"The same-sex domestic partnerships created by the legislature are substantially different than marriages because, among other differences, domestic partnerships carry with them substantially fewer rights and obligations than those enjoyed by and imposed on married couples"...
December 22, 2012
State appeals court says the Wisconsin domestic partnership law doesn't violate the state constitution.
The state constitution was amended to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples and to forbid the creation of other legal status for same sex couples if it's substantially similar to marriage. The court said:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Sophistry for the cause.
I hope they're not planning on denying opposite sex couples the opportunity of legal relationships that offer "substantially fewer rights and obligations"
This is one way around the state constitutional amendments passed over the past decade that banned gay civil unions as well as gay marriage. You know, the ones that showed how social conservatives and their apologists were lying when they said all they cared about was imposition of gay marriage, not civil unions or similar arrangements.
You mean like when the gays lied about how ruling against sodomy bans wouldn't lead to gay marriage. Or about how AIDS was a heterosexual disease. The crazy thing is most gays themselves are lying about wanting gay marriage because very few have taken us up on the offer.
I'm a little confused on one thing and certain on another:
1) Yesterday I heard radio news readers say three times that the Court ruled that the ban WAS 'un-Constitutional'
and
2) Gays are lying when they say gay 'marriage' will not lead to three, 4 ore five people 'marrying' because once same sex marriages are allowed there is NO WAY that multiples can be viewed as some how 'abnormal'.
On the one had I think that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman.
On the other hand I don't see how it will be stopped due to the 'Equal Protection' clause.
On the gripping hand I say 'leave the institution alone'.
The crazy thing is most gays themselves are lying about wanting gay marriage because very few have taken us up on the offer.
Marriage (as a sacrament and/or personal commitment between parties) isn't yours to give or take, you prick.
Of course we aren't talking about the sacrement, nice of you to get all worked up though.
Marriage (as a sacrament and/or personal commitment between parties) isn't yours to give or take, you prick.
Well clearly it is societies to give or take. At issue is what does marriage mean. If it means something then it can give that, but can't give what it doesn't mean.
Does marriage mean polygamy, does marriage mean incestual marriage, does marriage mean underage marraige, does marriage mean gay marriage, does marriage mean harems.Does marriage mean multiple marriages.
So, if marriage is between a man and a woman, then society could tell polygamists, sorry but your definition of marriage doesn't match ours therefore you can't get married. (Or, you can get married personally, but don't petition govt for rights). is that not true?
So then the question that should be asked is can society really say what marriage means. This is at the heart of the problem I have with proponents of the gay marriage movement.
They argue as if society can't make that definition, then get mad when asked if society can make that definition in other cases.
My argument would be, Of course society can make that definition. It does already in numerous ways. Should society make that definition the way that it does. Well, that has to be taken on a case by case basis and on the merits.
So it wouldn't be gay marriage MUST be legal, but gay marriage SHOULD be legal.
It's a living document - and they're trying as hard as they can to kill it.
somefeller said...
This is one way around the state constitutional amendments passed over the past decade that banned gay civil unions as well as gay marriage. You know, the ones that showed how social conservatives and their apologists were lying when they said all they cared about was imposition of gay marriage, not civil unions or similar arrangements.
Like the way the homosexuals lied when they said all they wanted was civil unions?
I hope they're not planning on denying opposite sex couples the opportunity of legal relationships that offer "substantially fewer rights and obligations"
Dating.
More examples of people wielding power who care not for the law.
We are a nation of whims, not of laws.
Who is John Galt?
We are ruled by judges now -- they rule based on their political ideology.
These judges favor "marriage expansionism" -- forcing society to expand the definition of marriage to include gay "pretend" marriages.
(It's marriage expansionism -- not "marriage equality.")
Post a Comment