June 6, 2014

Suddenly, there's same-sex marriage in Wisconsin, and the Dane County Clerk's Office is staying open until 9.

Come on in! Anybody need a marriage license?

Untitled

Out on the front steps, there were at least 4 judges in their robes, ready to do impromptu ceremonies for any same-sex couples who reacted spontaneously to today's federal court opinion and wanted to get married:

Untitled

Untitled

Untitled

It's a beautiful, warm late spring night and the atmosphere was low key and not at all protest-y or political. These were couples doing what they should have been able to do all along.

Untitled

Love was all around, and I was able to choke back tears until I got back in the car.

Untitled

106 comments:

Terry said...

I am never quite sure what Ms. Althouse thinks that marriage is. It is a religious institution recognized by the state, not the other way around.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

What a bonanza for a same-sex divorce lawyer!

Ann Althouse said...

In case you're wondering about the waiting period — between issuance of the license and the the wedding — it can be waived by the clerk, and that seems to be what is happening in Dane County.

You may remember that Meade and I chose to go to Colorado to get married in part because we didn't like the waiting period:

"One thing I love about American federalism is that — subject to the limitations of national law — individual states can do things their own way, and we can move around finding the law we like. We decided against marrying in Madison, because under Wisconsin law, not only do you need to pay $125 or so for the license and then go get a minister or a judge to perform the wedding — you have to wait 6 days between getting the license and doing the wedding. What's that all about? It's insulting, not to mention avaricious. We went west, out of the grip of a paternalistic state, for greater freedom and individuality."

Chuck said...

Disgusting and appalling that we see repeated the pattern that local clerks -- Democrats -- pull stunts with extended hours while real lawyers try to get real judges to stay the constitutionality opinions until a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals can rule. Invariably (?) the appellate courts have ruled -- as they should -- that district court orders on major state constitutional questions should be stayed pending appeal. Utah, Michigan, Virginia; you name it. They have all put stays into effect. After, that is, a rainbow-parade circus of gay marriages in the intervening hours.

It is an abomination to the rule of law and good trial court/appellate court procedure.

Harold said...

So, who authorized the overtime and expenditure of taxpayers money for something that can wait until normal office hours?

Unknown said...

How can the increase of the rate of love in the world be a bad thing? I don't comment often,anywhere, but this moved me. Thank you.

Ann Althouse said...

"I am never quite sure what Ms. Althouse thinks that marriage is. It is a religious institution recognized by the state, not the other way around."

It is a relationship that is given legal recognition. A religious ritual isn't required and could not be required (under the Establishment Clause). Typically, state law demands that you have some officiant perform a service, and religious officiants are included but not required. Colorado was unique in that we were permitted to be our own officiants.

Chuck said...

Justice Scalia, dissenting in Lawrence v. Texas:

****
Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653.

One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.” Ante, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).

Shouting Thomas said...

Althouse the destroyer continues to mock marriage.

Her arrogance is preposterous.

Gays will be back in the closet one day in the future. There was a reason they were there in the first place.

Our depraved, arrogant ruling class is completely out of control.

Natural law and reality will defeat these tyrants in the long run.

Chuck said...

Professor Althouse, exactly when (after clearly tolerating laws that criminalized homosexual acts and clearly regarding homosexual marriage as beyond legal recognition) did the Constitution of the United States change so as to make homosexual marriage a federal right under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments?

Meade said...

"It is a religious institution recognized by the state, not the other way around."

Non-religious Americans cannot have their marriages recognized by the state? Preposterous.

Shouting Thomas said...

How do you and your husband and son want us to kneel while we kiss your ass, Althouse?

Should we prostrate ourselves before you?

jr565 said...

Unknown wrote:
How can the increase of the rate of love in the world be a bad thing?

Please excuse me while I throw up at the platitude. So, what say you about any other marriage still restricted? Why aren't we spreading the love?

jr565 said...

It is a religious institution recognized by the state, but it's also a civil institution recognized by the state. It's just that until recently the idea of marriage being between a man and a woman matched the religious and civil definition.

The Crack Emcee said...

Harold,

"Who authorized letting citizens know we give a damn?"

The fucking horror,...

Terry said...

Civil marriage is a recent development. Dates from the time of Napolean, I believe. Where did it come from? What institution is civil marriage modeled from?
Ms. Althouse writes "It is a relationship that is given legal recognition."
Like a legal contract? A legal contract is not marriage, though that is part of it these days. Same sex marriage is only a legal contract. It is not marriage in any other sense.

Solvalou Vii said...

