WISCONSIN: Homosexualists attack states’ rights to define marriage

What do you think of this objective headline from Bloomberg?

Wisconsin’s Criminal Gay-Marriage Ban Challenged by ACLU

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was sued by four same-sex couples seeking the right to marry in the state and to overturn a law that threatens them with imprisonment if they wed in another state.

The complaint, filed yesterday in federal court in Madison by the American Civil Liberties Union, follows those by advocates seeking to expand recognition for gay couples beyond the 17 states where such marriages are allowed. Similar litigation is pending in states including Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Michigan and Utah.

The statute makes it a criminal offense to go outside the state to “contract a marriage prohibited under the laws of Wisconsin.”

Wisconsin’s criminal provision is similar to marriage evasion laws in other states dating back 100 years, said Robin Wilson, director of the Family Law and Policy Program at the University of Illinois College of Law.

This type of legislation “dates back to states trying to enforce incest restrictions,” Wilson said. [And we can't have that, can we!] “States had to have all these different devices to enforce their marriage laws considering we don’t have borders.” [No irony in that statement, is there....]

[...]

Read the rest there.  It’s bizarre.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengence and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to WISCONSIN: Homosexualists attack states’ rights to define marriage

  1. AvantiBev says:

    I work for divorce attorneys (euphemism = “Family law”). This whole push for same sex marriage strikes me as a toy for which a bratty child throws tantrum after tantrum. Finally getting the prized toy, we find him days later leaving it in the muddy backyard; bored with it.

    Considering what heterosexuals have done to the once sacred covenant of marriage and to marriage and dissolution of marriage statutes, the fascination for homosexuals of being “married” is going to wear off very soon after the last U. S. state assents to it. Once Adam is ordered by a Domestic Relations Court to quit claim to Steve their summer cottage and sign over the title to the sports car, the bloom will be off the rose. The gay lifestyle is the very opposite of monogamy and will once again be seen as the route to “freedom” from the oppressive decrees of divorce courts.

  2. incredulous says:

    This isn’t heaven. Apparently it’s much closer to hell than not. The Church Militant must stay strong, focused and with a burning love for God.

    A historical review of the debauchery, murder and mayhem that is the norm is in sharp contrast to the cushy, problem free life we generally have as Americans. That’s changing rapidly.

    Satan has his hands firmly on all. But, as Good Friday teaches us, Easter Sunday is just around the corner. Stay firm, stay faithful, and relish the suffering and sacrifices we will make.

  3. torch621 says:

    Crush, O Lord, we beseech Thee, the pride of our enemies: and prostrate their arrogance by the might of Thy right hand. Through our Lord.

  4. Uxixu says:

    Not otherwise defined in the Constitution: 10th Amendment issue. Can’t be more clear. The 14th Amendment was never intended for this travesty. We need an Article V convention to reign in the Federal Leviathan and reinforce federalism (balanced budget amendment with supermajority requirement to raise taxes, spending cap tied to GDP, line item veto to POTUS, legislatively nullify the idiocy of Reynolds vs Sims). I would love to see the 12th, 16th, and 17th Amendments repealed as well as mandating re-apportionment after every Census (tied with at least doubling the size of the House).

  5. Priam1184 says:

    Yeah I saw that. Not unexpected, the savagery of the homosexualist ideology becomes more apparent every day. They are our age’s Jacobins, Bolsheviks, or Nazis take your pick. Sorry Uxixu, your suggestions would only have a chance if the Constitution actually mattered, and it has to be said that it doesn’t anymore. And why would we expect that it would? It was a document crafted entirely by mortal men, which means it had an expiration date written into it as the ink was put to paper in Philadelphia. Put not your trust in princes nor in their constitutions. And that is why the dopey ‘religious freedom’ argument that the Church hierarchy in the United States has put so much stock in is a laugher and is doomed to be a complete and utter failure.

  6. Nancy D. says:

    One would think that if a couple were to present themselves as husband and wife, when it is a self-evident truth that two men or two women cannot exist in relationship as husband and wife, that those persons presenting themselves as husband and wife, as well as those persons who validate this presentation, would be guilty of fraud.

    If one were to then argue that in order to be married, it is no longer necessary to be able to exist in relationship as husband and wife, and thus any relationship can be defined as marriage if one so desires, one would then be guilty of invalidating the validity of a valid marriage, invalidating those relationships where a man and woman exist in relationship as husband and wife.

    Please pray for healing for our family and our daughter who developed a same-sex sexual attraction as the result of the perfect storm that was greatly influenced by a date rape her freshman year of college by a young man she knew and trusted.

  7. Uxixu says:

    Agreed Priam, but if the Constitution doesn’t matter anymore, then the fighting might as well already start. It still matters to me and I’ll abide it, even if the fascists on the left won’t.

  8. Nicholas Shaler says:

    Uxixu,

    What’s so bad about #12 and #17, they seem reasonable enough?

    Btw, I mean no offence in any way.

  9. Uxixu says:

    No offense taken, Nicholas.

