ACLU agrees not to seek gay marriage ...

ACLU agrees not to seek gay marriage injunction in Wisconsin

There are 29 comments on the WKBT story from Mar 12, 2014, titled ACLU agrees not to seek gay marriage injunction in Wisconsin. In it, WKBT reports that:

The plaintiffs in a lawsuit have agreed not to ask for a temporary halt to enforcement of Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WKBT.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#1 Mar 12, 2014
I don't understand this part, "The Wisconsin State Journal reports the ACLU, which is suing on behalf of eight gay couples, decided Tuesday to withdraw its request for a temporary injunction after district attorneys in Milwaukee and Eau Claire counties agreed not to prosecute two couples who recently got married in Minnesota." How can they prosecute a couple getting married in another state? What am I missing?

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#2 Mar 12, 2014
RalphB wrote:
I don't understand this part, "The Wisconsin State Journal reports the ACLU, which is suing on behalf of eight gay couples, decided Tuesday to withdraw its request for a temporary injunction after district attorneys in Milwaukee and Eau Claire counties agreed not to prosecute two couples who recently got married in Minnesota." How can they prosecute a couple getting married in another state? What am I missing?
It's against the law in Wisconsin to get married in any other state if that marriage is not legal in Wisconsin. Believe it or not!
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#3 Mar 12, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
It's against the law in Wisconsin to get married in any other state if that marriage is not legal in Wisconsin. Believe it or not!
I'll be honest; I can't imagine how that could be "prosecuted" in this case without a furious backlash.

The law itself sounds EXACTLY like the type of "control" that the so-called religious scumbags try to have by every means they can find.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#4 Mar 12, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
It's against the law in Wisconsin to get married in any other state if that marriage is not legal in Wisconsin. Believe it or not!
WTF???? How could *that* possibly work??

I'd love to see them *try* to prosecute couples under that law.

My guess is that the ACLU has realized that such a mess would be distracting and that if they can just get the marriage ban tossed in Wisconsin, that other, clearly bigoted and totally unconstitutional law would be moot anyway.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#5 Mar 12, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF???? How could *that* possibly work??
I'd love to see them *try* to prosecute couples under that law.
My guess is that the ACLU has realized that such a mess would be distracting and that if they can just get the marriage ban tossed in Wisconsin, that other, clearly bigoted and totally unconstitutional law would be moot anyway.
*nodding* I'm wondering what's REALLY going on behind the scenes because clearly they wouldn't D-A-R-E to attempt prosecutions under that law. It would be a circus and would turn very ugly for the antigay, guaranteed.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6 Mar 12, 2014
Doesn't this sound EXACTLY like what happened to the Loving back in 1967? It would clearly end the UNCONSTITUTIONAL bans against Gays and Lesbians having the right to marry!!!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#7 Mar 12, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
It's against the law in Wisconsin to get married in any other state if that marriage is not legal in Wisconsin. Believe it or not!
So gay couples married in New York or Iowa could be arrested in Wisconsin simply because they are married ??? Is that what you're saying ?

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#8 Mar 12, 2014
This same kind of foolishness is Indiana law, any minister of any church can be charged for conducting a marriage ceremony for same sex couples. The freedom of religion bigots don't mind laws controlling someone else's religion.

I'm just amazed no minister has challenged it as it's so obviously unconstitutional.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#9 Mar 12, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
This same kind of foolishness is Indiana law, any minister of any church can be charged for conducting a marriage ceremony for same sex couples. The freedom of religion bigots don't mind laws controlling someone else's religion.
I'm just amazed no minister has challenged it as it's so obviously unconstitutional.
You're right. It's truly a *shocking* display of hypocrisy that the same people that are screaming and crying and wetting their pants about their own freedom of religion are responsible for passing laws that clearly infringe on someone else's freedom of religion. Good thing for them that those laws they keep passing are unconstitutional and can't ever actually be enforced. On anyone, including themselves.

Of course, most strongly religious people are too stupid to realize that what infringes on someone else's religious freedom can just as easily be used to infringe on their own.

