A Dane County judge upheld Wisconsin’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Friday, describing the propositions included in the referendum put to voters as “two sides of the same coin.”This decision is not surprising. I don't much like referendums, and I support same-sex marriage, but I don't like the use of a procedural hypertechnicality in court to thwart democracy. Defeat the amendment on the merits.
UW-Oshkosh instructor William McConkey challenged the amendment, arguing Wisconsin statutes limit referendums on constitutional amendments to a single question. McConkey’s attorneys argued that the marriage amendment asked voters to respond to two separate questions: how marriage should be defined in Wisconsin and whether marriage benefits should be allocated to unmarried people.
IN THE COMMENTS: Peter Hoh asks "What's the status of the amendment? Is it on the ballot for November?" No, it passed in 2006. This is an effort to invalidate it. "Defeat the amendment on the merits" was ambiguous. I only meant to say that if we're going to have referendums, the voters should prevail.
Posts
53 comments:
What's the status of the amendment? Is it on the ballot for November?
but I don't like the use of a procedural hypertechnicality in court to thwart democracy.
And you call yourself a lawyer? ;-)
Ann said...I don't much like referendums,
I like Initatives and Referendums
They provide the people with a means of thwarting the tyranny of their elected elitest representatives.
Thanks for the clarification, Ann.
I like eggs.
(Larry Holmes former heavyweight champion of the world).
One law professor’s procedural hypertechnicality is another law professor’s reasonable limitation instituted by process of law intended to safeguard against the uncanalized exercise of judicial discretion.
I'd like to see term limits on elected officials and caps on spending on my state's (NY) and federal budgets. I'm just not thinking we'll be seeing any of that nonsense any time soon.
Drill, I would not call the Wisconsin Legislature elitist. I think there are a lot more regular Joes* in state Legislatures than in the US Congress.
*using the gender-neutral definition of Joe, of course.
Ann said...I don't much like referendums,
here in NJ people with law degrees have a hard time understanding them. they write them so that a no vote is a yes vote and vice versa. politicians use it to get around having to vote in the legislature so as to insulate themselves at election time.
bissage said ..uncanalized
did you mean uncanonized?
I can't find an email address, so I'll post this here:
blogspot has decided to spam me on behalf of a blog.
I gave not given blogspot any of my email addresses for the purpose of unsolicited contact.
abuse@blogspot.com has delclined to respond to my complaint.
I am therefore removing your blog from my daily rotation of blogs that I read all that I can identify as blogspot blogs.
I am sorry--I will miss your writing.
"I don't like the use of a procedural hypertechnicality in court to thwart democracy. Defeat the amendment on the merits."
Amen. I don't like the idea that three unelected judges can over rule the votes of 6 million people.
[D]id you mean uncanonized?
No, I meant this fine fellow innocent of this stuff!
"I don't like the use of a procedural hypertechnicality in court to thwart democracy"
Don't move to Washington state, then--you'd be very unhappy out here, this happens all the time.
"I don't like the idea that three unelected judges can over rule the votes of 6 million people."
You use the term people very loosely.
Six million bigots is more like it. I would also accept "Archie Bunkers." You get a "D" for imprecise use of the English language.
The Drill SGT said...
I like Initatives and Referendums
They provide the people with a means of thwarting the tyranny of their elected elitest representatives.
Sure, until you realize that your vote is cast aside as a meaningless exercise when 4 jurists think they know better than 7 million or so people and go against them.
Trumpit said...
"I don't like the idea that three unelected judges can over rule the votes of 6 million people."
You use the term people very loosely.
Six million bigots is more like it. I would also accept "Archie Bunkers." You get a "D" for imprecise use of the English language.
Bigots or not. You don't have to like it, but you still don't say why your idea is somehow better. In either case you neglect the importance of the event in favor of projecting your personal animus towards those you think are bigoted because they don't think like you do.
There are 300 million Americans, 2% - 4% of which are homosexual males/females. That is 6 to 12 million people who are homosexuals. The largest concentration of them are in the larger urban centers distributed throughout the US. So how is being bigoted towards homosexual marriage wrong? Are you going to suppress bigotry now to get your way? It's obvious that a large percentage of people vs. the percentages of homosexuals do not favor homosexual marriages and the voting public will see to it one way or the other.
If the homosexual arguments were so compelling a referendum issue wouldn't have been forthcoming now would it?
"So how is being bigoted towards homosexual marriage wrong? Are you going to suppress bigotry now to get your way?"