Why the tears? All the adult men in short pants?

Michael K said...

"We went west, out of the grip of a paternalistic state, for greater freedom and individuality."

But it is very important for the gays, and for you apparently, to have the state call the relationship "marriage." I don't care what they call it. It could be called a turnip but the need to have the state call it the traditional name and then to force religious people kowtow to the state ceremony is amusing. For an advocate of "freedom," I mean.

Shouting Thomas said...

Now comes the all out attack on freedom of association and the attempt to destroy the Catholic Church.

In fact, it's already started.

You are an intensely destructive woman, Althouse.

You are Exhibit A in why the patriarchy should be restored and why women should not occupy your position. Your job should be reserved for a heterosexual man with a family.

Shouting Thomas said...

I regret being in involved in the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War.

That movement opened the door to destroyers like Althouse. That movement began the attack on the status and standing of the fathers.

If I could have foreseen that, way back in 1966, I would have simply signed up for duty and headed off to Vietnam.

What a mistake! I was too young and naive to understand how serious a mistake it was to undermine the authority of the patriarchy.

jj121957 said...

Slippery slope to complete marriage irrelevancy. Don't discriminate against bisexuals. Don't tell anyone they can't love more than one spouse. In a generation or less everyone will be related by marriage to everyone else. It will be a wonderful place to raise kids.

Meade said...

Shouting Thomas,

Why do you want the United States to be a theocracy that enacts laws that serve religious rather than pragmatic secular aims? Don't you have ancestors who risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to prevent that?

holdfast said...

How can the increase of the rate of love in the world be a bad thing?

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about marriage. What's love got to do with it? What's love, but a secondhand emotion?


I like this waiting period idea. If you have to have it for guns and mortgages, why not for an even more important financial decision?

Shouting Thomas said...

@Meade

Yes, in fact, I do want the U.S. to be a society ruled by Judeo-Christian tradition and law.

Ann Althouse said...

"You are an intensely destructive woman, Althouse."

Things laughed at tonight.

Surely, you must see how ridiculous that looks.

Shouting Thomas said...

Surely, you must see how ridiculous that looks.

Over the long run you will lose.

Human history is cyclical, not linear.

This is not the first time around for this delusion behavior.

betamax3000 said...

Commenting on the Wrong Post Drunk Guy says:

Now that I have accepted myself as a fully dressed woman my castration dreams have ended. Indeed, I find I miss those dreams and the clarity that came with them: there was finality. Now my erection brushes against my loose-fitting dress and I have no relief; Elana has not responded to my dreams. I wonder if I must cut off my own penis for Elana to truly accept me, for us to share precious moments and rubber penises I look at the scissors on the desk and wonder if God made those specific scissors for me in this specific moment. I think it is wrong for you to comment on things you really don’t know about.

Shouting Thomas said...

Thank God, I'm retired. Thank God, I'm not really involved in politics in any real way.

I don't have to put the fags and fag hags. They were just awful. They inflicted the AIDS epidemic on us. Then, they started a campaign to indict straight men for their behavior that caused the AIDS epidemic. Then, these spoiled rotten rich white kids started pretending they were the same as blacks living under Jim Crow. They streamed into the workplace in the 90s with that chip on their shoulder.

Depraved behavior by spoiled brats.

The best thing about being retired is that I don't have to put up with this spoiled brat behavior from the fags and fag hags.

Ghastly. I hope this shit is just about over. Mostly, I ignore it now. As I approach the end of my second year of retirement, it is slowly dawning on me that I don't have to ever put up with the fags and fag hags again. Hallelujah!

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Can we get some judge to strike down Obama's re-election due to illegal voter suppression by the IRS?

Give Romney just a few days. Bet he could undo a lot of the damage.

The Crack Emcee said...

Meade & Ann,

ST sees things through the filter of Judeo-Christian tradition and law.

In other words, you're dancing around a golden calf,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Or we are, if you can picture me dancing around a golden calf.

Actually, I'd do that - I'd dance around a golden calf, what the fuck?

Once these guys laughed at Trayvon's parents, they pretty much sealed their fate,...

Unknown said...

If the state is no longer interested in marriage as traditionally understood, then why is state recognition needed for what one person does to another person's body parts? Why not have civil partnerships for any two consenting adult individuals, including siblings, a parent and child, business partners, and platonic friends? Why not leave marriage as a personal and cultural definition?

Dave P.

Ann Althouse said...

"Mostly, I ignore it now."

Oh, really?

sunsong said...

Congrats to Wisconsin!