    For the 12th, first place in the election becomes President and second place becomes Vice President and they should necessarily have an adversarial relationship. Right now 51-54% of the vote gets entire control while the remaining 45-49% gets to live with it for 4 years while the legislature is effectively divided in half as well. Getting rid of the 12th corrects that somewhat and also gets rid of the ridiculous primary system (partially solving the egregious campaign finance situation that usually only trample on the 1st Amendment). Secondly, the Electoral College isn’t just a balancing mechanism between large states and small states, it’s also an abstraction layer. Ideally, VPOTUS would get a permanent vote in the Senate instead of just a tie breaker and lead the opposition. I would also like the idea of moving the DOJ and FBI to a 4th branch of government and maintain an adversarial relationship with the Executive but that’s a bit of a separate issue.

    17th is an echo of that and upset the balance of the government. The Senate isn’t supposed to be worried about popular decisions but the right ones. More than that, the Senate was originally conceived of as representing the States in the Federal government as The People have their voice through the House. If it’s all a popularity contest, a unicameral legislature should be more than sufficient. The Framers were trying to emulate to a certain extent the Roman Senate, which had a remarkably consistent and far sighted foreign policy for most of it’s existence. It didn’t typically shift with the fickle whim of the public (which are fairly easily fanned through demagoguery).

    The ultimate issue is Federalism and reinforcing it as much as possible. Democracy allows a transitory 51% of the public to impose their will on 49% which only provokes instability when it’s “their turn” and the cycle repeats.

  10. Johnno says:

    Today, news is breaking out that the U.N. is telling the Vatican to change its morality with regards to its referral of out-of-wedlock children as ‘illegitimate.’ And wants the Church to change its teachings with regards to contraceptives and homosexuality and get up-to-date with the U.N.’s rules about such matters.

    The Church, true to form, gave back a weak reply that they are “very disappointed” by what the U.N. is saying.

    Hopefully someone in the Vatican will remember that he’s a man, stand up and tell the U.N. to shut up and amend its rules to be more in compliance with the moral law of God.

  11. Nancy D. says:

    True, there is no such thing as an”illegitimate” child, from the moment of conception, every son or daughter of a human person is a child of God; this does not change the fact that from the moment of conception, every human person has been created in The Image and Likeness of God, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as a son or daughter.

  12. excalibur says:

    What happened to the link I posted here a few hours ago regarding the U.N.?

  13. Priam1184 says: Sorry Uxixu, your suggestions would only have a chance if the Constitution actually mattered, and it has to be said that it doesn’t anymore. And why would we expect that it would? It was a document crafted entirely by mortal men, which means it had an expiration date written into it as the ink was put to paper in Philadelphia.

    Seems to me the Article V convention provision was made precisely for such times as these. Should we not pursue every remedy, short of civil war? Because otherwise, as Uxixu says, we might as well just start fighting now.

  14. Priam1184 says:

    @Uxixu The fighting started a long time ago.

    @Miss Anita Moore O.P. If you can get enough people who care enough to produce an Article V convention then pursue that option. If the Constitution is what we are fighting for then yes do all of those things. But, as I said, the United States Constitution is merely a document that came about in time and will pass into history. It is not the end all or be all of anything and it will be no help against our real enemy.

  15. Uxixu says:

    It did? To what fighting are you referring?

    I find the United States Constitution to be worth fighting for as the best instrument for the propagation and protection of our holy faith. Old Europe has lost its soul and Christendom is all but dead. Islam has gobbled up the East and is poised for another go at Europe slowly but steadily seeping in this time instead of the overt storm of last time… as the Europeans make it easy by contracepting and aborting themselves under the sustainment level to maintain their own cultural identities.

  16. Priam1184 says:

    @Uxixu “I find the United States Constitution to be worth fighting for as the best instrument for the propagation and protection of our holy faith” REALLY??? The Catholic Church existed for one millennium and three quarters before the US Constitution came into existence. It converted nation after nation centuries before the Western Hemisphere was even discovered, much less before the United States was founded. Holy Mother Church would do just fine without the US Constitution.

    “The Europeans make it easy by contracepting and aborting themselves” WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? We are doing the exact same thing here in the land of the free and the home of the brave under this great US Constitution. The religious freedom clause in the first amendment basically says you can worship any god you want or no god at all and that’s cool with us. How does that propagate and protect our holy Faith? Not to mention that the whole notion of religious freedom was first put forth by men who were implacable enemies of the Catholic Church.

    And as for the fighting and its casualties: what do you call the 55 million victims of abortion and the countless more souls that have been contracepted out of existence?

    Islam will die because it is bringing the whole Middle East down in flames at the present moment. And in addition: as anyone noticed that the birthrate in Iran has fallen below the replacement rate: from over six children per woman in the late 1970s to under 2 today. We think, rightly so, that our societies are messed up but why would anybody want to have children living in a society overflowing with heroin abuse that is run by the mad mullahs?

  17. gheg says:

    I suspect that the original purpose of this law was to criminalize the practice of leaving the state to contract a first-cousin marriage in a state where it is legal. If I am not mistaken, the Church sometimes grants dispensations for these marriages. I believe that this law is unconstitutional because it violates the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution and attempts to criminalize the contracting of a legal marriage in another state. This statute has nothing to do with “gay marriage”.