1 Ah, republican principles at work!

2 Instead he's lending legitimacy to the idea that Governors and Presidents may simply refuse to defend laws with which they disagree

No, he's saying that a Gov should not defend a law he believes is unConstitutional. Do you disagree with that point? Or do you disagree with his premise that its unConstitutional?

3 Governor Walker has declared unconstitutional Wisconsin's domestic partnership law, which was passed by the legislature and signed into law by his predecessor.

Good to know that he as so many other of the ruling classes (R & D) believe that they ARE the law.
To paraphrase Lewis Carrol:  "Laws mean exactly what I say they mean--no more, no less!"

4 What's that you are eating there, Goose? Hmm, sounds good, I shall have a bite as well...

5 So long as liberals use the court system as a blunt instrument to force laws on the rest of us, we should do the same, and not shy away from doing so.  If we enforce our laws while they ignore ours, we are the biggest idiots on the planet.

6 Uh, guys? It IS unConstitutional in this state. The amendment states that marriage or any institution similar to it is not recognized in this state. Doyle created it to circumvent the will of the people.

Seriously, do your homework a bit better.

7 Gabriel, you already linked it yourself. It's supposedly in violation of the 2006 Amendment to the State Constitution so governors can choose to enforce their own constitution that they're obligated to abide by over "feel-good" measures. So he's in the right on this by choosing not to violate the constitution. The state constitution says "Marriage. SECTION 13. [As created Nov. 2006] Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state. [2003 J.R. 29, 2005 J.R. 30, vote Nov. 2006]"

8

I've found my next issue to demagogue. Hellllllooooooooooo, Iowa!

9 1) The State passes a law requiring the King first crack at your daughter, in obvious violation of your civil rights 2) You challenge the law, citing it's illegality 3) The King defends his De-flowering Law 4) The King is beheaded 5) The new King chooses not to defend the De-flowering Law 6) Gabe says the new King is as bad as the old for not defending the De-flowering Law

10 A governor defending his state constitution?!  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

11 There is a private party, a gay rights group acting in defense of the bill. I am a social conservative, but not a social conservative progressive who favors using the government to force an agenda. People have a right to enter into their own agreements, the state has a responsibility to record and protect and enforce those agreements. Those who seek to ban Gay Marriage need to realize that a government powerful enough to do so is also powerful enough to force Religious voters to do irreligious things. We should be pushing to end government involvement in marriage all together beyond simple records keeping of contracts.

12 Prop 8 in California for example already bans marriages between a man and woman. Despite the hardcore liberals trying to appeal (currently on the 9th Circuit of Appeals docket), the California Assembly cannot pass a law (despite a democratic majority) saying "We chose to ignore Prop 8, let same-sex marriage continue" without being in violation of the State Constitution. So like California, that law is unconstitutional and goes against their state constitution.

13 Seriously, do your homework a bit better.

Posted by: Danny at May 18, 2011 07:39 AM (oLvBm)

Facts?  HAH!

14 Those who seek to ban Gay Marriage need to realize that a government powerful enough to do so is also powerful enough to force Religious voters to do irreligious things.

Gay marriage has never historically existed and is a wholly ridiculous concept.  Social conservatives aren't 'banning' anything.

What YOU need to realize is that when courts can ignore the will of the people and force them to recognize objective nonsense like gay marriage, we no longer have a democracy or republic.  We have an oligarchy of elites who will make decisions as they see fit.

15 Those who seek to ban Gay Marriage need to realize that a government powerful enough to do so is also powerful enough to force Religious voters to do irreligious things.

We should be pushing to end government involvement in marriage all together beyond simple records keeping of contracts.

Posted by: coondawg at May 18, 2011 07:49 AM (VhcOZ)

State governments are powerful enough to ban gay marriage, and to force religious voters to do irreligious things.  If by irreligious you mean "indifferent to religion."

State governments have lots of power.  They are the basic sovereign unit.  They lent some power to the feds, but kept the vast majority.

16 Gay people and post-colonial Kenyans are the biggest threat to America. That, and the Ryan plan.

17 What he should have done is what Bush DOJ did with the MA CO2 suit. Defend it in court with a half ass defense that you know will fail. Then you can blame the courts.

Personally I think Walker actually showed some integrity by saying he wouldn't defend it.

18 11 "We should be pushing to end government involvement in marriage all together beyond simple records keeping of contracts. " Interesting argument. The problem is that the law forces government regulations on private businesses (requiring you to give leave to an employee), hospitals (deciding what a hospitals visitation policies are) and families (deciding who has your son, daughter, brother, mother, etc's Medical Power of Attorney). If you want you Backdoor Man making your EOL decisions then declare them your Medical Power of Attorney. If you want to visit your Protective Dyke in the hospital, admit them to a hospital that has GLBT-friendly visiting hours. If you want leave to care for your Dude Looks Like a Lady, take a job that includes this provision in its benefit package. Straw men are made for burning.

19 Look: It's the Andrew Sullivan of AoS. Gabriel, sooner or later you're going to have to make a decision on what's more important: your pet issue (Gay rights) or the rule of law. If the former, then don't whine when the same tactics to push gay rights are used elsewhere. If the latter, then you're going to have to condemn gay rights activists when they work to circumvent the law instead of honestly changing it. It's one or the other. And from the looks of it the rule of law loses in your core values....

