Gov Walker says he senses no gay marriage 'movement'
Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/state-and-regional/walker-says-he-senses-no-gay-marriage-movement/article_fbf603f6-5fb3-5a46-8b36-98b54f7cb730.html#ixzz2sZAAzmz2
The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, was brought on behalf of four same-sex couples who are seeking the same legal protections and civil rights that marriage between a man and woman provides. They argue that Wisconsin's ban, adopted by voters in 2006, violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection and due process clauses.
But Walker, who faces re-election in November, sidestepped commenting on arguments in the lawsuit when asked about it Wednesday. Instead, he said as governor he was obligated to uphold the state constitution and the ban, but defending it would be left to Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen.
"I haven't heard a significant movement across the state to make an alteration on that one way or the other," Walker said of the ban.
Polling shows increased support for legalizing gay marriage in Wisconsin and dozens of lawsuits have been filed across the country challenging similar laws. The U.S. Supreme Court in June ruled same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits and a federal judge in December overturned a same-sex marriage ban in conservative Utah.
The difference between Minnesota and Wisconsin on this issue is the ECLA(MN) and the WELS(WI). People in Madison might not think so but I think it's a harder sell in Wisconsin, passing an amendment by 60% only 7 years ago. They may want to believe that they got a 20 % swing, but the fact of the matter is that this move is happening precisely because they know they can't beat the amendment at the polls. They'll have to use emotional appeals to squeamish judges.
Everyone knows this is not about gay "marriage," but specifically about gay adoption and redefining what a family is. I've said this before, but the homosexualists are just taking the Dogma of the Sexual Revolution to its logical conclusion. The definition of a natural marriage is as defined below:
As Fr. John Hardon explains in his Pocket Catholic Dictionary, there are four elements common to natural marriage throughout history:If a natural marriage is not what is actually is, then it can be defined as anything.
- It is a union of opposite sexes.
- It is a lifelong union, ending only with the death of one spouse.
- It excludes a union with any other person so long as the marriage exists.
- Its lifelong nature and exclusiveness are guaranteed by contract.
The Dogma of the Sexual Revolution can be defined as:
The following is a false statement: The use of sexual powers can only legitimately be used with the above conditions.
And the anti-nature evangelizers will not stop until everyone believes wholeheartedly in this Dogma.
But I can't emphasis enough that we need to support Wisconsin Family Action's religious freedom legislation. They will close down Catholic Charities, schools, and any wedding related business in the state until we all submit to the homosexualist agenda.