Wisconsin Family Action Asks, “What Happened to “We, the People?”

Federal judge strikes down WI Marriage Protection Amendment

Press release from Wisconsin Family Action:

MADISON—Today US District Judge Barbara Crabb struck down Wisconsin’s Marriage Protection Amendment, ruling it unconstitutional.

“We are deeply disappointed but not surprised at Judge Crabb’s ruling,” said Wisconsin Family AcImagetion President Julaine Appling.  “All over the country federal judges have replaced “We, the people” with “I, the judge” when ruling on state constitutional amendments that define and protect marriage as one man and one woman.  Rather than going through the stringent legislative process required to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot for a vote, radical homosexuals have used the courts to nullify the vote of a majority of Wisconsin citizens as well as those in 26 other states.”

ImageWith a single stroke of a single judge’s pen, marriage has been turned on its head in Wisconsin, effective immediately.  Wisconsin Family Action anticipates a hearing on whether or not the judge will put a stay on her ruling.  It also hopes that Attorney General JB Van Hollen will file a timely appeal of this decision with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The struggle to preserve and protect traditional marriage is far from over and will continue,” said Appling.  “A benighted judge’s ruling cannot change the fact that a marriage of one man and one woman is the healthiest, most prosperous, and most stable place not only for the man and woman but also for the children they may bring into the world.  Trying to destroy an institution that has served and prospered societies for thousands of years is the height of arrogance and a gross pandering to a well organized, well funded, very small minority who, rather than take this important issue to the people of Wisconsin, did an end run around the will of the people.”

19 comments on “Wisconsin Family Action Asks, “What Happened to “We, the People?”

  1. Evidently you failed high school civics. The U.S. Constitution trumps popular votes and state constitutions in they are in conflict. It’s a little thing called the Supremacy Clause, and is part of our system of checks and balances that guarantees the rights of citizens when they are threatened by local injustices. Civil rights are not a matter for popular votes — that’s why they are called rights. Besides, since these federal judges have ruled against state constitutional bans on same-sex civil marriage without exception, one right after the other, an intelligent person would reason that they know more about the subject than bigots do.

    Heterosexual people are not threatened one iota by these decisions. Man-woman marriage is, and forever shall be, allowed and encouraged by our government, simply because heterosexuality is much more common. Affirming the legality of same-sex civil marriage does absolutely nothing to destroy the institution of heterosexual marriage, nor destroy heterosexual families.

    You evidently have the mindset that being gay is a conscious choice and that if left unchecked, homosexuality will take over the country to the point that the birth rate will drop.

    This is falsehood — on religious, scientific, and psychological bases.

    LGBT people are born the way they are; the only choice they have is when and how to express it. People often come out of the closet of being naturally attracted to people of the same gender way before they have any concept of sexual feelings, which proves that it isn’t a choice. So does the fact that heterosexuals don’t make an analogous choice. (Even if being gay was a choice, what possible incentive could there be?)

    Because having same-sex attractions is as inborn and immutable as being left-handed or having a certain hair color or skin color, its prevalence can never increase. Thus, the fear-mongering about birth rates and gay people’s danger to the nuclear family is needless. What would you have LGBT people do — enter into marriages with an opposite-sex partner they have no chance of loving in all the ways that married couples should? That’s a recipe for broken families, and that’s been tried throughout history, always with disastrous results. And the lies are to blame. All gay people want is the civil recognition of the relationships they have that are analogous to those of heterosexual couples. They cannot be against heterosexual marriage any more than a meat-eater can be against vegetarians. Simply put, there is no valid secular argument against same-sex civil marriage.

  2. Jim Thaiea says:

    Good for Judge Crabb. She did her job. Equal rights is not something that should be voted on. Equality is the foundation of our nation.

