solid liberal majority on the SCOTUS to overturn any more state bans. At that point we get nationwide equality; likely around 2020.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#5 Jun 15, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
It's going to take a solid liberal majority on the SCOTUS to overturn any more state bans. At that point we get nationwide equality; likely around 2020.
Not really, not all conservatives are Republican, nor are all conservatives as ignorant as Republicans. But not all Republicans are ignorant either, and the politicians eventually support equality. It will just take keeping up with the education, eventually they all find out they're either gay, or their friends are.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6 Jun 16, 2013
howdy howdy hoo hoo wrote:
Verdicts are never precedent.
Precedent is at the appellate level and above.
You are mostly wrong about that. Verdicts do, in fact, set precedent. In particular, a judge who rules in favor of a plaintiff in one case would certainly be constrained by that verdict in a subsequent case involving nearly identical facts. Where no appellate or Supreme Court precedent has been set, verdicts are also influential to other judges in similar cases.

I think what you meant is that trial court verdicts do not create BINDING precedent: Other judges in the district are not bound by a verdict unless it has been reviewed and substantiated by the appellate court. Even then, the precedent is not binding in other circuits, although it may be influential when similar cases arise.
Stravinsky Riot of Spring

Justice, IL

#7 Jun 16, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You are mostly wrong about that. Verdicts do, in fact, set precedent. In particular, a judge who rules in favor of a plaintiff in one case would certainly be constrained by that verdict in a subsequent case involving nearly identical facts. Where no appellate or Supreme Court precedent has been set, verdicts are also influential to other judges in similar cases.
I think what you meant is that trial court verdicts do not create BINDING precedent: Other judges in the district are not bound by a verdict unless it has been reviewed and substantiated by the appellate court. Even then, the precedent is not binding in other circuits, although it may be influential when similar cases arise.
Nope:

That would be res judicata.

Trial decisions aren't reported, which is another term of art you can't even begin to understand, so how could another court use them as precedent, girly-man.
Stravinsky Riot of Spring

Justice, IL

#8 Jun 16, 2013
Girly-Men:

Today is Father's Day. Not Fatheres' Day. There is no Motheres' Day.

That was Mother's Day.

Tomorrow may be girly-man riot day.

Talking time is over.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9 Jun 16, 2013
Stravinsky Riot of Spring wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope:
That would be res judicata.
Trial decisions aren't reported, which is another term of art you can't even begin to understand, so how could another court use them as precedent, girly-man.
Really? So Judge Walker's decision was not "reported?" I guess if you weren't in the room when the Judge made his ruling, you'd never know it happened.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10 Jun 16, 2013
Stravinsky Riot of Spring wrote:
That would be res judicata.
Apparently, the legal dictionary you're pulling words from omits the definitions. We are not impressed by your ability to misuse judicial concepts.

I suggest you look up legal terms before pretending to be knowledgeable about the law again.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#11 Jun 17, 2013
howdy howdy hoo hoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, listen:
It comes as a repetitive, profound shock to me that people try to twist others' words when those words *are right in front of everyone* for review.

All I have to do -- ALL I must do!-- is repeat what I said.

Let's do that.

You opened your big mouth, so let's go, let's do this.

Ready?
howdy howdy hoo hoo wrote:
Verdicts are never precedent.
WHOOPS, here's what I said, verbatim (see above):

"As more and more time passes and more and more cases reach verdicts, the pro-gay will have more and more *legally precedented ways* of fighting for the rights of gay people."

I spoke of the pro-gay, not all of whom are attorneys.

I spoke of legally precedented ways, meaning: methods.
howdy howdy hoo hoo wrote:
Precedent is at the appellate level and above.
This literally has nothing to do with what I said unless (here's what's amusing) you ADMIT that you deliberately twisted my words -- directly above, for anyone to see.
howdy howdy hoo hoo wrote:
You need to:
And what's funny about this is ...
howdy howdy hoo hoo wrote:
(a) Study Strunk and White's Elements of Style
... that I have *proven* it's you to whom this applies.
howdy howdy hoo hoo wrote:
(b) then write an admission on Topix that you are the gayest gay of all the gays who ever lived
And I wouldn't go here, either. These boards, from what I understand, are filled with accusations which stand a much better chance coming from the pro-gay.

They have an interest in these legal battles.

Yours is far, far more questionable.

I am goddamn A-M-A-Z-E-D that you people continue to open your mouths as if you're placing signs on your own backs which say, "Please, slam me for saying this -- with proof. Here, let me give you proof." That's how people like you behave.

One could almost posit that your own *latent orientation*, and the fact that you squelch it, give rise to a personality which craves abuse?... Who knew?
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#12 Jun 17, 2013
Why bother? All over the internet, I see the antigay *knowingly* twisting the words of the pro-gay. It's endless.

It's because the antigay *have no moral compass* and have ZERO regard for virtue or morality unless it suits them. When those principles stand to be abandoned in order to gain a point, the antigay cannot. abandon. those. principles. fast. enough.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News In aggressive bid to get noticed, Oa Malley hit... 48 min James 1
News Poll: Majority want businesses to serve gay wed... 55 min Sir Andrew 14
News A sign welcoming travelers to downtown Salyersv... 2 hr EdmondWA 15
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 2 hr NorCal Native 2,021
News Wells sorry for gay marriage gaffe 2 hr ItaSta 14
News Thousands Of Religious Leaders Urge The Supreme... 3 hr goonsquad 81
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 3 hr WeTheSheeple 3,225
More from around the web