Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

US: Wisconsin Attorney General seeks emergency stay to stop same-sex marriages

  • @Mike-uk2011

    Traditional marriage – because marriage is between a man and his female rib-clone. (see Genesis).

    • Steven Gregory

      It was pointed out to me that Eve was Adam’s SECOND mate. When GOD was doing all the creatin’, “he” created mankind, male and female he created them. The rib/mud woman came later.

    • Philip Marks

      “Throughout history, the most “traditional” form of marriage has not been between one man and one woman, but between one man and multiple women….(“Polygyny, whereby a man can have multiple wives, is the marriage form found in more places and at more times than any other.”).
      (Quoted from today’s decision in Wisconsin)

  • Steven Gregory

    Judges who issue emergency stays, need to issue stoppage of ALL marriages in the name of fairness. There ain’t no “emergency” about gays and lesbians getting hitched, just bigots freaking out that they’re losing turf.

    • Christian

      No. Gay couples should be able to marry immediately. What other sorts of marriage are you referring to?!

      • Steven Gregory

        Of course we agree gay couples should be allowed to marry immediately, but every state where the attorney general or governor has opposed equal marriage has received a stay: G/L couples rush to get married, 100s of couples succeed, then the stay is issued and G/L marriages halted.

        When I say “ALL marriages,” I mean heterosexual couples should also be subject to any stay that bars G/L couples from marrying. Do you agree that would be fair “?!”

        • Christian

          Oh now I understand you. Yes I would agree with you for that! Although I think they should just allow all two-person marriages. It’s only a matter of time. Which state are you from, if you don’t mind me asking?

          • Steven Gregory

            Colorado, where Governor Hickenlooper will not oppose repeal of our constitutional “one man/one woman” amendment. It’s remarkable how slowly repeal is taking place. We have civil unions, which has actually served as a legal crow bar to lodge suit against the state and pry that amendment out of the constitution.

          • Guest

            You’d think that it would be an even easier legal decision than the cases that we’ve been seeing in other parts of the country. Seeing as the best legal argument that they can use to defend those laws is Separate but Equal.

          • Steven Gregory

            Yeah, sitting here in the midst of it, it’s so slow and action isn’t constantly visible. That’s a job ONEcolorado is doing really well, gathering and dispersing information so the issue feels alive.

          • Maryland Kid

            Fortunately, that will probably help when your court case gets heard by the Federal Courts. It’s kind of hard for the State to defend themselves using a legal argument that isn’t essentially Separate but Equal. And I don’t think that SCOTUS will decide to drag us back to the 60s. Well, except for Scalia, of course. Only he’d like to bring us all back to the 1860s.

          • Steven Gregory

            Scalia is absolutely the one to make bizarre and unsubstantiated claims. I’ve long thought he needs to be tested for dementia.

          • Maryland Kid

            I refuse to think that Scalia suffers from dementia. That would mean that he isn’t completely in control of what he things. If he’s in full command of his faculties, I can hold his personal character solely responsible for everything that he has said and done. I’d rather think of him as evil than some sad, old man. Then again, I’ve always had a vindictive streak.

          • Steven Gregory

            Wouldn’t it be nice if there were pix of Scalia being serviced by Ed Koch while Ronnie Reagan holds the lube?

        • Philip Marks

          Only in the moral sense; in the legal sense this doesn’t work. In my religious society, at one point some or our ‘meetings’ decided to stop performing marriages altogether until gay couples could marry. I oppose that however, I don’t think anyone should be deprived of marriage, or as my friends say, “why shouldn’t everyone suffer equally?!” ;)

    • Maryland Kid

      Not really. Isn’t the point of the stay to prevent contradictions in Common Law? There is no way that a higher court decision could possibly rule against all marriage without grossly overstepping the boundaries on standing established in Hollingsworth v. Perry. So there really isn’t any legal argument to justify what you are suggesting.

      • Steven Gregory

        I just scanned H-v-P and don’t understand how you’re applying it. Could you expound?