Ann Althouse said...

"If the state is no longer interested in marriage as traditionally understood, then why is state recognition needed for what one person does to another person's body parts? Why not have civil partnerships for any two consenting adult individuals, including siblings, a parent and child, business partners, and platonic friends? Why not leave marriage as a personal and cultural definition?"

I'd say that ending it now that gay people are entering it is a different thing than ending it earlier for some neutral reason.

It reminds me of the old civil rights era case where a town facing the requirement to let black people use the public swimming pool decided to just not have a swimming pool anymore.

Shouting Thomas said...

Oh, really?

Yes, I do, Althouse.

You haven't heard from me recently, have you?

I've got two rehearsals and a gig tomorrow. I'll get busy not and get my gear together.

As I said, it was a mistake to undermine the authority of our fathers. I decided some time ago that you are just a destroyer and an enemy. Your name comes up on LEM's blog, which is normally just about the only place I pay attention to you.

The best thing to do with destructive enemies is to stay the hell away from them. I concern myself these days almost entirely with playing music, taking care of my health and taking care of my granddaughter.

I'm not a political activist of any kind. Thankfully, I can choose to ignore just about anything I want to ignore nowadays. I don't have to go into an office and deal with destructive women like you. It's like be able to breathe freely again.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Are they waiving the waiting period for opposite-sex couples as well? Treating them differently would be bad, or so I'm told.

Shouting Thomas said...

Thanks, professor, for reminding me that I have more important things to do than to get caught again in the devious web of a fag hag.

I'll keep it in mind.

Pat said...

Long time conservative republican here, glad to see people who love each other and are willing to commit to each other, able to be married. We r's need to let this issue go and fight other fights.

chickelit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

I wish I could have made it down. We had swim practice. So jealous! Agree it was a celebratory politics free day. Love wins. Over 60 couples enjoyed a union today in Dane County. Huzzah!

chillblaine said...

Bill Maher is right. The culture war is over. The progressives won. They did it by appealing to the empathy most people have for their fellow human beings.

To further extend the metaphor, the hardliners are seeking reparations. Soon houses of worship will be compelled to perform homosexual rituals. The continuation of their tax exempt status will be enough to coerce the weak hands. The rest will fall in line when the Supreme Court shifts left.

mccullough said...

It's nice to see government employees actually doing work. And on a Friday no less.

Archie said...

This will end in violence and a restoration of the status quo ante.

eric said...

I submit that the word love is being used in a fallacious way. Love does not mean something you feel. It means the way you behave.

What we are seeing is a perversion of love. One that says, if you feel good, its love.

Which is apropos of this situation. As we see both love and sex being perverter and enablers helping these people destroy their lives.

Terry said...

"It reminds me of the old civil rights era case where a town facing the requirement to let black people use the public swimming pool decided to just not have a swimming pool anymore."
A poor analgy. A public swimming pool has no religious tradition.
Marriage is an institution outside of the relationship of the individual and the state. The state imposing itself on that institution -- redefining it suit the needs of the state -- should be troubling to any civil libertarian.

jr565 said...

Chilblains wrote:
Bill Maher is right. The culture war is over. The progressives won. They did it by appealing to the empathy most people have for their fellow human beings.

not so. Not while there are still restrictions on those who want to "marry" who they love. And that means all restricted marriages.

Terry said...

Pat wrote ". . and are willing to commit to each other."
A commitment similar to signing a lease on a new car.
You are not a "long time conservative republican". You are a same-sex marriage supporter.

Freeman Hunt said...

Arkansas was before Wisconsin then. A surprise!

jr565 said...

Feom unknown's link about polygamouse marriage in Brazil:
"Three Brazilians in love have their nation up in arms over whether their relationship, now enshrined in a three-way marriage, is legal. The public notary who conducted their marriage says there's no reason the threesome – or "thruple", as the internet has charmingly labelled it – shouldn't enjoy the same kinds of rights imparted upon two people who get hitched. But traditionalists are not impressed: lawyer Regina Beatriz Tavares da Silva, of the Commission for the Rights of the Family, has it "absurd and totally illegal".


Compare that to Judge Posner who Althouse linked to saying their was no reason other than religious to oppose gay marriage.
Its always the traditionalists opposing the change, and its always the liberals saying there is no reason to oppose their view. Who appointed this public notary, or Judge Posner for that matter to be the arbiter of what reasons are valid to oppose changing marriage definitions.
His argument for the legalization of polygamy is exactly the argument for the legalization of gay marriage. Don't see then why those pushing for gay marriage would have a problem comparing gay marriage to polygamy or why they wouldn't in fact be pushing for gay polygamy.

mtrobertsattorney said...

