Federal Judge Won't Delay Wisconsin G...

Federal Judge Won't Delay Wisconsin Gay Marriage Case

There are 9 comments on the EDGE story from Mar 25, 2014, titled Federal Judge Won't Delay Wisconsin Gay Marriage Case. In it, EDGE reports that:

A federal judge has denied a motion by the state to stay the case involving the constitutionality of Wisconsin's marriage amendment.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1 Mar 25, 2014
This was a stupid request in the first place.

The Governor was asking for a stay in a marriage case because a case in state court about their domestic partnership law hasn't been decided yet.

The 2 cases have nothing to do with each other.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#2 Mar 25, 2014
In other news, Michigan won't stop the stay of gay marriage in Michigan.

The ACLU have already announced that the nanosecond the state refuses to recognize the marriages, they will launch lawsuits on any and every necessary basis.

Good.

It almost seems petulant/childish at this point, but I care z-e-r-o. It is *exactly and precisely*, to the atom, what I would advise them to you. They don't do what's sensible, you force them into court and you force them to spend money until they get it through their thick skulls.

Simple.

Since: Jan 08

Pattaya, Thailand

#3 Mar 25, 2014
hi hi wrote:
In other news, Michigan won't stop the stay of gay marriage in Michigan.
The ACLU have already announced that the nanosecond the state refuses to recognize the marriages, they will launch lawsuits on any and every necessary basis.
Good.
It almost seems petulant/childish at this point, but I care z-e-r-o. It is *exactly and precisely*, to the atom, what I would advise them to you. They don't do what's sensible, you force them into court and you force them to spend money until they get it through their thick skulls.
Simple.
And Republicans, who are notoriously anti-gay in their platform and actions, are the ones who claim they're against wastetful government spending. Welcome to the world of hypocrisy, greed, and deceit.
Fundies R Mentally Nil

Philadelphia, PA

#4 Mar 25, 2014
It actually would make sense to table the civil union / domestic partnership issue until after the marriage issue is settled...since the latter will make the former moot.(Str8s can marry and so don't need civil unions.)

The reverse is, obviously, not true - the civil union case will not make the marriage equality case moot.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#5 Mar 25, 2014
Dubya wrote:
<quoted text>
And Republicans, who are notoriously anti-gay in their platform and actions, are the ones who claim they're against wastetful government spending. Welcome to the world of hypocrisy, greed, and deceit.
Exactly agreed.

I believe at this point that the antigay are obsessed with literally prolonging this as much as they can. They very, very much LOOK obsessed, that's for sure.

And yes, it has made a MOCKERY of their so-called principles, which now look like a joke in so many ways. My favorite is that they claimed the "liberals" were the party of emotion and whining and crying. Their opposition to marriage has ANNIHILATED this supposition and cast them commonly as the party who looks like a bunch of weeping, quaking crybabies.

It's amazing.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#6 Mar 26, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
This was a stupid request in the first place.
The Governor was asking for a stay in a marriage case because a case in state court about their domestic partnership law hasn't been decided yet.
The 2 cases have nothing to do with each other.
But to the idiots, they do. In their minds, domestic partnerships are the same imaginary insult to their serial marriages as marriage equality is.

They're at the point now where they're just throwing everything they can at the wall and hoping something will stick.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#7 Mar 26, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
But to the idiots, they do. In their minds, domestic partnerships are the same imaginary insult to their serial marriages as marriage equality is.
They're at the point now where they're just throwing everything they can at the wall and hoping something will stick.
I have begun to believe this, as well. I didn't, for a while. Now I am agreeing with you guys, and there is an extremely specific reason.

They *keep using the same so-called logic* that has been debunked by several courts now. Again, and yet again, and then again, and then here we have it again, they *keep using* this logic as if they DON'T CARE that courts are rejecting; it's literally and stubbornly what they believe and so they keep presenting it to the next court, and the next.

That implies to me that they stubbornly insist it's correct and right, but KNOW the courts are booting it out on its ass repeatedly. Therefore, unspoken but "logical" to THEM, they are simply trying to delay at this point. Delay, delay, delay.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#8 Mar 26, 2014
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
I have begun to believe this, as well. I didn't, for a while. Now I am agreeing with you guys, and there is an extremely specific reason.
They *keep using the same so-called logic* that has been debunked by several courts now. Again, and yet again, and then again, and then here we have it again, they *keep using* this logic as if they DON'T CARE that courts are rejecting; it's literally and stubbornly what they believe and so they keep presenting it to the next court, and the next.
That implies to me that they stubbornly insist it's correct and right, but KNOW the courts are booting it out on its ass repeatedly. Therefore, unspoken but "logical" to THEM, they are simply trying to delay at this point. Delay, delay, delay.
Well, that, and it's all they have, so that's all they can use.

There is simply NO way that carving out a subset of law-abiding citizens and subjecting them to unequal treatment and denying them equal protection under the law can EVER be justified.

So they just keep crying their eyes out and stomping and pouting and pretending that their religious liberties are being violated. But since who other people choose to marry has absolutely no affect on them or their exercise of their professed religious beliefs, that doesn't work, either.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#9 Mar 26, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that, and it's all they have, so that's all they can use.
There is simply NO way that carving out a subset of law-abiding citizens and subjecting them to unequal treatment and denying them equal protection under the law can EVER be justified.
So they just keep crying their eyes out and stomping and pouting and pretending that their religious liberties are being violated. But since who other people choose to marry has absolutely no affect on them or their exercise of their professed religious beliefs, that doesn't work, either.
Thank god the courts are seeing this. Before this century, they never did (I'm speaking generally). And they were wrong then, too. If you'd brought this case in 1850, the courts would have been *wrong, wrong, wrong* to deny marriage to gay persons, BUT -- but!-- they would've done so as they did throughout history, citing reasons which were worthy of nothing more than pointing and laughing.

Courts are laughably stupid; when an idea's time has not come, they are crybabies on the order of the *most spineless* antigay. They're FILLED with crying, weeping judges who pretend they have some "wisdom" or "law" on their side. What always fascinates me is that once a premise is proven incorrect, LOGIC dictates that it was incorrect for all time.

In other words, DENYING marriage equality was *always* legally and morally wrong.

There's simply one tiny sliver of added difference; now you can *prove* that.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding lic... 7 min Calgary Anti-Xeno 13
News Episcopalians vote to allow gay marriage in chu... 10 min QUITTNER Jul 1 2015 6
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 11 min Frankie Rizzo 6,990
News Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 15 min STO 220,067
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 19 min I dont lie 125
News Marriage equality rally draws large crowd 30 min Big Johnson 21
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 32 min This IS GOOD 389
News An East Tennessee store owner put up a 'No Gays... 1 hr WalkyTalky 43
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr Nichole 22,803
More from around the web