  3. John Rambo says:

    HAHA! You lose

  4. SL says:

    Nope. All across the country federal judges have stated that “we the people” includes LGBT people. Interracial marriage was legalized federally by judges, not by the legislature and not by an illegal, anti-American, unconstitutional vote by a fraction of a fraction of the population voting to illegally interfere in and control the personal lives of some citizens against those citizens free will. Anti-gay trash interfering in and controlling any and ALL aspects of the lives of LGBT American citizens, FREE PEOPLE, is the height of arrogance and a gross violation of freedom. You anti-gay TRASH do NOT have a say in my life and you will NOT be allowed to vote on MY life. I will not tolerate it. MY life, MY rules. LGBT people are the people also and we will be treated as such equally – as we are, want, and demand. This is not open to debate or negotiations. Get over it, mind your own business, and back off my life and rights willingly or be forced to physically. Fair warning you mentally diseased, anti-American, anti-freedom, Nazi savage whore.

    P.S. Julaine Appalling, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 2:12 – just saying.

  5. Sadiee says:

    Homophobia is a sin like lying, stealing and murder. The good news is that thousands and thousands have managed to leave the immoral anti-gay lifestyle. You can, too! Please repent before it’s too late and you burn in hell. Blessings.

  6. Andrew Barnes says:

    …Last time I checked, marriage between a man and woman is still available in Wisconsin. In the interest of the freedom and equality of “We the People,” Crabb’s decision expands those rights to ALL taxpaying Americans.

  7. It is not the courts’ job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That’s what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of “equality,” and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not “activism” on the part of judges to declare that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.

    Laws passed by the legislative branch get struck down as unconstitutional all the time. It really doesn’t matter whether a law is popular or not. What matters is whether it conforms to the Constitution of the United States. Unless the Constitution only applies to people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual), there is no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits and opportunities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

  8. Rich says:

    “We the people” doesn’t apply here honey. We do not vote on the rights of minorities. I’m surprised you don’t realize that. I suggest you read the 14th amendment of the constitution.

  9. john not mccain says:

    When bigots are whining it means justice has occured. May you never be silent.

  10. heyblinken2 says:

    How can a “Federal” judge declare a state “constitutional amendment” unconstitutional? What authority does she have in this issue?

  11. Elizabeth says:

    Absolutely disgusting. I’m sick to the stomach. Judge, what’s WRONG with you? Are you, perhaps, just perhaps, possessed?

  12. Sarah Rabinowitz says:

    Julaine Appling is a gay-bashing (expletive deleted).

  13. Wayne says:

    Thank God for “I, the Judge” when the “We, the People” illegally strip sacred constitutional rights from fellow citizens!

  14. glblank says:

    Done deal, you lose, go the (deleted expletive) away, cretin.

  15. Mark Peterson says:

    I assume, therefore, that you also oppose the Loving decision, since the Supreme Court overrode the vote of the people in many Southern states, all on behalf of a small minority (interracial couples) who wanted to get married.

  16. Ann Mousemath says:

    > I am AGAINST state sponsored gay marriage

    (Source: See Below)

    The crux of the issue is that, for our purposes, there are two completely separate “kinds” of marriage. There are actually four kinds of marriage, but the first two aren’t germane to this discussion… but here they are anyway because the definition of a religious marriage is predicated on the definition of one of the first two types.

    Type 1 - Emotional Marriage – The emotional bond that people feel for one another. This is the feeling of being “soul mates.” This is Romeo and Juliet… Because we believe in free will, this type is something that not even God gets a say in.

    Type 2 – Spiritual Marriage – (If you’re an atheist, you don’t buy into this one) Recognition by God that people are bonded. This is basically God saying, “You’re soul mates.”

    Type 3 – Religious Marriage – Public recognition by an organized establishment of religion that, according to its doctrines and dogma, a 
    spiritual marriage has taken place.

    Type 4 – Legal Marriage – A civil contract between people that affords rights and requires responsibilities. This is the piece of paper that you file at the countyclerks office that makes you a “spouse” in the eyes of the law.

    The whole reason that we have all the issues right now is that for the past 400 years or so (maybe more…), we’ve allowed religious officiants to perform both a Type 3 and a Type 4 marriage *at the same time.* Think about it. When you get married in a church (synagogue, temple, whatever), the priest (rabbi, minister, whatever) says, “By the power vested in me by the Roman Catholic Church (or whatever), *and* the State of (whatever state you’re in), I now pronounce you (something).”

    “AND”

    You saw that word, right?

    They’re two separate things. When you get married by a Justice of the Peace (or whatever secular officiant), all they say is “By the power 
    vested in me by the State of (whatever state you’re in), I now pronounce you (something).”