"Love should be multiplied, not divided."
Distinguished Social Philosopher Cody Brown

Lyle said...

How long will some of this love last though?

After everyone has marriage rights, we've got to work on the love thing.

Jason said...

This calls for a nice cold glass of Polygamy Porter!

Why have just one?

Michael K said...

"The continuation of their tax exempt status will be enough to coerce the weak hands. The rest will fall in line when the Supreme Court shifts left."

Of course. It's no fun unless you can force others to kiss your favorite part. Civil unions were never going to be enough. Only forcing the Catholic Church to perform gay marriage will satisfy the radicals who are increasingly those who describe themselves as "moderate."

Oso Negro said...

I would say hold it with the "love wins" stuff. Using the power of the state to compel people to accept that which has been considered perversion of the direst sort for centuries is scarcely an act of love.

darllenydd said...

Congratulations are in order.

Where I live we've had same-sex marriage for thirteen years now, and I can assure everyone that it's the least of our problems. Funny to see so many people getting their knickers in a twist over a development that doesn't hurt them in the least.

Meade said...

Pat said...
"Long time conservative republican here, glad to see people who love each other and are willing to commit to each other, able to be married. We r's need to let this issue go and fight other fights."

Tax reform, freer markets, economic growth, national security.


Dan from Madison said...

Good comment Paul Zrimsek. Along those lines, I am happy that they did this just like when they had extended office hours after conceal carry was decriminalized in Wisconsin.

Meade said...

"The continuation of their tax exempt status will be enough to coerce the weak hands."

Religious institutions are tax exempt? Because their individual members already pay taxes? Okay. Shouldn't all corporations be exempt from taxes?

Terry said...

darllenydd fantasix=zed:
"Funny to see so many people getting their knickers in a twist over a development that doesn't hurt them in the least."

And reality countered:
"A Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple has been given an ultimatum by a judge; serve gay weddings or face fines."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505

LarsPorsena said...

Is there some prohibition to prevent brother-brother or sister-sister marriages?

BDNYC said...

Choke back tears? I support get marriage, but come on. Get a grip.

Yes I know you have a gay son. Was he there getting married? No?

Gahrie said...

"It reminds me of the old civil rights era case where a town facing the requirement to let black people use the public swimming pool decided to just not have a swimming pool anymore."

Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race.

Meade said...

"Homosexuality is a behavior"

It's a sexual orientation. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that is the Roman Catholic Church's position.

Titus said...

congrats scony. and thanks Mass-10 years ago-started it all-we reallly are pioneers.

Paul said...

"Gay marriage" assumes men and women are not deeply and fundamentally different. Man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, what's the dif?

http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/08/the-rise-of-the-same-sex-marriage-dissidents/

"There’s precisely one bodily system for which each of us only has half of the system. It’s the one that involves sex between one man and one woman. It’s with respect to that system that the unit is the mated pair. In that system, it’s not just a relationship that is the union of minds, wills or important friendships. It’s the literal union of bodies. In sexual congress, in intercourse between a man and a woman, you are literally coordinated to a single bodily end.
There’s one bodily system for which each of us only has half of the system.

In every other respect we as humans act as individual organisms except when it comes to intercourse between men and women — then we work together as one flesh. Coordination toward that end — even when procreation is not achieved — makes the unity here. This is what marriage law was about. Not two friends building a house together. Or two people doing other sexual activities together. It was about the sexual union of men and women and a refusal to lie about what that union and that union alone produces: the propagation of humanity. This is the only way to make sense of marriage laws throughout all time and human history. Believing in this truth is not something that is wrong, and should be a firing offense. It’s not something that’s wrong, but should be protected speech. It’s actually something that’s right. It’s right regardless of how many people say otherwise. If you doubt the truth of this reality, consider your own existence, which we know is due to one man and one woman getting together. Consider the significance of what this means for all of humanity, that we all share this."

There is no end to the folly of "progressive" social engineering. Gay marriage is just one of many wounds inflicted on society by these fools. It is truly "death by a thousand cuts" and the fruition of the Marxist-Socialist enemies of Western civilization agenda.

Congratulations to all you "open minded" people as you hasten the coming day of reckoning, and I don't mean that in a religious sense at all. The day of reckoning is simply the collapse of a complex system when enough of the the fibers that make up its fabric are severed, and it tears asunder.

WHAT?????? said...

Since marriage means nothing anymore can I marry my lamp I love lamp

damikesc said...

