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

So you want to treat homosexuals as second class citizens who do not have the same rights and protections as heterosexuals?

From the decision:

Although the parties in this case disagree about many issues, they do agree about at
least one thing, which is the central role that marriage plays in American society. It is a
defining rite of passage and one of the most important events in the lives of millions of
people, if not the most important for some. Of course, countless government benefits are
tied to marriage, as are many responsibilities, but these practical concerns are only one part
of the reason that marriage is exalted as a privileged civic status. Marriage is tied to our
sense of self, personal autonomy and public dignity. And perhaps more than any other
endeavor, we view marriage as essential to the pursuit of happiness, one of the inalienable
rights in our Declaration of Independence. Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, Case for
Marriage 2 (Broadway Books 2000) (stating that 93% of Americans rate “having a happy
marriage” as one of their most important goals, an ever higher percentage than “being in
good health&#8221.

For these reasons and many others, “marriage is not merely an accumulation
of benefits. It is a fundamental mark of citizenship.” Andrew Sullivan, “State of the
Union,” New Republic (May 8, 2000). Thus, by refusing to extend marriage to the plaintiffs
in this case, defendants are not only withholding benefits such as tax credits and marital
property rights, but also denying equal citizenship to plaintiffs



And of course it is well established that Americans have an individual right to marriage- even prisoners have a right to marriage

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

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."

 

Which is of course correct

Except it doesn't.

 

Except here in America, precisely the opposite is true. If you want to deny a right to somebody, you have to have a good reason for doing so. It's called due process.

 

And you would of course be incorrect. As the courts keep telling you

.
No relevance

Strawman/red herring

 

More of what the judge said:

Rather, it is necessary to conclude only that the state may not
intrude without adequate justification on certain fundamental decisions made by individuals
and that, when the state does impose restrictions on these important matters, it must do so
in an even-handed manner.

This goes back to the numerous rulings that Dixon so kindly provided us, where the courts have stated that marriage is a fundamental right of individuals

Defendants and amici defend the marriage
ban on various grounds, such as preserving tradition and wanting to proceed with caution,
but if the state is going to deprive an entire class of citizens of a right as fundamental as
marriage, then it must do more than say “this is the way it has always been” or “we’re not
ready yet.” At the very least it must make a showing that the deprivation furthers a
legitimate interest separate from a wish to maintain the status quo. Defendants attempt to
do this by arguing that allowing same-sex couples to marry may harm children or the
institution of marriage itself. Those concerns may be genuine, but they are not substantiated
by defendants or by amici.



Under these circumstances, personal beliefs, anxiety about change and discomfort
about an unfamiliar way of life must give way to a respect for the constitutional rights of
individuals, just as those concerns had to give way for the right of Amish people to educate
their children according to their own values, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), for
Jehovah’s Witnesses to exercise their religion freely, West Virginia Board of Education v.
Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), and for interracial couples to marry the person they believed
was irreplaceable. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). In doing this, courts do not
“endorse” marriage between same-sex couples, but merely affirm that those couples have
rights to liberty and equality under the Constitution, just as heterosexual couples do

 

Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry. As the courts keep telling you.

 

More from the Wisconsin decision

What is perhaps defendants’ oddest argument relies on a distinction between what
defendants call “positive rights” and “negative rights.” In other words, the Constitution
protects the rights of individuals to be free from government interference (“negative rights&#8221,
but it does not give them a right to receive government benefits (“positive rights&#8221.
Defendants cite cases such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489

U.S. 189, 195 (1989), for the proposition that the Constitution “confer no affirmative
right to governmental aid.” Thus, defendants say, although the due process clause may
protect the right of individuals to engage in certain intimate conduct (a “negative right&#8221, it
“does not preclude a state from choosing not to give same-sex couples the positive right to
enter the legal status of civil marriage under state law.” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 8.

Defendants’ argument has two problems. First, the Supreme Court has held on
numerous occasions that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.
E.g., Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987); Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414
U.S. 632, 639-640 (1974); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967). Thus, even if
marriage is a “positive right” as defendants understand that term, marriage stands as an
exception to the general rule.

Second, even if I assume that the state would be free to abolish the institution of
marriage if it wished, the fact is that Wisconsin obviously has not abolished marriage; rather,
it has limited the class of people who are entitled to marry. The question in this case is not
whether the state is required to issue marriage licences as a general matter, but whether it
may discriminate against same-sex couples in doing so. Even in cases in which an individual
does not have a substantive right to a particular benefit or privilege, once the state extends
that benefit to some of its citizens, it is not free to deny the benefit to other citizens for any
or no reason on the ground that a “positive right” is at issue. In fact, under the equal
protection clause, “the right to equal treatment . . . is not co-extensive with any substantive
rights to the benefits denied the party discriminated against.” Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S.

728, 739, 646 (1984). Therefore, “[t]he State may not . . . selectively deny its protective
services to certain disfavored minorities without violating the Equal Protection Clause.”
DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 197 n.3.
Defendants fail to distinguish this case from the others in which the Supreme Court
considered the constitutionality of laws that denied the right to marry to some class of
citizens. Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (interracial marriage); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
(197 (marriage of parents who fail to make child support payments); Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78 (1987) (marriage of prisoners). Although defendants say that their argument is
“consistent” with Loving, Zablocki and Turner because those cases did nothing more than
“recognize a negative right,” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 10, defendants do not explain why
marriage is a “positive right” when the state discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
but a “negative right” when it discriminates on the basis of race, custody or financial status

And one of my favorite quotes:

Providing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on an equal basis with opposite-sex couples
is not “endorsing” same-sex marriage; rather, it simply represents “a commitment to the law's
neutrality where the rights of persons are at stake.”

