Marriage Equality Not Coming to Wis. Anytime Soon

Aug 5, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGE

Same-sex couples hoping to tie the knot in Wisconsin may have to put any wedding plans on hold for awhile, after Gov. Scott Walker made some discouraging comments at a weekend conference in Milwaukee, the Huffington Post reports.

Comments
1 - 20 of 34 Comments Last updated Oct 31, 2013
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"Iím not a lawyer, so I canít really tell you about the legal side of it," Walker told the newspaper. "The State of Wisconsin has a position, and itís based on the vote of the people back in 2006. We affirm that position."

Maybe he should TALK to a lawyer who is familiar with the U.S. Constitution, and the fact that the SCOTUS has repeatedly said that marriage is a fundamental right, which is not something people vote on. The 2006 decision, I believe, will eventually be repealed.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

As long as the anti-gay GOPasaurs control the Wisconsin legislature, they'll never have marriage equality without the courts forcing it on them.

So be it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The same GOP that is selling out the family farm to corporate agribusiness owned by brokerage firms.
Ramone

Seoul, Korea

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

This is great news!

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ramone wrote:
This is great news!
What would be great news out of you, LITTLE cowardly liar, is one name used more than 5 minutes, instead of your endless stream of lying falsehoods.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

snyper wrote:
The same GOP that is selling out the family farm to corporate agribusiness owned by brokerage firms.
Them's the ones....

That's why the GOPasaur "farm bill" was LOADED with goodies for Agribusiness. Their goal is to kill the small family farm, and they've almost reached that goal.

My parents had to retire from farming because they couldn't find anyone to buy their hogs & cattle anymore. Agribusiness shut down all local community hog & cattle buying stations, so their only option would have been to buy a semi-trailer and truck a minimum of 100 animals the 200+ miles to the nearest slaughterhouse in Sioux Falls SD. Even IF they could afford to buy a semi, they couldn't meet the minimum number the slaughterhouse required.

Thank you GOPasaurs & Agribusiness for putting my parents out to pasture.....

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Aug 6, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Them's the ones....
That's why the GOPasaur "farm bill" was LOADED with goodies for Agribusiness. Their goal is to kill the small family farm, and they've almost reached that goal.
My parents had to retire from farming because they couldn't find anyone to buy their hogs & cattle anymore. Agribusiness shut down all local community hog & cattle buying stations, so their only option would have been to buy a semi-trailer and truck a minimum of 100 animals the 200+ miles to the nearest slaughterhouse in Sioux Falls SD. Even IF they could afford to buy a semi, they couldn't meet the minimum number the slaughterhouse required.
Thank you GOPasaurs & Agribusiness for putting my parents out to pasture.....
Loss of the local means of production of so much. No slaughterhouse, no tannery, no independence.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Tre H wrote:
"Iím not a lawyer, so I canít really tell you about the legal side of it," Walker told the newspaper. "The State of Wisconsin has a position, and itís based on the vote of the people back in 2006. We affirm that position."
Maybe he should TALK to a lawyer who is familiar with the U.S. Constitution, and the fact that the SCOTUS has repeatedly said that marriage is a fundamental right, which is not something people vote on. The 2006 decision, I believe, will eventually be repealed.
With so many states having marriage equality, and having such a substantial percentage of Americans living in those states, I think now it is a mistake to pursue marriage equality on a state by state basis.

I think what should be done is to pursue it on a national basis by working to have SCOTUS rule that the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause REQUIRES each state to legally recognize the marriages of every other state, including same sex marriages, their own state constitutions, and state laws, to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Otherwise the litigation is going to go on and on in the tiniest states for 50 years or more in places like Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and a bunch of other mickey mouse states that nobody ever heard of before anyways.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Aug 7, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Loss of the local means of production of so much. No slaughterhouse, no tannery, no independence.
Yep, we're on our way to the collective farming of the communist nations, except this will be run by Agribusiness instead of the communist state.

It's sad because an entire way of life is being destroyed. But the unfortunate reality is corporate farming is likely the only way we can continue to feed an every exploding global population.

