Marriage Equality Not Coming to Wis. ...

Marriage Equality Not Coming to Wis. Anytime Soon

There are 34 comments on the EDGE story from Aug 5, 2013, titled Marriage Equality Not Coming to Wis. Anytime Soon. In it, EDGE reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#26 Aug 10, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>Where did I ever say I didn't support the first amendment?
Well, if you do not support the government(s) legally recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples married in a church, simply because you don't like that particular church's beliefs and practices, then you obviously don't support the First Amendment's protection of religious Liberty.
mea

United States

#27 Aug 21, 2013
The current snag right now is

The location of the couple---at point of first celebration or at point of current living household.

The IRS recently ruled that on the federal level
at least, they will consider at point of current living household.

The old traditional opinion (to let the states' have jurisdiction) was always at point of first celebration.

So, if a couple was married in California, then moved to Wisconsin, the IRS will consider them for those benefits requiring a civil 'marriage' license. BUT the state does not need to do this because they still go by the point of first celebration.

There will need to be reconciliation in federal courts for sure.
mea

United States

#28 Aug 21, 2013
I messed up....the IRS ruled that the they will consider at point of first celebration. They will consider for federal benefit those who have a valid license and not look at where they currently are living.
mea

United States

#29 Aug 21, 2013
This whole equality thing, though, is not a good argument.

What is equal about only having two kinds of combinations in a civil union? There is the combination of one man/one woman. And there will be possibly a combination of one man/one man, or one woman/one woman.

What about other kinds of combinations?
What about one man/ten women? What about one man/one dog? What about one man/one daughter?

There are so many other kinds of combinations!

To rightfully be EQUAL----these other combinations should be considered.

If people of the same sex would only realize it, what they are asking truly is not to be equal. They are asking that they be treated more special than any other combination.

I really think this whole phrase "marriage equality" is just a fake-out for "treat us differently and special because we demand it."
It is so-o-o discriminatory it isn't even funny anymore.
mea

United States

#30 Aug 21, 2013
I just wanted to say one more thing.

The problem with using the word "marriage" is that the word has already been universally defined by God from the beginning of time. Man cannot redefine it.

God's arm, the Church, will not ask for God to join anything but one man and one woman because God said that he will never join same-sexed couples or any other combination in the manner that he joins one man and one woman. In order for there to be authentic 'marriage', there needs to be God doing the joining.

That leaves only civil union available to other combinations.

So, man's law have to reflect this reality. If man wishes to extend benefits to some combinations other than one man/one woman, then the laws should indicate that and possibly refer to it as civil union.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#31 Aug 21, 2013
mea wrote:
I just wanted to say one more thing.
The problem with using the word "marriage" is that the word has already been universally defined by God from the beginning of time. Man cannot redefine it.
God's arm, the Church, will not ask for God to join anything but one man and one woman because God said that he will never join same-sexed couples or any other combination in the manner that he joins one man and one woman. In order for there to be authentic 'marriage', there needs to be God doing the joining.
That leaves only civil union available to other combinations.
So, man's law have to reflect this reality. If man wishes to extend benefits to some combinations other than one man/one woman, then the laws should indicate that and possibly refer to it as civil union.
What drugs are you on ???

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#32 Aug 21, 2013
mea wrote:
I just wanted to say one more thing.
The problem with using the word "marriage" is that the word has already been universally defined by God from the beginning of time. Man cannot redefine it.
God's arm, the Church, will not ask for God to join anything but one man and one woman because God said that he will never join same-sexed couples or any other combination in the manner that he joins one man and one woman. In order for there to be authentic 'marriage', there needs to be God doing the joining.
That leaves only civil union available to other combinations.
So, man's law have to reflect this reality. If man wishes to extend benefits to some combinations other than one man/one woman, then the laws should indicate that and possibly refer to it as civil union.
"The problem with using the word "marriage" is that the word has already been universally defined by the flying pink unicorn from the beginning of time. Man cannot redefine it.
The flying pink unicorn's arm will not ask for the flying pink unicorn to join anything but one man and one woman because the flying pink unicorn said that it will never join same-sexed couples or any other combination in the manner that it joins one man and one woman. In order for there to be authentic 'marriage', there needs to be the flying pink unicorn doing the joining."

Pretty idiotic stuff.

Pretty distant from reality.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#33 Aug 21, 2013
mea wrote:
This whole equality thing, though, is not a good argument.
What is equal about only having two kinds of combinations in a civil union? There is the combination of one man/one woman. And there will be possibly a combination of one man/one man, or one woman/one woman.
What about other kinds of combinations?
What about one man/ten women? What about one man/one dog? What about one man/one daughter?
There are so many other kinds of combinations!
To rightfully be EQUAL----these other combinations should be considered.
If people of the same sex would only realize it, what they are asking truly is not to be equal. They are asking that they be treated more special than any other combination.
I really think this whole phrase "marriage equality" is just a fake-out for "treat us differently and special because we demand it."
It is so-o-o discriminatory it isn't even funny anymore.
You'd be wrong.