 

The entire usage of Courts to decide a Civics issue is an Appeal to Authority and a pretty poor one. The Constitution didn't enshrine ANY form of Marriage, therefore the States cannot be legally compelled to enshrine any form of marriage.

 

But wait- Wisconsin doesn't just have a preference for 'biological parents'- it has a preference for heterosexuals.

How do we know this?

Because Wisconsin actually has restrictions on procreation in its marriage laws.

In Wisconsin- first cousins are allowed to marry- but only if they prove that they are sterile.

That is right- Wisconsin not only allows sterile heterosexuals to marry- it actually requires some heterosexuals to prove that they cannot procreate before they get married.

So much for the argument that marriage requires the 'potential of procreation'- in Wisconsin- the law actually requires proving that there is no possible procreation for some heterosexuals.

- - - Updated - - -

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

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."

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (188, the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id. at 125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"
In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

The Supreme Court says even prisoners have a right to get married.

 

Far better than you do yes.

Seeing the big picture in law should be part of any legal decision. We do not live in a bubble Jeff. Decisions matter. You can't pretend each little case will not have sweeping consequences if you are a judge. What part of that is confusing for you?

If you cannot read the law when it was written in the context of race not homosexuality then you shouldn't be a judge. The very basis of law is to understand what the law at the time was deciding not how you can expand it. You like the judge have completely dismissed the people's right to vote on laws to change their society. You and this judge see it as your obvlighation to use laws written decades or centuries ago and expand them beyond their intent because you agree with the social policy. That's not being a judge Jeff. That's being an activist.

And it doesn't change the fact this judge is factually wrong and trying to expand a law but pretend it can be limited to only homosexuals is beyond stupid when the law being cited has no such limitations.


Here is the equivalent to what you are saying.

I should have the right to have the government build a 100 foot swimming pool in my backyard based on the equal protection clause because I don't have one but my neighbor does.

It doesn't get more asinine than that..

 

How many times are you going to ignore the wording of the equal protection clause Rahl?

And please read the definition of strawman because once again you are using it wrong.

 

What did I ignore tex? Im happy to keep right on schooling you on this if you insist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

What are you confused about tex? I correctly called you on the same tired strawman you've been arguing for months.

 

If Gay Marriage is legal, then it is pretty much impossible to make Polygamy illegal. (Consenting Adults being the prerequisite)

I am alright with this logical development.

The beta males (Liberal Men) will soon be cast aside without a woman to marry, but it's o.k., these Liberal men can marry each other. Everyone *cough* wins.

I have been welcoming this for a long while.

 

But all of those reference marriage in it's "traditional" sense, a sense this Court wanted to refute. Furthermore, the Courts have NO power to legislate rights. In overturning DOMA, the Courts rejected a "right to Marriage". In truth, Marriage was seen as a 'bedrock' for families. With that no longer being the case, marriage cannot be a right.

When has the Court EVER granted a power outside of Marriage? The Courts have no basis for Political Jurisdiction.

 

In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but is usually known under its fallacious form in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.

 

Well, Id say gay marriage is a change of the fundamental nature of marriage. Polygamy is not.

 

Not to mention "establish a home and bring up children", exclusively the domain of heterosexual couples.

 

That's those delicate as a flower sensibilities of the homosexuals again that leads them to feel as though they were second class citizens. Not their treatment by others.. 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.

 

Which is Catholic.

But considering God places no value on marriage, the Church and all religion should butt out.

 

What silliness. Marriage in Wisconsin is limited to a man and a woman for the exact same reason their paternity statute is limited to men and women

891.41  Presumption of paternity based on marriage of the parties.

(1) A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if any of the following applies:

(a) He and the child's natural mother are or have been married to each other and the child is conceived or born after marriage and before the granting of a decree of legal separation, annulment or divorce between the parties.

Only MEN can father a child with a WOMAN.

Or in the words of the S Ct of the US speaking to Wisconsins marriage laws

 

???No, its biology. All the birds around here pairing off into couples made up of a male and female to build their nest and care for their offspring, is dictated by biology. Just as men and women becoming fathers and mothers to their children is dictated by biology. Catholicism merely reflects that biology. Just as Genesis before it reflected that biology.

 

There is no 'preference for biological parents'

Why are you just making stuff up again?

The judge's decision pointed out that your kind of thinking treats homosexuals as second class citizens- because you are saying that they don't have the same rights as heterosexuals.

 

Repeatedly refuted

 

You are all over the place here

Nope- the court examined the actual language of past decisions regarding marriage.

Courts don't have the power to 'legislate' anything. But courts do interprete the Constitution, and the courts have defined marriage as a fundamental right.

No- not at all. I don't even know where you came up with that.

i have no idea what you even mean by that. But marriage is still a right. The State of Wisconsin can't tell you that you can't get married just because you are in prison or fail to pay child support.

I have no idea what you are even trying to say here.

 

Oh I am certain the judge is looking at the 'big picture'- I read the decision. But the court case deals with the case of these plaintiffs against these marriage laws. And whoever else you want to pretend will not be covered.