ACLU attacks Wisconsin's Marriage Amendment with lawsuit

The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin on Monday filed a federal lawsuit seeking to void the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, arguing it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment and denies a basic right to gay couples.

“We expect that this lawsuit will bring the freedom to marry to all Wisconsinites,” Larry Dupuis, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, said at a press conference Monday.

In a statement, state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said he plans to defend the amendment, which passed with a 59 percent margin in 2006.

“This constitutional amendment was approved by a large majority of Wisconsin residents,” Van Hollen said. “I believe the amendment is constitutional, and I will vigorously defend it.”
continue at Chippewa Herald

The ACLU is the most evangelical religious body in the US. 

It appears they picked this time since it is marriage week and Gov. Walker Issues Marriage Proclamation; Binds Men and Women Together
WHEREAS, marriage creates new families, binds men and women together in a network of affection, mutual aid and mutual obligation, commits fathers and mothers to their children and connects children to a wider network of relatives…”   ~Governor Scott Walker, Marriage Proclamation 2014
Wisconsin Family Council/Wisconsin Family Action president Julaine Appling responds, “We are pleased Governor Walker has once again issued this proclamation stating clearly that marriage is good for Wisconsin.  Marriage is the one institution that consistently provides men, women and children with a better life.  It builds strong communities and churches, and it is at the core of our basic economic unit—the family.”
This is the fourth year the Governor has issued the proclamation at the request of Wisconsin Family Council.  National Marriage Week is recognized and celebrated each year February 7-14.
Meh. I guess they'll try and find some hack judge and then get some temporary injunction and force clerks to issue licenses or something.  Maybe hoping they get some pressure next year if inept Mary Burke were to win the election this fall.  This has the appearance of more of a publicity stunt than a real case, but maybe they have an ace up their sleeve, or maybe just want to try to push it to SCOTUS.  

.... this reminds me of something... remember when Doyle tried to do the Domestic Partnership thing?  It was a lame duck bill(because the amendment was already passed).  I don't remember if the courts overturned it yet.  Last I heard was: State Supreme Court hints it may strike down part of domestic partnership law


  1. "In a recent decision from New York’s appellate division, the court stated that: It is an undisputed fact that the vast majority of procreation still occurs as a result of sexual intercourse between a male and a female. In light of such a fact, “[t]he State could reasonably decide that by encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby assuming legal and financial obligations, the children born from such relationships will have better opportunities to be nurtured and raised by two parents within long-term, committed relationships, which society has traditionally viewed as advantageous for children.”65 The risk of a redefinition of marriage is that this social understanding and the goods it promotes are in danger of being lost in the new adultcentered version of marriage."

    Howard Law Review's "Portrait of a Marriage." 2006

  2. I encourage all to stand up - write letters to the editor if you see any stories such as this needing rebuttal - or even respond to other letters to the editor (both in print and in your local online newspaper.) If everyone would have done a small part such as this in the past, I have to think we would not be in this dilemma.

    What to say? Read the Catechism! Read thoughtful and faithful Catholic commentary online. Always comment in love, with the desire to save souls. Never stoop to the phrase "s___-s__ marriage," as it is illogical. Always say "those who would wish to extend marriage to other sorts of couples or groupings."

    Primarily - "equal treatment" of "gay couples" - is the request. Ask, "Why? Why treat unequal things equally? Why treat a union that has not the property of conjugality or of procreativity EXACTLY LIKE one that DOES HAVE such properties?

    And, do not forget that men with same-sex attraction or women with same-sex attraction STILL HAVE as equal an opportunity as other men and women to enter into age-old marriage - age-old marriage being a particular type of union, having both conjugal and procreative properties. They, like numerous other men and women, simply DO NOT choose to enter into that type of relationship (marriage.)

    In addition, there is absolutely no reason to extend the term "marriage" to other types of relationships in order to give the benefits reserved to marriage to those people in these other, not-like-marriage, relationships. Simply change the law regarding the extension of benefits.

    I urge others to stand up and be heard before it is too late!

  3. No one is forcing you, Anonymous, or anyone in the Catholic faith to get married to someone of the same sex. This issue is a secular one about my family and friends. All of whom support their loved one(s)*, and wish for them the same freedoms and opportunities in life that they had. *I, as well as one of my siblings and a cousin of mine, are gay. Yes, to answer the next question, like most things with a biological founding, it does tend to run in families.

    It is the deepest hope of my parents, my grandparents, myself and all the rest of my loved ones, that I am able to love, cherish and celebrate the one that I ask to be bound to for the rest of my life. That's why my family pushes for equality. Marriage is a commitment and promise, that is recognized and celebrated.

    1. I will reply with a post this week.

    2. ZachV, you are free to arrange your love-life as you want. No one is stopping you from loving and cherishing whom you want, and you can choose to stay with them for life if you so desire, committing yourself to them and promising your fidelity . Your family and friends may choose to celebrate your choice with you if they so desire.

      However, you are not free to redefine an institution that has had a certain understanding through most of human history. You are not free to ignore the very real complementarity of men and women whose union leads to children who have needs and rights the government is charged with protecting. Unlike your individual life, these things are NOT your purview.

      Regarding "biological founding"....
      First, behaviors (both bad and good) can be fostered and learned within families. Scientifically, your family situation proves nothing.
      Second, even if such attraction were biologically caused, having same-sex attraction DOES NOT prevent one from entering into the type of relationship that age-old marriage is. What keeps you from marriage is that you prefer and choose a DIFFERENT type of relationship.