It's equal treatment under the law when any married couple is treated the same as every other married couple.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34 Aug 21, 2013
mea wrote:
I just wanted to say one more thing.
The problem with using the word "marriage" is that the word has already been universally defined by God from the beginning of time. Man cannot redefine it.
God's arm, the Church, will not ask for God to join anything but one man and one woman because God said that he will never join same-sexed couples or any other combination in the manner that he joins one man and one woman. In order for there to be authentic 'marriage', there needs to be God doing the joining.
That leaves only civil union available to other combinations.
So, man's law have to reflect this reality. If man wishes to extend benefits to some combinations other than one man/one woman, then the laws should indicate that and possibly refer to it as civil union.
Nope, wrong again.

Civil marriage has no requirement for approval from your god-creature.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#35 Aug 22, 2013
mea wrote:
The current snag right now is
The location of the couple---at point of first celebration or at point of current living household.
The IRS recently ruled that on the federal level
at least, they will consider at point of current living household.
The old traditional opinion (to let the states' have jurisdiction) was always at point of first celebration.
So, if a couple was married in California, then moved to Wisconsin, the IRS will consider them for those benefits requiring a civil 'marriage' license. BUT the state does not need to do this because they still go by the point of first celebration.
There will need to be reconciliation in federal courts for sure.
And when it happens hopefully Scalia and friends won't ignore the Constitution and legal precedent:

AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

ARTICLE VI

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

SCOTUS Majority opinion:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#36 Aug 22, 2013
mea wrote:
I just wanted to say one more thing.
The problem with using the word "marriage" is that the word has already been universally defined by God from the beginning of time. Man cannot redefine it.
God's arm, the Church, will not ask for God to join anything but one man and one woman because God said that he will never join same-sexed couples or any other combination in the manner that he joins one man and one woman. In order for there to be authentic 'marriage', there needs to be God doing the joining.
That leaves only civil union available to other combinations.
So, man's law have to reflect this reality. If man wishes to extend benefits to some combinations other than one man/one woman, then the laws should indicate that and possibly refer to it as civil union.
Which form did God universally decree?

Polygamy which was common throughout the Bible or your new version of God's word?

If the laws always said one man one woman why did you need to re-write them so it said one man one woman?

Your actions show a very low lack of faith in God and his plan.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#37 Aug 22, 2013
mea wrote:
I just wanted to say one more thing.
The problem with using the word "marriage" is that the word has already been universally defined by God from the beginning of time. Man cannot redefine it.
God's arm, the Church, will not ask for God to join anything but one man and one woman because God said that he will never join same-sexed couples or any other combination in the manner that he joins one man and one woman. In order for there to be authentic 'marriage', there needs to be God doing the joining.
That leaves only civil union available to other combinations.
So, man's law have to reflect this reality. If man wishes to extend benefits to some combinations other than one man/one woman, then the laws should indicate that and possibly refer to it as civil union.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

"Biblical marriage" in both the Old testament and the New Testament was polygamy.

The Romans of Jesus' time were monogamous, but the Jews were not. So the pagans got marriage right, and not Jesus disciples ?
mike

Milwaukee, WI

#38 Oct 31, 2013
get a life

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#39 Oct 31, 2013
mea wrote:
This whole equality thing, though, is not a good argument.
What is equal about only having two kinds of combinations in a civil union? There is the combination of one man/one woman. And there will be possibly a combination of one man/one man, or one woman/one woman.
What about other kinds of combinations?
What about one man/ten women? What about one man/one dog? What about one man/one daughter?
There are so many other kinds of combinations!
To rightfully be EQUAL----these other combinations should be considered.
If people of the same sex would only realize it, what they are asking truly is not to be equal. They are asking that they be treated more special than any other combination.
I really think this whole phrase "marriage equality" is just a fake-out for "treat us differently and special because we demand it."
It is so-o-o discriminatory it isn't even funny anymore.
If common sense were money you wouldn't even be able to afford a free lunch!
-seen on Facebook

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.

Pat Quinn Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Blue Island eyes rowing center, larger marina (Jul '14) May 17 Raise the Bar 77
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) Apr 27 Mr Johnson 52,073
News Kadner: Rita serious about state-owned casino (Mar '14) Sep '15 DMF 74
News Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner Cuts Funds For Indig... (Apr '15) Apr '15 Matt Kennedy 1
News Illinois Cops: Concealed Carry Law A 'Non-Event... (Jan '15) Jan '15 SSG MP American Joe 3
News a New Illinois cyber bully law lets teachers ac... (Jan '15) Jan '15 utopiannightmare 1
News Illinois government worker pension system remai... (Jan '15) Jan '15 Sean Tankarian 1
More from around the web