They're also the same idiots that think adopting a "christian" theocracy in the U.S. would just happen to line up perfectly with their own personally designed and chosen flavor of "christianity". Just wait until their "christian" government starts throwing divorcees in jail for violating Jesus stance against divorce.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Rence

Milwaukee, WI

#10 Mar 12, 2014
The law goes back to the early 1900s - it was not enacted to target same-sex marriages. Essentially the law says that if you are a Wisconsin resident and leave the state to enter into a marriage which would be illegal in the state of Wisconsin with the intent of returning to Wisconsin - you have broken the law and face fines and prison time.

The law was directed as underage marriages, first cousin marriages etc. The last time anyone was prosecuted under the law was in the 70s. In Wisconsin you cannot get married until your divorce has been finalized for six months. An individual had left the state to get around this law.

So a same-sex couple from out of state who visits Wisconsin would not be subject to the law. But if my partner and I were to take a trip out of state to get married, we could be prosecuted upon our return home. There are many Wisconsin couples who have gone out of state to get married, and thus for none have been charged under this law, but the possibility always exists.

Since: Sep 08

Anderson, IN

#11 Mar 12, 2014
RalphB wrote:
I don't understand this part, "The Wisconsin State Journal reports the ACLU, which is suing on behalf of eight gay couples, decided Tuesday to withdraw its request for a temporary injunction after district attorneys in Milwaukee and Eau Claire counties agreed not to prosecute two couples who recently got married in Minnesota." How can they prosecute a couple getting married in another state? What am I missing?
Bigotry and the reason for the need of the ACLU.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#12 Mar 12, 2014
Rence wrote:
The law goes back to the early 1900s - it was not enacted to target same-sex marriages. Essentially the law says that if you are a Wisconsin resident and leave the state to enter into a marriage which would be illegal in the state of Wisconsin with the intent of returning to Wisconsin - you have broken the law and face fines and prison time.
The law was directed as underage marriages, first cousin marriages etc. The last time anyone was prosecuted under the law was in the 70s. In Wisconsin you cannot get married until your divorce has been finalized for six months. An individual had left the state to get around this law.
So a same-sex couple from out of state who visits Wisconsin would not be subject to the law. But if my partner and I were to take a trip out of state to get married, we could be prosecuted upon our return home. There are many Wisconsin couples who have gone out of state to get married, and thus for none have been charged under this law, but the possibility always exists.
Thank you for the information. And as you pointed out the law seems to rarely be enforced much like the Texas sodomy ban was rarely enforced against heterosexuals.

I've noticed a change lately. We hardly hear the old "traditional family values" line anymore. It seems to have been replaced with "people with deeply held religious beliefs". Yet they have no problem making it a crime for people to practice religious beliefs that differ from their own. Indiana is but one example.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#13 Mar 12, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
Doesn't this sound EXACTLY like what happened to the Loving back in 1967? It would clearly end the UNCONSTITUTIONAL bans against Gays and Lesbians having the right to marry!!!
Agreed. This along with recent efforts to make it legal to ignore Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly shows that we gays and lesbians ARE facing many of the same hurdles blacks faced during the 60's civil rights movement.

More and more people are seeing the lies and duplicity of the "people with deeply held religious beliefs" (anti-gays).

Why just last night over on the "Is homosexuality a sin" thread even Kimare admitted that he often posts lies.
david traversa

Argentina

#14 Mar 12, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right. It's truly a *shocking* display of hypocrisy that the same people that are screaming and crying and wetting their pants about their own freedom of religion are responsible for passing laws that clearly infringe on someone else's freedom of religion. Good thing for them that those laws they keep passing are unconstitutional and can't ever actually be enforced. On anyone, including themselves.
Of course, most strongly religious people are too stupid to realize that what infringes on someone else's religious freedom can just as easily be used to infringe on their own.
They're also the same idiots that think adopting a "christian" theocracy in the U.S. would just happen to line up perfectly with their own personally designed and chosen flavor of "christianity". Just wait until their "christian" government starts throwing divorcees in jail for violating Jesus stance against divorce.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Ahhh .. perfection ..