Religious institutions are tax exempt? Because their individual members already pay taxes?

No. It's that whole church and state thing.

...also, to be blunt, churches are infinitely better at charitable service than the government is.

Church-run hospitals don't tend to have waiting lists where people die waiting for treatments. Government hospitals? Not so much.

Church run schools have better behaved and educated students as a general rule than a government run school.

I don't want a theocracy, but when it comes to sheer competence, I'll take a church over the government on virtually any possible measure.

People so often don't think about the ramifications of their desires. Did progressives think that welfare would obliterate black families? That highly generous welfare payments would severely damper somebody's willingness to work? That championing gay rights causes would have cause AIDS to spread like wildfire in the 80's due to not pursuing some insanely simple public health measures?

Unintended consequences are unintended only by those blind enough to not see the possibility of bad outcomes.

I have said, for a while, I dread backlash. Because a vicious backlash is heading in the future. Because the activists won't be satisfied and the majority is eventually going to find a person willing to blame all problems on the activists.

And when that happens, it won't be pretty.

But it won't be shocking to anybody familiar with human history.

damikesc said...

It's a sexual orientation.

If the sex between same sexes never happens, it's an orientation.

When the sex occurs, it is a behavior.

Drago said...

garage: "Agree it was a celebratory politics free day. Love wins. Over 60 couples enjoyed a union today in Dane County."

Why just couples?

What if threesomes love each other?

Why can't they get married?

The only rule now is that the parties to be wed "love" each other.

Or so we've been told over and over and over and over and over on this very thread.

CStanley said...

Sure, nothing political about waiving the waiting period.

Drago said...

meade: "Tax reform, freer markets, economic growth, national security."

Not getting any of those either, are we?

Terry said...

Orientation can only be determined by behavior. The phrase "sexual orientation" is a term of art.
There is no biological test that can indicate whether or not a person is homosexual.

Drago said...

Terry: "And reality countered:
"A Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple has been given an ultimatum by a judge; serve gay weddings or face fines."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505"

In lefty land, that which is not expressly forbidden becomes expressly mandatory.

Jason said...

It's a sexual orientation.

Not once you're getting married to a same-sex partner it's not. It's a behavior.

That's why if you're a gay teacher at a Catholic school and you go to confession and say "Father, I have a homosexual orientation" all will be hunky dory. But if you go to the same guy and present him with a marriage certificate to someone of the same sex he'll still love you, even as you lose your job.

Meade said...

if you're a gay teacher at a Catholic school and you go to confession and say "Father, I have a homosexual orientation" all will be hunky dory. But if you go to the same guy and present him with a marriage certificate to someone of the same sex he'll still love you, even as you lose your job.

Well, maybe the Pope will change that policy. Some people believe that more openness and tolerance would have prevented the costly coverups of the priest/child abuse scandals.

Terry said...

I am not Catholic, but I believe that the official teaching is that heterosexuality or homosexuality is not an integral part of a person. Homosexuality is something you do, not what you are.
The APA definition of orientation says that it cannot be separated from a person. You don't become homosexual or heterosexual, any more than you become male or female.

CStanley said...

I'd say that ending it now that gay people are entering it is a different thing than ending it earlier for some neutral reason.

It reminds me of the old civil rights era case where a town facing the requirement to let black people use the public swimming pool decided to just not have a swimming pool anymore.


Those situations are actually opposites. The proposal here isn't to end marriage, but to make civil marriage even more inclusive than what gay right activists want it to be.

The analogy would have been if the municipalities were told to open the pools to blacks but not Asians, and they said no, if we are broadening the admission policy we must do it for all.

CStanley said...

Well, maybe the Pope will change that policy. Some people believe that more openness and tolerance would have prevented the costly coverups of the priest/child abuse scandals.

They believe that without any evidence, and in defiance of logic.

Skeptical Voter said...

Ah the joys of Federalism that Ms. Althouse touts. In practice it means that any Federal judge in a black dress (well robe if you want to be precise) can wave his or her magic wand and "poof" the wishes of the citizenry as expressed in a vote go glimmering off into the night. Silly peasants! How dare they offend the sensibilities of the gentry!

Jupiter said...

"It is a relationship that is given legal recognition."

Yes, and implicit in that recognition is the view that the relationship consists in the desire of two people to use each other for sexual pleasure, and nothing more.