        • Maryland Kid

          Well, HvP basically established that regarding marriage laws, there are only two legal parties that can establish standing. These are the people who are being denied the right to marry, or the State government itself. This is because there is no basis upon which you could claim that another person’s marriage is harmful to you. Though the HvP ruling was about same-sex couples, the legal tests set forth in the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment can be applied to straight couples as well. Acting as plaintiffs, a gay couple lacks the standing to challenge the right of straight people to get married under HvP. Therefore, there is no possible way that upon appeal, any of these cases will result in straight people no longer being able to get married. Thus, there is no possibility that issuing marriage certificates to straight couples will contradict any common law that is established upon appeal. Therefore, there is no legal justification for a stay against straight marriages.

          • Steven Gregory

            Thanks. And that is the chore of the G/L legal team and their law allies in Colorado in trying to amend the one-man/woman constitutional amendment: Colorado’s constitution is ridiculously simple to amend, but undoing is a bear, requiring 3/4 of both houses of the state legislature.

          • Maryland Kid

            There are a lot of stupid rules in the American governance systems. Personally, I believe that there needs to be reform in the State amendment and lawmaking processes. In my State, Maryland, we run into the issue where it is far too easy to challenge a law by referendum. Which is in the last election, I voted for more laws than I did candidates. The issuing of a Judicial Stay, however, is actually a very good idea. It isn’t based on “bigots freaking out that they’re losing turf”, it’s an important and routine judicial procedure that is applied to most types of cases.

          • Maryland Kid

            If you’re interested, here is a more in depth explanation of why a stay is issued. People often make the mistake of viewing a stay as a judicial decision, as opposed to what it actually is, which is a parliamentary procedure.

            Think of it this way. Consider what would happen if we continued to use our current civic legislative system, in which a bill much be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President to become law. However, imagine that we changed things so that the president could act upon a bill before this process was completed. It would be chaos! What would you do if the President began enacting a bill that passed the Senate but was later killed in the House. Would that be legally binding? Nobody would really know. It would be a Constitutional Crisis. Therefore, you cannot act upon Civil Law until it has been subjected to the full rigors of the legislative process.

            The same applies to law created by the Judicial Branch of the government. You cannot act upon Common Law until it has been subjected to the full rigors of the appeals process. That is to say, until either a higher court refuses to accept the case, the plaintiffs drop the case, or the Supreme Court makes a ruling. We call the mechanism used to prevent Common Law from being acted upon until the appeals process is complete a Judicial Stay. While it’s frustrating, it’s an important part of how the system functions.

          • Philip Marks

            No check my reply to the initial post. There are standards in US law for issuing a stay and they are clearly spelled out. There are four things that must be shown to get a stay pending or during an appeal. NONE of those apply to this case; all four must apply for a stay to be issued.

    • Philip Marks

      Well in fact there are rules about staying a decision. There are criteria which the court is to apply to decide whether a stay is indicated, four of them, all of which must be met to issue a stay:

      (1) The losing side must establish that they have a good chance to win on appeal
      (2) The losing side must establish that they will be irreparably harmed if there is not a stay and they win on appeal
      (3) The Court must consider whether other parties will be harmed by the stay and to what extent; deprivation of a constitutional right is regarded as irreparable harm.
      (4) Staying the decision must be clearly consistent with public policy.

      NONE of those four favor granting a stay; all four are required to issue a stay. In some of these cases the judge issuing the decision has stayed their order pending any appeal; in one case (Utah) the Supreme Court ordered a stay when the Court of Appeals didn’t, but didn’t explain it. In one recent case (Oregon) the Supreme Court refused to issue a stay.

      • Steven Gregory

        Thank you, this is helpful.

        • Philip Marks

          And the judge herself on Friday put it on hold because the Supreme Curt, without explanation and in complete disregard for all 4 of these principles did so in the Utah case…

      • Maryland Kid

        Personally, if the choice were up to me, I would opt against issuing a stay. If for no other reason than the fact that I feel morally obliged to do so. Not to mention that it would pressure SCOTUS into ruling the way I want. That’s one of the many reasons why I would not make a good judge. Still, I agree that it would be better for the courts not to issue the stay. However, I also think that there is a legitimate legal argument to support staying the decision.

        (1) It is not necessarily conclusive at this point how SCOTUS will rule. Even it it is in favor of LGBT couples, it will almost certainly be a 5-4 decision, which is hardly a high measure of certainty. Given the importance and widespread effect of this case, an argument could be made that it ought to be treated slightly more gingerly.