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#15 Mar 12, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right. It's truly a *shocking* display of hypocrisy that the same people that are screaming and crying and wetting their pants about their own freedom of religion are responsible for passing laws that clearly infringe on someone else's freedom of religion. Good thing for them that those laws they keep passing are unconstitutional and can't ever actually be enforced. On anyone, including themselves.
Of course, most strongly religious people are too stupid to realize that what infringes on someone else's religious freedom can just as easily be used to infringe on their own.
They're also the same idiots that think adopting a "christian" theocracy in the U.S. would just happen to line up perfectly with their own personally designed and chosen flavor of "christianity". Just wait until their "christian" government starts throwing divorcees in jail for violating Jesus stance against divorce.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
It's sort of like watching Wile E Coyote. The anti gay religionists keep trying to come up with some new way to address the situation but can't see the futility of their efforts.

Sometimes I don't know if I should laugh at them or pity them.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#16 Mar 12, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Agreed. This along with recent efforts to make it legal to ignore Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly shows that we gays and lesbians ARE facing many of the same hurdles blacks faced during the 60's civil rights movement.
More and more people are seeing the lies and duplicity of the "people with deeply held religious beliefs" (anti-gays).
Why just last night over on the "Is homosexuality a sin" thread even Kimare admitted that he often posts lies.
This is just ridiculous and then the anti-gay folks try and claim that there is NO animus towards us.......what a bunch of BS!!!

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#17 Mar 12, 2014
Thanks to the folks that explained what I was not understanding. However, after reading the explanation, I feel like I have gone "through the looking-glass" to another world entirely. I'm not even sure of whether it is constitutional, or, if not, where it would violate the Constitution.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#18 Mar 12, 2014
RalphB wrote:
Thanks to the folks that explained what I was not understanding. However, after reading the explanation, I feel like I have gone "through the looking-glass" to another world entirely. I'm not even sure of whether it is constitutional, or, if not, where it would violate the Constitution.
It is CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it violates the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

EXAMPLE:

A heterosexual Wisconsin couple wants to get married and they are first cousins. They travel to another state to marry where first cousin marriage is legal (half the states in the U.S. permit first cousin marriage) and they marry in the state that permits it. They then return home to Wisconsin. Wisconsin law says they will not recognize that marriage, and that is CLEARLY violating the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#19 Mar 12, 2014
RalphB wrote:
Thanks to the folks that explained what I was not understanding. However, after reading the explanation, I feel like I have gone "through the looking-glass" to another world entirely. I'm not even sure of whether it is constitutional, or, if not, where it would violate the Constitution.
All one has to know is that if this sort of action was a violation of the Loving's rights in the late 60's....then it's damn well a violation of our rights in 2014........to arrest or even threaten to arrest a Gay or Lesbian couple who left the state to marry somewhere else that it was legal to do so and then return to their home state would, in my opinion fast forward this fight to a final conclusion that the anti-gay folks would just explode over!!!

This is just my personal viewpoint......but let it this actually happen as see if my viewpoint doesn't sprout legs and take off running!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#20 Mar 12, 2014
RalphB wrote:
Thanks to the folks that explained what I was not understanding. However, after reading the explanation, I feel like I have gone "through the looking-glass" to another world entirely. I'm not even sure of whether it is constitutional, or, if not, where it would violate the Constitution.
If it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL to do this in the 60's(specifically towards the Loving's).....then my guess is it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL now against Gay and Lesbian couples.......I mean we do live in the 21st century and these sorts of laws on the books, even if they were NOT meant to be used towards Gays and Lesbians, continue to show just how much animus the anti-gay folks have towards us!!!

If the State of Wisconsin did in fact try to prosecute these 2 couples for exercising their right to marry in a different state and then returned home to their state of residence......there lawsuit would take off so fast it would make the anti-gay folks head explode!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

ACLU Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Kenedy njoroge 150,892
News Florida cost for opposing gay marriage? $213,00... 3 hr Ex Senator Santpo... 2
News ACLU claims abusive treatment by CBP officers 7 hr Mr_D_ ElPaso 5
News Immigration Rights Group Wants Joe Arpaio Arres... 9 hr spud 16
News ACLU: Complaints of Nebraska group homes reject... May 22 Clay Farris Naff 12
News As Confederate symbols come down, 'Talbot Boys'... May 18 Don Barros Serrano 8
News Court finds Arizona sheriff in contempt May 14 tomin cali 1
More from around the web