  4. ZachV, I'm not going to sugar-coat this for you, because I believe it is imperative that you understand.

    Every time you indulge in sexual contact with a member of the same-sex (I presume that this would be another man), you are committing a grave, serious sin. Whether this *feels* natural to you or not is beside the point. You can choose to persist in this behavior and risk eternal torment in hell, or you can take up your cross and follow Christ. The way to salvation is not easy, but it is worth it.

    1. I understand very well, because this is an issue I've spent years pouring over in thought.

      The choice here is an eternal one. It is an idea of how I wish to conduct my life, and then look at myself in the mirror when I wake each and every morning. It is the understanding of how I will reflect on my entire life in this world, when I am feeble and drawing my last dying breath.

      Unfortunately it is not a question with which you are all too familiar. Let's be truthful. As a straight person, you like me, never had a time when you chose your sexual orientation. However unlike me, you were afforded the blessed opportunity to never have to think about your emotional and spiritual connection to this world. Your path was given; and mine was not.

      So to you this is a question about a strange intangible idea, muddied by St. Paul's archaic language, that which you can readily insist upon because – well, honestly – it has no bearing on your life. It is why you don't have the slightest understanding of how cruel your suggestions are. To me this is a fundamental question about purpose. How I as a follower of Christ find wonder and awe in the joys and tragedies of human existence; all of which can be distilled into the loving, trusting eyes of a man who chosen to spend his life with me.

      Saying it horribly - I would gladly put down the cross, in favor of a life with family and fulfillment; rather than exile myself to an existence of loneliness, sorrow and shame. If my Savior is truly unable to understand how He created his children, then it must be. That is my deliberate path.

      I speak from the heart when I say this. It is a choice that all gay people must make including many who are born into the non-Christian world and may literally face an executioner's bloody sword. Even as Muslims (Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.), they risk their very lives by choosing a life of purpose, where they are able to mean the most to another person.

      I’m a happy that I was made the way I am. I am thankful for my life. I would never wish to change it, and I won't sugar-coat that either.

      God bless.

  5. As a Christian, you make me sick.

    Legal marriage is a fundamental freedom that affords hundreds of benefits and protections. Denying those basic protections to loving, committed same-sex couples is simply wrong.

    If you disagree, please move to a country that doesn't guarantee equal protection under the law. Or maybe you just need a refresher on the Fourteenth Amendment?

    You feel threatened by same-sex marriage. Yet if you truly believed in marriage, you would want it strengthened by the inclusion of all loving, committed couples, many of whom have been together for decades.

    You should take a good, hard look at your own marriage, your faith, and your heart. The latter is not filled with God's love. It's filled with hate and fear.

    1. Round these parts we use a thing called logic to make a point about what we believe to be true. Do you have anything specific to this news or just a rant about your infallible belief system? Apparently not all of us are Dogmatists like you.

    2. @God is love: "Legal marriage is a fundamental freedom that affords hundreds of benefits and protections. Denying those basic protections to loving, committed same-sex couples is simply wrong."

      --"legal marriage is a fundamental freedom"--
      Fundamental freedom - by this you must mean Natural Law. Yes, according to natural law, a man and a woman complement and complete each other's human nature. Therefore a man has a right to a conjugal relationship with a woman; and a woman has a right to a conjugal relationship with a man. It would be an infringement on these rights for a government to deny these types of relationships. There is nothing in Natural Law that would require a government to record (or license) these marriages. The government however would be smart to record who is married to whom though because the government has the task of enforcing and securing the rights of children. If children were not born of the kind of relationship marriage is (a conjugal one), some say government recording of marriages would never have started.

      --"Legal marriage...affords hundreds of benefits and protections."--
      Indeed it does. Why? Why has society afforded these TO MARRIED couples? Many have to do with Natural Law rights that exist between biologically related people that the law has no power to usurp. Therefore, some of the benefits are simply because the law NEEDS to recognize them. Other benefits - possibly there exists no reason to limit them to only married couples. But, same-sex advocates never address the ALLOCATION of those benefits, eh? Because, if the allocation of benefits no longer makes sense to be ONLY to the married, then there could be others in society besides same-sex couples who deserve the re-allocation of benefits, eh?

      --"Denying those basic protections to loving, committed same-sex couples is simply wrong"---
      Do you think it is wrong to deny veterans benefits to non-veterans?? Or to deny giving season Packer tickets to those who have not been on "the list"? No, it is NOT wrong to deny these benefits (marriage benefits) to those who are in relationships that are NOT of the TYPE that MARRIAGE is (one man+one woman; the type of union that can be both conjugal and procreative.)
      Possibly the allocation of these benefits SHOULD be extended to people in OTHER TYPES of relationships. Make a case for that instead of trying to promote the illogical "two men can have the TYPE of relationship that marriage is." Two men will NEVER fit together in the way a woman and man can. The way that two men fit together NEVER creates a new life.

      If you seriously think certain of the benefits currently only extended to those in the unique kind of relationship marriage is REALLY SHOULD be extended to people in other TYPES of relationships...reason away. I'm going to bet that we find several benefits that should be extended - and NOT only to those in homosexual relationships. But, that discussion is one that is completely DIFFERENT than the current push to REDEFINE marriage. It is not one the same-sex crowd has decided to push.


Please contact if you have issues commenting.