Just one more problem of uncontrolled population growth to add to the ever growing list.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Aug 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
With so many states having marriage equality, and having such a substantial percentage of Americans living in those states, I think now it is a mistake to pursue marriage equality on a state by state basis.
I think what should be done is to pursue it on a national basis by working to have SCOTUS rule that the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause REQUIRES each state to legally recognize the marriages of every other state, including same sex marriages, their own state constitutions, and state laws, to the contrary, notwithstanding.
Otherwise the litigation is going to go on and on in the tiniest states for 50 years or more in places like Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and a bunch of other mickey mouse states that nobody ever heard of before anyways.
Actually we need to pursue this at both the state AND federal level. The more states we have, the more likely a future SCOTUS will rule in our favor.

Of course the most effective thing we can do in the meantime is ensure a Democrat is in the White House & the Dems control the Senate to ensure the justices who replace Ginsburg, Kennedy, Scalia, & Breyer are pro-equality justices, and not anti-gay GOPasaur nominees.

Remember that when you vote in '14 & '16.....

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Aug 7, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, we're on our way to the collective farming of the communist nations, except this will be run by Agribusiness instead of the communist state.
It's sad because an entire way of life is being destroyed. But the unfortunate reality is corporate farming is likely the only way we can continue to feed an every exploding global population.
Just one more problem of uncontrolled population growth to add to the ever growing list.
The "communists" never were. They just slapped marxist jargon all over the very evils Marx was kvetching about.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Aug 7, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The "communists" never were. They just slapped marxist jargon all over the very evils Marx was kvetching about.
Now they just slap Obamaniac jargon over the same crap.

(EPE)

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Aug 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ramone wrote:
This is great news!
I agree. A breath of fresh air among a gaggle of pro-gay bullies

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Aug 8, 2013
 
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>I agree. A breath of fresh air among a gaggle of pro-gay bullies
Fewer married couples is "a breath of fresh air"?

Why are more secure families and children a bad thing? One would think that the opposite would be true.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Aug 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>I agree. A breath of fresh air among a gaggle of pro-gay bullies
You do realize you are agreeing with a chronic liar, don't you? Korea my eye. He's about as Korean as a hot dog. He constantly uses false names and false home countries, too cowardly to register or use one name.

But, if you choose to follow a cowardly little liar, it's up to you.

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Aug 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
With so many states having marriage equality, and having such a substantial percentage of Americans living in those states, I think now it is a mistake to pursue marriage equality on a state by state basis.
I think what should be done is to pursue it on a national basis by working to have SCOTUS rule that the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause REQUIRES each state to legally recognize the marriages of every other state, including same sex marriages, their own state constitutions, and state laws, to the contrary, notwithstanding.
Otherwise the litigation is going to go on and on in the tiniest states for 50 years or more in places like Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and a bunch of other mickey mouse states that nobody ever heard of before anyways.
I think it's a mistake NOT to pursue it from all angles. Marriage equality NEEDS to be decided by both state and federal courts and should NEVER be decided by a vote or a bunch of ignorant republican congressmen. There is momentum even it if it doesn't seem too likely in Wisconsin.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Aug 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>You do realize you are agreeing with a chronic liar, don't you? Korea my eye. He's about as Korean as a hot dog. He constantly uses false names and false home countries, too cowardly to register or use one name.
But, if you choose to follow a cowardly little liar, it's up to you.
I agreed with his statement that this was "great news", nothing more. I don't know him or his politics. If he were to go off on some tangent targeting gays because they were gay, I'd have ignored it. As I've said before, I've got no ill will toward homosexuals. We just happen to disagree on the subject of "marriage".

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Aug 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>I agreed with his statement that this was "great news", nothing more. I don't know him or his politics. If he were to go off on some tangent targeting gays because they were gay, I'd have ignored it. As I've said before, I've got no ill will toward homosexuals. We just happen to disagree on the subject of "marriage".
So you don't support the First Amendment ?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Aug 9, 2013
 
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>I agreed with his statement that this was "great news", nothing more. I don't know him or his politics. If he were to go off on some tangent targeting gays because they were gay, I'd have ignored it. As I've said before, I've got no ill will toward homosexuals. We just happen to disagree on the subject of "marriage".
Right, you just think we shouldn't have equal treatment under the law....

Got it.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Aug 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't support the First Amendment ?
Where did I ever say I didn't support the first amendment?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••