Comments on: Wisc. Supreme Court may review anti-gay marriage amendment

By: Fed Up

Fed Up — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:56:52 +0000

I keep reading all these issues that are coming to a head lately (in various states) and all I can do is smile, laugh, and grin stupidly!

I am one of the old guard who has battled the religious wrong since the early 70′s…… We still have a long way to go, but people, my GOD it is good to be finally WINNING big!

By: Kyle In WI

Kyle In WI — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:03:50 +0000

As a committed gay male in love this issue gives me hope that someday I may enjoy the same rights and responsibilities of other married couples in Wisconsin! If asked, I would be incredibley interested in signing on this lawsuit…

By: Jonesy

Jonesy — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:32:27 +0000

I feel that it’s a good thing that the case was brought up by a “Christian, straight, married” father of nine and grandfather of seven.

If there were more people like this guy in the world it would be a better place

By: Neil

Neil — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 23:33:35 +0000

Nicholas said, “Scaring people with “Gay marriage” . . . ” He’s right.

That’s another reason we need to begin using ‘marriage equality’ rather than ‘gay marriage’ or (even worse) ‘same-sex marriage’.

By: Neil

Neil — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 23:26:37 +0000

I have a feeling this one could get interesting. Especially in light of the last week.

I hope it does. I’m betting the Wisconsin Supreme Court will decline the case which means the judge will have to rule. He is likely to rule in such a way that will force the WSC to review the ruling. It might be fun.

By: Roger

Roger — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:25:43 +0000

Nicholas observed that our Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices would have to be “pretty prejudiced” to deny the claim.
However, you have to consider the caliber of our present justices. Two, elected the last two years, ran campaigns short on ethics. One was censured by the court for deciding cases in which her husband had a financial interest when she was a county judge—but they still seated her. The second, also seated, is still under investigation for a shameful campaign against a black sitting justice, whom he narrowly defeated….and I leave it to you to guess what kind of campaign he, and ultra right wing nut groups inside and outside the state, ran. Right now, it appears the court has a “conservative” majority—which doesn’t make it look very promising for minority rights.

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:30:19 +0000

Wasn’t that sneaky: Scaring people with “Gay marriage” and then tacking on civil union, which is a significantly more abstract concept for “moral” voters. They hate putting the words “gay” and “marriage” together, but if it only implies rights there is without a doubt less support for a ban.

Hopefully this goes through. the Judges would have to be pretty prejudiced to deny the validity of the claim.

By: Gerry Fisher

Gerry Fisher — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:25:10 +0000

Interesting. I think he’s got a better shot at it with the “two questions are illegal” angle. The other angle really requires a US Supreme Court decision, and the Supreme Court is not going to agree to hear a case like this any time soon. (And, from a strategic standpoint, I don’t like our chances if it hit the Supreme Court now. I think we stand a better chance 5-10 years from now.)

By: Aiden Raccoon

Aiden Raccoon — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:49:31 +0000

Interesting to note though that the repeal of this amendment would not allow for gay marriages to take place because no one is asking for the rights of marriage but only for the vote to be lifted. Gay marriage is still illegal in Wisconsin with or without an amendment.

By: LOrion

LOrion — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:49:22 +0000

Oh good scoop! Another State to start thinking about just how much harm it does for two people who love each other to marry.