Federal Judge To Wisconsin: You Know 'Traditional' Marriage Was Polygamy, Right?

Actually, treating them equal is discrimination and therefore UNequal, lol

 

Wrong. You cannot claim the equal protection clause is only for 2 person adult homosexual marriage while excluding all other marriages you don't agree with that would use the exact same language. The equal protection clause has no limitation on marriage if you use it as such.

- - - Updated - - -

Unless you support legalizing all forms of marriage you cannot pick and choose what marriages fit the equal protection clause. That's the Achilles heel to your simplistic argument.

 

Exactly- queers aren't actually people- and therefore the 14th Amendment doesn't actually apply to them.....

 

Not at all.

This judges rulings, like all of the others deals very specifically with ban on marriages between two people of the same gender. This court case does not apply to any other situation.

And as the judge very eloquently points out- Americans have a right to marriage that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court numerous times

Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

The State has presented no valid argument on why individuals who want to marry the same gender should be denied that right- and that unless the State can prove a legitimate state interest in denying same gender marriages, then it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

 

You can't pretend you can limit a new right and still call it a right but only limited to who you like Jeff.

Man does this argument get old. For the 3453rd time Loving vs Virgina dealt with excluding heterosexual marriage based off race. It had nothing to do with homosexual marriage.

Your opinion of their argument means nothing. You cannot expand the Equal Protection Clause to only include specific marriages when the clause itself has no limitation in its wording.

 

Exaclty Judeo-Christian. Polylogomy has never been part of the Judeo-Christian only the old Judeo ethic. Never in the western Judeo-Christian has polylogomy been seen as traditional.

Even before the Judeo-Christian ethic. The Roman tradition was monogamous. The Greek tradition before that was monogamous. The Germanic and Celtic tribes were monogamous. The only instance you will find of polygamy even being allowed in the western world were the Vikings and even then it was the exception to the rule. Which is true for any culture it has always been the exception. It might be allowed but the vast majority still practice monogamous marriage. There is no such thing as traditional polygomy. A society simply cannot function with such a norm. As we are seeing in the Mideast right now when too many rich men take too many wives the men without wives get pissed real quick.

The judge is a stupid dip(*)(*)(*)(*) liberal who knows jack (*)(*)(*)(*) about western tradition!!!!

 

Do you even know what courts do Tex?

The court doesn't decide on every theoretical case that Tex spins out of his imagination, Courts deal with actual plaintiffs who have to show injury. In this case, it was same gender couples- and that is what this case deals with- and nothing else.

You want to advocate for being able to marry your toaster, you can file your own lawsuit.

From the decision:

Plaintiffs Virginia Wolf, Carol Schumacher, Kami Young, Karina Willes, Roy Badger,
Garth Wangemann, Charvonne Kemp, Marie Carlson, Judith Trampf, Katharina Heyning,
Salud Garcia, Pamela Kleiss, William Hurtubiseurbise, Leslie Palmer, Johannes Wallmann
and Keith Borden are eight same-sex couples residing in the state of Wisconsin who either
want to get married in this state or want the state to recognize a marriage they entered into
lawfully outside Wisconsin. Standing in their way is Article XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin
Constitution, which states that “[o]nly a marriage between one man and one woman shall
be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state

Once again what the court said:

Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Not one word about "for heterosexuals"

Well my opinion means as much as yours - which is nada legally. But my opinion happens to match that of the judgement:

It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional.

 

As an initial matter, defendants and amici have overstated their argument.
Throughout history, the most “traditional” form of marriage has not been between one man
and one woman, but between one man and multiple women, which presumably is not a
tradition that defendants and amici would like to continue.

Stephanie Coontz, Marriage,
a History 10 (2005) (“Polygyny, whereby a man can have multiple wives, is the marriage
form found in more places and at more times than any other.&#8221.

 

It was exclusively gay couples of the same sex as plaintiffs that the court alleges are targeted to disparage and injure them by limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

Actually, the one word "marriage" says just that.

 

No it hasn't. That's multiple marriages not multiple women within a "marriage". Each and every one of those individual and separate marriages between one man and one woman.

 

Or we could go with what the judge actually said

It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.

Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional.


- - - Updated - - -

Feel free to argue with the judge and the author of the book that she cites.

The issue itself is immaterial to the judges rational for finding Wisconsins marriage laws preventing same gender couples from marrying to be unconstitutional.

 

Wow some liberal wrote a book. She can bite me. Polygamy has never been common or traditional in western culture and it has never been the norm in any culture nor is it the norm in cultures that allow it today and that is the fact!

Of the major western cultures on the vikings allowed polygamy and even then it was not the norm.

 

Yep. The statute they were convicted of,

If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59,

Their marriage in DC only became a crime when they began "cohabiting as man and wife" in Virginia. There were no laws against a man cohabitating with his butt buddy without a proper marriage.