        (2) The entire basis of these cases is that the State will be irreparably harmed. Under HvP, the State governments still have the standing to appeal the decision, which in my view, also justifies the stay.

        (3) I agree with this. Personally, I think that if the Courts issue a stay, they ought to waive it in cases of terminally ill individuals, similar to what you saw in Illinois.

        (4) A majority of States continue to uphold and defend bans on same-sex marriage. So this position is consistent with public policy. While I agree that the policy in question is unconstitutional, that has not yet been decided by SCOTUS. If you applied the same legal test that you set out in this point to every case, the courts would never be allowed to issue a stay, because all Federal court cases apply to a Constitutional Question.

        • Philip Marks

          I realize these are technical arguments that require quite a bit of familiarity with the case law and precedents, yours is more a common sense approach but that is not what the courts say should happen.

          (1) It is the burden of the party seeking the stay to show they have a strong chance of success on appeal. True there is no certainty in any case, but they have to be able to show some evidence that the rulings were wrong, an abuse of discretion, against the weight of evidence, etc…If you read the opinions (14 in a row) there is nothing to support that, they simply go to the appellate court with the exact same arguments the district courts have rejected using the SCOTUS precedents. There’s a reason its 14-0, which is that Windsor simply made it evident what the rules are now and there’s no way to deny equal marriage under those rules. Unless the court’s makeup changes, it will rule for equality in every case it gets on marriage. ( I find great satisfaction that many of the opinions actually cite Scalia’s rant to the effect that there is no way to prohibit gay marriage given the majority opinion in Windsor; hoisted by his own petard!)

          (2) It is the burden of the party seeking a stay to show irreparable harm. It is assumed that a state is injured if its laws are not enforced. However, in this case the only impact on the state is that people who marry would enter into invalid marriages, which would later be annulled (as happened in California in 2004, when SF began issuing licenses and the CA Supremes declared them void). The injury to the state in that case is minor administrative costs. There is no irreparable harm to the state in these cases. The harm if any is easily repaired.

          (3) In contravention as I pointed out even a day’s delay in being deprived of a constitutional right (and in the case of marriage, a fundamental right which are more fiercely protected) is an irreparable injury.

          (4) It is settled law: there can never be any public policy for enforcing an unconstitutional law, and strong public policy against it. Since in every case the district court has found the law unconstitutional, without an especially strong finding on (1) there’s no contest. If you can’t show you’re likely to prevail on the merits you can’t claim public policy favors your stay.

          And again in order to get a stay ALL four must favor a stay; though some balancing does occur and the first two are critical.

          And that 14-0 means a lot. All those cases show the unanimous interpretation of the SCOTUS precedents (especially Windsor of course), and evaluation of the arguments against gay marriage, have no support for prohibiting gay marriage.

  • Carl

    Emergency! Emergency! Equal rights incoming!

  • lab seven

    Just a little reminder!

    Just think what it will be like to wake up one day in HELL burning alive!

    Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lies with a man, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

    Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire…

    • Knuckleheaded

      Ah. A religious zealot troglodite.

    • Yesh U R

      Just think what it would be like if you were not a raving religious delusional, sorry I understand that is impossible for you to do, I refer you to a previous posting concerning your upper lip and a wall.

    • Philip Marks

      Ezekiel 16:49
      New International Version
      “‘Now
      this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were
      arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

      New Living Translation
      Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.

      English Standard Version
      Behold,
      this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had
      pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and
      needy.

      New American Standard Bible
      “Behold,
      this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had
      arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the
      poor and needy.

      King James Bible
      Behold,
      this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and
      abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she
      strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

  • lab seven

    ****O tic! Silly willy nilly! (limp wrist) Gay’s are just normal people just like Ward & June Cleaver. (lisp) Oh tic! oh silly willy nilly!

    ***Just a bunch of super shameful, dirty, nasty, pervets, from hell in my opinion!***..

    • Knuckleheaded

      Pay no attention to the troglodite.

    • Yesh U R

      Dear David Skinner, kindly take hold of your top lip with both hands now pull upwards smartly until it has covered the entire top of your head, then run as fast as possible at the nearest wall, you will feel much better afterwards, thank you for reading this your original posting has been put in the crazy bin.

  • Jones

    Get the army on-standby, man the defences, lock the state down – the gays are getting married.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all