    It’s easy to see. It’s simple. The reason it gets complicated is that there are a whole lot of people out there who feel that their power and control are being threatened… and there are bigots and haters out there… who are attempting to *willfully* misconstrue, confuse, and merge the Type 3 and Type 4 marriages so they can prevent *legal* status and rights for people with whom they disagree (or hate or whatever). The use of the phrase “Traditional Marriage” is exactly this sort of attempt to construe Type 3 and Type 4 marriages into a single thing thus trying to lay moral authority over a civil contract.

    The truth is that Type 3 and Type 4 are completely separate, they have *nothing* in common. And once you see truth of that, everything else can be made to make sense with no one at fault, no one to blame, no bad guys. We solve the whole mess by taking one, calm step backward, and just looking at the issue.

    Ok, so here’s the deal with gay marriage. There have been, in the USA, gay marriages for decades or more. Various churches have been performing gay marriages for a long time. Because they are Type 3 marriages, they carried no force under the law.

    Now with this marriage equality stuff going around, let’s consider what the courts can actually rule on. They can’t rule on a Type 1 marriage… nor a Type 2 for obvious free will, and “can’t tell God what to do” reasons. The 1st Amendment precludes the courts from ruling a Type 3 marriage with certain very particular exceptions that are covered by other other legal constructs (that I’ll cover in a bit).

    The only kind of marriage that the courts can consider is the Type 4 marriage, which is nothing but a civil contract that affords rights and requires responsibilities.

    Hear that. 

    The whole gay marriage thing, as far as the US courts are concerned is a simple contracts case. A 1st year law student could look at gay 
    marriage as the simple contracts case that it is and apply the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments, and Brown v Board of Educaion’s “separate is 
    inherently unequal” and Loving v Virginia’s “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’” to get to the inevitable, inescapable 
    conclusion that gay marriage (of Type 4) is the right call.

    Please understand, there is absolutely no moral, ethical, emotional, spiritual, or any other kind of judgment on the merits of a Type 4 
    marriage. It’s a legal contract. That’s all it is. It’s nothing but a legal contract that affords rights and requires responsibilities.

    There is no moral component to a legal contract.

    That’s not to say that entering into a contract of marriage isn’t a solemn occasion. It is. It should be. But just because it’s loaded with gravitas, doesn’t give it a moral bent. And by that token, it also cannot, therefore, have an immoral component. There is nothing moral or immoral about a Type 4 marriage.

    Now, let’s talk about the “Slippery Slope” argument… because it’s important. Some folks will argue that if gay folks can legally get married, then a man can marry a little boy, or his dog, or a chicken, or, in the case of Mayor West on Family Guy, his left hand. My personal choice for this type of marriage is a life-sized, cardboard cutout of Katee Sackhoff. I’d marry that piece of rigid paper in a second. Yum. See, if you open it up to the Gays, where will it end?

    The proponents of gay marriage treat this question as an insult to their loving relationships because they feel it attempts to equate them with those other things and they don’t like it. Well gay marriage proponents, suck it up. Slippery Slope is an important principle in jurisprudence and it needs to be addressed.

    The good news for rational folks is that there is, in fact, a simple and well defined legal concept that acts as a perfect backstop to the 
    Slippery Slope. It’s called “Consent.” A little boy can’t legally give consent… nor an animal of any kind… not even a cardboard cutout nor a piece of anatomy. Consent is the backstop to the Slippery Slope.

    So let’s get to the contention that people will push to have churches forced to perform gay marriages against their doctrines and dogma…

    Let me give you an example from my own life that will illustrate my point about religious freedom regarding performing marriages using an 
    example that is so normal and accepted and absolutely ubiquitous that once I share it everyone will say, “Oh… yeah… it is like that…”

    I’m Catholic. I know, I accept your condolences. When I was young, I met a great girl fell in love and got married. Seven years later, my 
    wife and I split. We got a divorce. Lucky me, I met another really great girl, fell head-over-heels in love and wanted to get married…

    I’m Catholic. Did I mention that? According to the doctrines and dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, “until death us do part.” According to the beliefs of the Catholics, I’m still married to that woman back in Michigan, and I will be for quite a while, God willing.