 

They've been dragging this Stephanie Coontz all across the country to testify in most of these cases creating gay marriage. A feminist, socialist, UC Berkley trained, 1960s Vietnam protester that views the history of marriage as a history of patriarchal society oppressing women. What was that from the Communist playbook back then?

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."....
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

 

Stephanie Coontz teaches history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, and is Director of Research and Public Education for the Council on Contemporary Families.

Coontz is the author of the award-winning "A Strange Stirring": The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s" (Basic Books, 2011) and Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage (Viking Press, 2005). She also wrote The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap (1992 and 2000, Basic Books), The Way We Really Are: Coming to Terms with America's Changing Families (Basic Books, 1997), and The Social Origins of Private Life: A History of American Families. She edited American Families: A Multicultural Reader (Routledge, 200. Her writings have been translated into French, Arabic, Spanish, Russian, Czech, German, Norwegian, Turkish, Greek, Chinese, Ukrainian, and Japanese.

Coontz has testified about her research before the House Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families in Washington, DC, and addressed audiences across America, Japan,, and Europe. She has been a featured speaker at the Renaissance Weekend, PopTech, and Chautauqua and has appeared on The Colbert Report, MSNBC "The Cycle," The Today Show, PBS News Hour with Ray Suarez, Oprah Winfrey, Crossfire, 20/20, NPR, CNN's Talk Back Live, CBS This Morning, CSPAN, and the O-Reilly Factor, as well as in several prime-time television documentaries, including ones hosted by Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters.

Coontz has published numerous articles in the New York Times, where she served as a guest columnist in May and June of 2013, The Observer/Guardian, The Times of London, Wall Street Journal, Salon, Washington Post, Newsweek, Harper's, Vogue, LIFE, Time-LIFE Books, and Mirabella, as well as in such professional journals as Annals, Family Therapy Magazine, Chronicle of Higher Education, National Forum, and Journal of Marriage and Family. She has contributed chapters to more than 25 academic books. She frequently conducts media training workshops for academics, teaching how to write op eds, work more effectively with the media, and explain research more clearly.

A former Woodrow Wilson Fellow, Coontz has also taught at Kobe University in Japan and the University of Hawaii at Hilo. In 2013 she received the Work-Life Legacy Award from the Families and Work Institute. In 2004, she received the Council on Contemporary Families first-ever "Visionary Leadership" Award. In 1995 she accepted the Dale Richmond Award from the American Academy of Pediatrics for her "outstanding contributions to the field of child development." She also received the 2001-02 "Friend of the Family" award from the Illinois Council on Family Relations. She served as a marriage consultant to The Ladies Home Journal from 2006-2009 and consulted with the Pew Research Center in developing their questionnaire for their 2010 report on the state of marriage and family life in America, as well as with Match.com for its 2011 survey on singles.

 

No one has to show how gay marriage effects anyone negatively. The burden is on those who support it to show it isn't harmful to society and that "gay" is more than a myth. So far no one can do that.

 

Well that is a nice piece of fiction.

 

Shes not with us. Absurd to consider 5 different marriages to different women done at different times as one marriage between one man and 5 women. Its 5 marriages, each and everyone of them between a man and a woman, and NONE OF THEM between two people of the same sex.

 

LOL....anything to avoid the actual decision by the judge.....

I am granting plaintiffs’ motion for
summary judgment and denying defendants’ motion to dismiss because I conclude that the
Wisconsin laws prohibiting marriage between same-sex couples interfere with plaintiffs’ right
to marry, in violation of the due process clause, and discriminate against plaintiffs on the
basis of sexual orientation, in violation of the equal protection clause.

 

Id say its their burden to show an actual BENEFIT of gay marriage. Children born into homes with both their biological parents do better than children who are not. Show me evidence that children born into homes with homosexual parents do better than children who are not and THEN they would have justification to treat them the same.

 

Well if you want to treat homosexuals as second class citizens, not entitled to the rights and protections of the Constitution- sure.

 

Who is avoiding it Captain obvious. Everyone is aware of how she decided. We were discussing her silly argument regarding polygamy. And Ive repeatedly pointed to the above portion of her holding that clearly states it is alleged to be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation while you continue to deny it.

 

I love being Captain Obvious when it comes to providing actual text rather than what you say a judge says

It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.

Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional.

 

That's those delicate as a flower sensibilities of the homosexuals again that leads them to feel as though they were second class citizens.. A preference for biological parents doesn't render homosexuals second class citizens. That's just their feelings of inadequacy from their inability to procreate like normal people that creates their feelings of being a second class citizen. Heterosexual relationships perpetuate the human species. Form the basis of the family, fathers and mothers providing and caring for THEIR children, the foundation of society. Homosexual relationships have about as much significance to society as my relationship with my left hand has to society. The fact that those differences make them feel like second class citizens, isn't something Equal protection laws were intended to address.

 

Right

Tex, how many times are you going to argue this same tired strawman?