As Althouse and her husband surely know, the law recognizes and supports marriage because it forms the basis of the family, which in turn is the basis of society. The underlying logic of homosexual marriage is that marriage is about having sex, for the sake of pleasure, and nothing more. If two people are inclined to have sex, they may as well marry, since marriage is only about sex. On this view, preventing them from marrying is wrong, because it prevents two people from doing what they are inclined to do. And many people find this view compelling. The Left always has good arguments for its bad ideas.

The reality is that homosexuals are broken. They don't work right. Recognizing their "marriages" amounts to pretending that they actually work just fine. Tab A has been inserted in slot B, just like the directions require. Well, slot C, actually, but why make a fuss about that?

Many commenters have pointed out the obvious next step, that polygamy should be granted legal recognition, and then perhaps bestiality. But this slope is nowhere near slippery enough. What is so special about sex? If a shared interest in anal sex is grounds for marriage, why not a shared interest in backgammon, or stamp collecting?

Of course, we all know why, because we all know that marriage is not about sex, it is about children. And collecting stamps is not how you make, and raise, children. Nor is anal sex. Whether twisting the law in this literally perverse fashion, to recognize as true what everyone knows to be false, will have harmful results, remains to be seen. Thus far, the main result has been that the State is empowered to humiliate a few more people, by forcing them to acknowledge that two + two = five if the State says so. Orwell told us where this leads; "A boot stamping on a human face -- forever."

Anthony said...

I used to have respect and faith in judges -- similar to the way I had faith in people in government -- to carry out their business according to the law. Actually, similar to the way I used to have respect for professors (generally, not just our host) to just teach what they know and not indoctrinate. I'm afraid now I'm seeing them all as just more of the same elitists out to do whatever they feel like and abusing their positions of power.

Was it ever thus? Probably. Well, definitely. Put simply, our "betters" aren't, never were, and never will be that. They're just more clever at convincing people to give them power.

caseym54 said...

This was orchestrated and the federal judge was part of it. That's misconduct, pure and simple.

jr565 said...

darlenndy wrote:
Where I live we've had same-sex marriage for thirteen years now, and I can assure everyone that it's the least of our problems. Funny to see so many people getting their knickers in a twist over a development that doesn't hurt them in the least.

If we allowed kids to marry adults would it hurt you in the least? If we allowed people to marry their pets would it hurt you in the least? If we allowed harems or legalized bigamy would it hurt you in the least?
Doesnt mean that we can't have such rules in place. It only means that the argument you're posing is invalid.

caseym54 said...

The Catholic Church will not perform these unions in our lifetimes. The first thing that will happen is that the Church will withdraw from the civil marriage system and perform a religious ceremony only. Those who wish to have their marriage recognized by the state (in addition to God) can go down to the courthouse.

So long as they avoid claiming a Catholic ceremony has some state function, the state can go whistle.

damikesc said...

Openness hasnt done a thing for the FAR bigger problem of public education molestation.

jr565 said...

WHAT?????? wrote:
"Since marriage means nothing anymore can I marry my lamp I love lamp"
Brick is that you? Someday, you will be able to marry lamp who you love. Those opposing your love are simply bigoted and behind on the evolution of love and marriage in this country.
You are a trendsetter. And agrieved.

Paul said...

This bears repeating because none of you pro gay marriage people will touch it, because it's irrefutable!!

"There’s precisely one bodily system for which each of us only has half of the system. It’s the one that involves sex between one man and one woman. It’s with respect to that system that the unit is the mated pair. In that system, it’s not just a relationship that is the union of minds, wills or important friendships. It’s the literal union of bodies. In sexual congress, in intercourse between a man and a woman, you are literally coordinated to a single bodily end.
There’s one bodily system for which each of us only has half of the system.

In every other respect we as humans act as individual organisms except when it comes to intercourse between men and women — then we work together as one flesh. Coordination toward that end — even when procreation is not achieved — makes the unity here. This is what marriage law was about. Not two friends building a house together. Or two people doing other sexual activities together. It was about the sexual union of men and women and a refusal to lie about what that union and that union alone produces: the propagation of humanity. This is the only way to make sense of marriage laws throughout all time and human history."

caseym54 said...

Anne--

Does it bother you that the weddings were unlawful?

"U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb of Madison did not formally order state officials to stop enforcing the bans, saying she would rule later on the plea by state officials to put her ruling on hold while they appeal. Thus, the bans remain in effect for the time being. She gave both sides in the case a chance to file their views on whether a postponement in this case should be affected by the Supreme Court’s refusal earlier this week to block same-sex marriages in Oregon."

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/wisconsin-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruled-invalid/#more-212436

Jason said...