    Here’s the question: What do you think the American Legal System would do if I sued the Catholic Church to force them to perform a marriage between this new (awesome) girl and me… to perform a Type 3 marriage that’s against their doctrines and dogma?

    Go on, you can say it. 

    They’d laugh me out of the building. If I appealed? More giggles. Take it all the way to the California Supreme Court? Guffaws! Decide that 
    this is a Constitutional issue and go to the US Supreme Court? They would tell me that according to the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, the court can’t tell the Catholic Church what constitutes a marriage for the Catholic Church… and yet more laughing at me would be had by all.

    You can see that, right? It’s already incredibly well settled law that the courts can’t tell religious institutions what makes up a Type 3 marriage.

    So relax. Gays won’t be able to use the force of the Law to require organized establishments of religion to perform Type 3 marriages which are against their doctrines and dogma in exactly the same way I can’t force the Catholic Church to marry me and my new wife.

    Now let’s talk about something that the courts will be able to tell organized establishments of religion. Here’s another perfectly well established, no-one-complains-about-it-at-all, everyone-gets-it example, using me (but not an actual example, just hypothetical), that will show something “interesting.”

    Let’s say that I got a great job working as a janitor for the Catholic church across the street from me. It pays well and comes with awesome benefits… medical with no copay, including dental and eye care… for my whole family, my spouse and my kid.

    Ah Hah! If you’ve been reading, you know that according to the Catholics’ doctrines and dogma, my spouse lives in Michigan. According to the laws in the state of California (and the nation), my spouse lives across the street from the church with me.

    Here’s the question: To whom does the Church give the spousal benefits?

    You all know the answer… they don’t even blink as they put my legal spouse’s information all over the forms. It doesn’t hurt them, and they don’t protest or try to sue me. Everyone knows this. Nobody questions it. Nobody fights it. Why?

    The answer is so simple and clear that it’ll make your head spin. Oh, and by the way, this is also the answer to the whole religious exemptions for health care thing… ready for the answer?

    The reason my current wife gets the spousal benefits is that, when the Church is functioning as a *business*, it must comply with local, state and federal laws. When the Church is functioning as a religious organization, it follows its doctrines and dogma, protected by the 1st Amendment.

    This is true of *any* religious institution in the US. Everyone understands it, no one complains. It’s the way it is.

    It will continue to be that way with gay marriage. Here’s an example using my friends, Adam and Steven: Adam and Steven get married at the 
    Hollywood United Methodist Church in 2013, perfectly legal, Type 3 and Type 4 marriages. In 2014, Adam gets a job as a janitor for a Catholic church in Los Angeles. It’s a great job that pays well and has great benefits… 401k, medical (including dental and eye care), for his spouse and kids. Great. The Church is required to consider Steven to be the spouse because, since it’s acting like a business instead of a religious institution with regard to its relationship with Adam, the Church must comply with California law. Adam and Steven have a Type 4 marriage which provides legal rights. One of those legal rights is the right to be considered each others “spouse” in all legal business conducted within the state.

    You can see that, right? Adam’s situation with the Catholic Church is exactly the same as mine. We both have legal marriages that the Church is required to recognize because the Church is functioning as a business, and we both have marriages that the Church is not at all required to recognize in any way socially.

    In conclusion, gay marriage is coming. It’s coming for the whole nation.

    The world will go on.

    You’re safe and unthreatened; be happy.

    Pasted from

    • Pat Schremplhaupt says:

      Ann,

      Your long analysis is flawed. Marriage laws are not just a matter of contractual law. States have an obligation and right to legislate restrictions on personal choices when the greater good of the state are at stake. Just like giving driving license requirements such as age, passing road tests, vision requirements and passing speed limits are all necessary for the good of all residents – the state has the obligation to provide restrictions on marriage. Two gendered families are in the best interest for the state as well as the children of those families. This is supported both historically and through current research (and any research claiming different results have never survived peer review).

      BTW – the marriage amendment is not discriminatory against LGBT people. Any LGBT persons could be married in Wisconsin as long as they married someone of the opposite sex – they just prefer not to do so. Their preferences should not trump the best interest of the state, the children, and the future generations. Sexual preferences are not equal to race, gender, etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s