YES, bigotry ought to be suppressed, including yours. How is it wrong? Because you are an intolerant little weasel, who finds solace in the company of millions of other bigots. I won't give you any peace and quiet even for a moment. You deserve to be straight-bashed. So let this comment serve as a punch in your prejudiced, flared nostrils. Fair warning: I'm a black belt in ju-jitsu.
Did you know that Robert Conrad was the original Matt Dillon on Gunsmoke on the radio? He auditioned for the TV show as a courtesy but he was too short and fat. They offered it to the Duke but he wasn't going to go on TV so he suggested his protégé James Arness.
Robert Conrad and Buddy Ebsen trade guest starring apperances on their shows Cannon and Barnaby Jones.
Buddy Ebsen was thrown off the movie version of the Wizard of Oz where he was scheduled to play the Scarcrow. He refused to teabag George Cukor who was the original director. The acrimony led to both of them being dropped from the movie in favor of Victor Fleming and Ray Bolger who switched from the Tin Man to the Scarcrow.
Buddy Ebsen was not a prude as he enjoyed giving Lee Meriwether the flithy Sanchez during the entire run of Barnaby Jones. He just wasn't into guys.
Now this has nothing to do with gay marriage, but I just thought it was interesting.
If the homos in Wisconsin don't like the decision they can move to Massachusetss and get married.
Or California.
Only the fabulous ones though- if there are fabulous mos in Wisconsin. They all tend to leave when they are old enough to know to get the hell out of there.
None of my mo friends from Wisconsin live there anymore. They all chose there large safe urban location to dwell and be gay and have ferns.
Please stick to the topic troop.
I hate it when someone thread hijacks.
It's homos we are talking about on this thread. Big homos.
Let's go Celtics.
Watching these huge black professional basketball players is almost like watching a ballet.
I wasn't threadjacking. Ballet is gay so that goes with the post.
Wait a minute, I screwed it up. William Conrad was the fat guy in the Caddy. Robert Conrad was the battery guy.
Never mind.
Go back to the gay stuff.
Sorry for interrupting.
Sorry Titus. Hey let ask you a question. If you had to marry someone would it be Robert Conrad, William Conrad or Buddy Ebsen?
I am deliberating over whether I want to do Ray Allen or Chauncy Phillips more?
I don't know who any of those people are Troop.
I knew Hos was gay though.
Personally I think you should hold out for Woody Strode. He has that name for a reason you know.
YES, bigotry ought to be suppressed, including yours.
Thanks for clarifying that you support the suppression of opposing viewpoints. It'll make it that much funnier the next time you complain about the Bush Administration's supposed crackdown on human rights.
How is it wrong?
I'm not going to give you a lesson in the morality of classical liberalism, as I doubt you're bright enough to understand it. But the explanation for why it is *unintelligent* to want bigotry "suppressed" is that what constitutes bigotry is purely a matter of opinion; there is no objective definition. Since you live in a democracy in which those people who consider opposition to gay marriage to be "bigotry" are dramatically outnumbered by people who consider criticism of the Judeo-Christian stance on homosexuality to be "bigotry", simple self-preservation should be enough for an *intelligent* gay marriage supporter to not want "bigots" to be "suppressed".
Fair warning: I'm a black belt in ju-jitsu.
Can you dodge bullets? :)
I meant Hos from Gunsmoke. At least that's what I heard.
I would do Boston's coach Doc Rivers too.
I would love to be the towel boy in one of those locker rooms.
You know there is some major hog hanging around there.
Titus. You know those guys. Robert Conrad was the hyper masculine guy who gave all those homo-erotic performances with a battery on his shoulder. William Conrad was the big fat rich guy who took twenty minutes to get out of his Caddy when he was investigating crimes. And Buddy Ebsen was the dude on the Beverly Hillbillies who was always getting molested by Miss Hathaway. You got your rough trade, your sugar daddy and your rich naive yokel.
Hoss was on Bonanza. You were thinking of Festus. Or maybe Newly. That would be more your speed.
Of course there was always a lot of rumors about TV western stars. Some of them were reputed to be light in the saddle. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. That’s why they didn't ever get the girl and always ended up kissing their horse.
Except for Wilbur on Mr. Ed. He really did like to kiss his horse. Tongue and everything
Of course now a days Westerns aren't so popular. So to signal that the character is really gay, they have them kiss Sarah Jessica Parker.