Some people believe that more openness and tolerance would have prevented the costly coverups of the priest/child abuse scandals.


Some people believe all kinds of stupid shit. That's why we have liberals.

timb said...

Geez, what a bunch of bigots. What do the folks here think happened in Windsor? Did they pay any attention to the arguments at District Court, where their "marriage is for procreation" was demolished by the fact that women way past menopause are married everyday, that couple who never intend to procreate are married everyday, and that, as straight people demonstrate daily, marriage is not required for cohabiting parents?

It's sad when the prejudices of a bunch of old white guys are respected anymore, but if Strom Thurmond could survive the integration of the Armed Forces, I'm sure Terry and Chuck will pesevere in their prejudgements.

Alex said...

I'm with garage and Ann on this. Congratulations to the 60 Dane county couples who will know marriage bliss!

Huzzah!

Alex said...

Oh and ST - screw you Taliban man.

Mark said...

Why just couples?

What if threesomes love each other?

Why can't they get married?


If you accept that marriage (as an institution) has historically been about familial continuity, do what Gaius Julius Caesar did when he found himself without a male heir: adopt a grown man as part of the family.

That gets weird fast, of course...

Marriage consisting of a man and multiple women aren't anything odd through human history. There have even been cultures where one woman could have multiple husbands (where inheritance rules were matrilineal). Those models do NOT adapt easily to our current legal structures surrounding marriage, of course.

We'll adapt. Frankly, I'd rather see more forms of family (and family support) if it means less reliance on the State to take on the functions that were once the province of family.

Meade said...

"Some people believe all kinds of stupid shit. That's why we have liberals."

I don't know about that. But it might explain why we have people who argue the way you do.

Harold said...

It took 66 or so pages of opinion to strike down the Wisconsin amenfment as unconstitutional. This means that is obviously constitutional. If a ban on SSM were actually uncinstitutional, it wouuld take less then one page to explain it.

Sort of like the ACA, the unconstitutional abomination that was declared constitional. Hundreds of pages to declare it so. One line- The ACA does not fall within the Article I Section 8 enumerated powers of Congress.
That's indisputable. Which is why it took several hundreds of pages and arguments to say otherwise. The Constitution is not a very hard document to understand, despite what all you legal experts tell us ordinary people.

Finding SSM violates the Constitution removes virtually every restriction on marriage. Especially since every state does have different rules. In Wisconsin you have a waiting period? Why- that's obviously unconstitutional, it violates wequal protection of laws becasue you don't have to wait in Nevada!

Want to marry your first cousin in a state that doesn't allow it? Bring a lawsuit! It's obviously just a religious restriction broguth upon by the Catholic Church and carried over from Europe! Point out it's allowed in other states and is obviously a violation of equal protection under the law!

18 years old and want to marry your 16 year old sweetie in a state that doesn't allow it? Do the above! It's all purpose.

The several hundreds of pages that have been used by all the tyrranical judges that have imposed SSM in the states that now have it can be used to justify that anything is marriage as long as the people inside the relationship insist it iss. And there is no allowance in any of teh rulings for boundaries as to what defines a marriage.

Get rid of common sense in declaring that two males or two females constitute a marriage, and eventually, the civil culture that has arisen over the years goes bye-bye. Won't be today, won't be next year or even a decade down the line. Am I a pessimeist about this? Damn right I am.

Moynihan stated that declaring unwed motherhood to be the same as widowhood would lead to more unwed motherhood. Liberals pooh-poohed it. It was foreseeable and was foreseen, and liberals even today cannot figure out why the continued subsidization of single moms leads to more and more single moms.

There are always unforeseen problems with cultural upheaval. Unfortuneately, my children and garand-children will have to live through the messes that are now being created. The SSM couple children and grandchildren won't. Do I need to explain why? (Oh, they'll adopt- have kids with donors- etc etc etc- yeah, and all will be well in the end- I've heard it before.)

You shouldn't have cone to Colorado- you should have sued.

Hank Seiter said...

Yet another example of the institutionalization of decadence and entitlement in once was the American constitutional republic.

What is their to say about a deathstyle which embraces a sexual lifestyle which contradicts the very sexual means of their own existence in the first place?

And just what "right" was invented which empowers man-made government to totally redefine an beneficient institution which predates every government and culture on the planet Earth? What depraved hubris.

Just as the law of Nature establishes the reality human life begins at conception, so does the law of Nature and posterity itself establish a civil order whereby marriage, or the state of holy matrimony, only exists between one man and one woman.

As to the question of how same-sex marriage (sic) affects heterosexual marriage and why I should care. May as well ask how a marriage between a man and his pet goat or marriage between a (widowed) father and his adult daughter affects my marriage. It doesn't ... but is such a perverted union really desired in a true civil society?

Hank Seiter said...

BTW, if heterosexual apologists think so highly of homosexuality, why do they deny themselves the pleasure of enjoying such an expansion of the human sexual experience? To be utterly consistent with their cosmopolitan and "progressive" attitude toward homosexuality, shouldn't these brave hetero-apologists venture from their traditional Victorian hangups and at least physically adopt a more open bisexual lifetysle as proof of their acceptance of the "diversity of the human sexual experience"?

Of course these apologists would whine they aren't "hardwired" for bisexuality and feel more comfortable with their exclusively heterosexual lifestyle. But how do they REALLY know they aren't "hardwired" for homosexuality unless they at least try homosexuality? I mean, how does a child know he really hates spinach unless he/she tries to eat spinach at least once ... right?

Or is it that these posturing pro-homosexual apologists are similarly disgusted and repulsed at the mere thought of having sex with those of the same gender and are simply using their altruistic/egalitarian rhetorical acceptance of "homosexual unions/marriage" as a smoke-screen for their own private revulsion? So I'm calling these hetero-apologists bluff. If homosexuality is simply a mechanical sexual act that has a highly recommended legitimacy in the grand scheme of things, then why the hesitation to take me up on the challenge? Why deny yourself a greater knowledge and experience of the broader human condition. After all, being the non-hypocrite that I am, why would I recommend a human behavior that I wouldn't be willing to practice myself?

Hank Seiter said...

BTW, the whole anti-procreation argument is completely bogus as it relates to same-sex "marriage".

In a heterosexual marriage where one or both partners are considered sterile, as male and female at least there's a potential for posterity to arise even though the probability may prove to be very low. The same can't be said of homosexuality.

In the case of same-sex relations, there is absolute ZERO chance for offspring or posterity. In essence, by the laws of Nature, homosexuals add nothing to the ongoing posterity of civil society. Even those children they drag into their narcissistic and decadent relationships are added proof of the ultimate futility of same-sex arrangements in the grand scheme of things. The children themselves are ALWAYS the result of heterosexual unions, not homosexual union. The contradictions within the homosexual cult similarly abound.

Despite whatever personal accomplishments a homosexual might have, in the end, homosexual "unions" are a big zero deathstyle. And homosexuality mocks gender diversity in marriage and I thought the radical left was into "diversity".

Terry said...

"It's sad when the prejudices of a bunch of old white guys . . ."
On nearly any forum where public policy is discussed, the racist, bigoted statements come almost exclusively from the left.
Paul Johnson, author of Modern Times: The world from the Twenties to the Nineties, noted that in Bolshevik Russia the mass killings did not start until the State gained the power to arrest, try, and execute people based not on what they had done, but on what they were. Very similar to the current "progressive" idea that certain aspects of our identity are present at birth and cannot be changed.

Archie Andy said...

I kind of sympathize with some of you h8ters. For your whole lives you have been led to believe that conservatism and religiousity are viable in the political arena. But, you should now realize that only 5-10% of the GOP are conservatives in any meaningful sense of the word. Look at the congress, only a handful of the 270 GOP members are conservative.
Second, the world isn't as screwed up as some of you think it is.
Third, go see a psychiatrist. Some of you are really unhinged.

readering said...

It would be interesting if all the commenters put their ages next to their comments. My guess is that the average age is pretty high. (I'm 57.) These comments aren't about marriage and they're not about the Constitution, they're about a visceral disgust of gay men (lesbians not so much). That's why Bowers and Lawrence were the key cases where the battle was won and then lost (or vice (sic) versa).

SukieTawdry said...

Is consumation no longer an element of the marriage contract?

Terry said...

Archie Andy wrote:
"only 5-10% of the GOP are conservatives in any meaningful sense of the word."
So the ratio is about a factor of ten higher than the Dems who are liberal in any meaningful sense of the word?
Readering wrote:
"It would be interesting if all the commenters put their ages next to their comments."
See my 5:53. Ad hominem is so often the refuge of dim-witted liberals.

Doug Swanson said...

People keep saying that marriage is a religious institution recognized by the State. If that is so then those people should have no problem with gay marriage since some religions are now performing those ceremonies.

Doug Swanson said...

Everytime I read a comment from someone like Jupiter my hope for the evolution of the human race dims a bit more. It's hard to even wrap your head around someone that ignorant.