As I said when the case first hit the headlines, McConkey's argument was tenuous as a textual matter, and in any event, would require the court to overrule the Milwaukee Alliance case. The legal issues in this case have very little to do with gay marriage, but rather, as Ann points towards, institutional settlement.
trumpit...
YES, bigotry ought to be suppressed, including yours.
I guess we can just shred that little, useless, piece of parchment called the Constitution. What is it with you bsement dwelling, tin foil hat wearing, voice hearing whackos? You all think that yours is the only opinion that matters and the rest should be outlawed. Oh, by the way, you just showed the whole world that you are as bigoted as those you despise. Hypocrite is thy name.
Bigotry should be countered.
As for the referendum, I predict that gay marriage will be soundly, soundly declined by the people. And this is good. People should certainly get to decide how their communities are organized unless such organizing principles run afoul of the law.
P.S.: The state Constitution does not reference "gay" or "homosexual." Is it in the penumbra?
OK< I know who you are talking about now Troop.
Robert Conrad was hot in his day with his tight western outfits.
I love Sarah Jessica Parker; I know you don't Troop. She might have a horse face to you but she has a rocking bod.
The Celtics are going to the NBA finals. First time in 17 years. Praise be the Lord, Almighty, Our Creator.
Eventually gay marriage will be everywhere in the US.
Just look at the younger generations views on gay marriage. They don't give a shit.
It will take time but eventually it will happen.
Maybe not now but someday.
The south will be the last part of the country to recognize it similar to inter-racial marriage. Because the south is gross.
I am 37 so I will see it happen.
I am predicting 30 years from now it will be everywhere in the US.
Oh
It will be far better for society if legislatures passed laws enacting gay marriage. By pushing it through the courts prematurely, gay-marriage proponents are merely stalling legal acceptance and, more importantly, actual societal acceptance -- probably by decades.
Speaking of Mos, did any of our fabulous people watch SITC/SATC Friday night?
My boyfriend's dad had an operation, and I didn't feel it appropriate to watch it tonight. Perhaps Saturday.
Cheers,
Victoria
I am 37 so I will see it happen.
But Ann won't. She'll be dead by then.
And that's no offense to Ann. It's just that it will be a good 50 years before gay marriage is legal in this country, unlike the pretend gay marriage that states like Massachusetts have, which come with zero federal rights.
Gay rights has moved backwards in the last 8 years, and it will take at least 50 years to repeal all of the anti-gay state amendments that were passed. Flyover country will take a long time, and the South, as Titus said will probably be never, and we'll need a Supreme Court overturning "democracy" before those bigots states change their ways. Alabama just repealed laws against interracial marriage a few years ago, and that barely passed. Whites STILL don't support interracial marriage in Alabama.
The intelligent coasts (except for the ignoramous south) will probably go first. Maybe we'll be lucky and they'll secede and join enlightened Canada. I'm sure they're sick of subsidizing the South anyway.
When gay marriage happens throught the country Palladian does not get to participate.
downtownlad said...
"Gay rights has moved backwards in the last 8 years, and it will take at least 50 years to repeal all of the anti-gay state amendments that were passed."
That's because its advocates - puffed up with the same sort of self-righteous myopia that you routinely display here, DTL, to be quite frank - tried to move too far too fast and pushed the issue into the courts. It was advocates of gay marriage that made it an issue by pursuing it through illegitimate means; if they had not (or had pursued it through the legislative process), there would have been no impetus for a backlash. It was readily apparent when throngs of gays celebrated Goodrich that the result was going to be catastrophic for their cause, and that has largely been born out, although Arizona broke the trend and California may also reject an amendment (maybe not - that the barn door repair is offered after the horse has bolted may yet seal the result).
Waiter: That's what they call an igneous intrusion.
Guy Holden: You're somewhat of an igneous intrusion yourself.
Waiter: Sorry I’m a bottom.
Guy Holden: Well that’s an immediate softie!
(The Gay Divorcee, 1934)
Trumpit said...
"YES, bigotry ought to be suppressed...."
The new mantra of the left: "Dissent is patriotic, within the limits to be specified and announced by your government."
The thing about young people is that they get older, and as people get older, most of them also get more conservative. So in 50 years most if not all the liberal youth will be conservative codgers.
Althouse was much more liberal in her youth. I was much more liberal in my youth. Probably even Simon was much more liberal in his youth.
It's easy to be an anarchist in your 20s, until you see what problems it causes. By fifty, most people are centrists or further right. It's how things go.
Obama appeals to the young.
Hillary to the more aged.
And McCain to the superannuated who have achieved full wisdom.
Post a Comment