20 Sounds like he has brass balls to me.

21 Sodomy just ain't what it used to be.

22 Gabriel, sooner or later you're going to have to make a decision on what's more important: your pet issue (Gay rights) or the rule of law. If the former, then don't whine when the same tactics to push gay rights are used elsewhere. If the latter, then you're going to have to condemn gay rights activists when they work to circumvent the law instead of honestly changing it.

It's one or the other. And from the looks of it the rule of law loses in your core values....

Posted by: Tristan Phillips at May 18, 2011 08:01 AM (0tV1H)

Whoa there, Sparky.  I've never seen any evidence that gay rights is his pet issue.  I've usually if not always been impressed with his integrity on gay rights.  They do a lot of underhanded stuff, and Mr. Malor calls them on it.

As far as I can tell, he's a rule of law guy all the way.  Here, he might not have all the facts, if the WI Constitution does ban gay marriage.  But it's an understandable mistake, given that Walker is doing what Holder and Co. have been doing.  Bash Holder when he does it, bash Walker when he does it.  Sounds kinda impartial and full of integrity, no?

23

Oh yawn. The Lefties (and the Righties who base all their decisions on what they do with their junk) lack the support to get gay "marriage" sanctioned by the voters, so they come up with an end-run around the law of the land, and then the Governor calls them on it.

It's the new Selma!

24 Here, he might not have all the facts, if the WI Constitution does ban gay marriage. Posted by: FUBAR at May 18, 2011 08:07 AM (1fanL) So you are saying that Gabe and Gov. Walker need to have a beer summit?

25 When did the left become such Monarchists?  Nascent hunger for Kings or king-lite FDR?

We are subordinate to Fickle Thieves.

26 Lefties have been pulling this crap for years.. When the right finally plays from the same rule book, its 'Oh Noes!!' They set up the precedent.. Gov. Walker is following it.

27
So you are saying that Gabe and Gov. Walker need to have a beer summit?

Posted by: Dave C at May 18, 2011 08:10 AM (Xus7V)

They should probably have a lefty along too.

28 #22 Fubar: I have been reading this blog for years and Gabriel's pet issue, like Andrew Sullivan, is gay rights and gay marriage. To say otherwise is to deny Gabriel's many postings. I stand by my post. Gabriel has a fundamental question to decide for himself, and if his posts are any indication of where is heart lies, the rule of law will lose.

29 Shouldn't he, instead of declining to defend it, file an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs?  I mean, he's a governor- not The Law.

30 I thought it was the Purple Avenger who was all hot for fake marriage?

31

I for one welcome our new poligamist and non-nuclear families, midget and circus-side show families are welcome as well.

  

32 Governors and Presidents take an oath to uphold their respective Constitutions. If the Wisconsin law violates the Wisconsin Const, Walker should not enforce it. I'm gong to expect the next US President to abandon defense of Ocare, for the same reason.

33 I have *zero* problem with Gov. Walker playing by the rules the lefties set up in the first place.  ZERO.  We *have* to start fighting to win these things, and we're not going to do it by playing nice.

34 Whoa there, Sparky.  I've never seen any evidence that gay rights is his pet issue.  I've usually if not always been impressed with his integrity on gay rights.  They do a lot of underhanded stuff, and Mr. Malor calls them on it.

Shirley you can't be serious. (yeah I called you Shirley)
Gabe has alot to recommend him but to claim he has no special attachment to the gay marriage issue is to call a pig a donkey and ride it to town on a Sunday.

It seems that every gay maraige post it a Gabe post.

35

What is it about gay rights issues that causes certain folks to tear their clothing, gnash their teeth, and call things like this "cruel and cowardly?"  I'm half-expecting a "have you no shame, sir?" on the horizon.

Get off the pedestal, Malor.  We don't like Andrew Sullivan's bathos (or much else about him, really) and many of us don't like your bathos either.  Same-sex marriage is something that cannot be forced on society, which is why it can only be accepted when the people at-large agree to it.  There is no justifiable defense of a unilateral endorsement of gay marriage from a legislature or from the bench.  Only the people themselves can decide that.

If Obama failing to defend DOMA is fine with you, then this is just dandy as well.  If the Let's Call Everyone Homophobes Campaign wants to step up, let them foot the bill to defend this garbage.

36
It's a perversion of the concept of marriage and family.  And if gays are entitled to domestic partnerships, then polygamists have even more of a right to official polygamy supported as a "domestic arrangment".

Why that argument is utterly ridiculous!!

37 34 GMan,

exactly if King Barry gets to play "I defend only what I want" so does Prince Walker.....

I am a domestic partnership advocate from way back when Gabe, but sorry the Gay community running to the courts every time they don't get their way on the "m" word has led me to the conclusion that there is no sanity or restraint there and they WILL attack Churches who refuse to perform Gay marriages.

The gays couldn't settle for getting what they wanted slowly and allowing society to adapt so now they'll get what they can sue for and little else.

38 Sounds like he has brass balls to me.

Posted by: swamp_yankee at May 18, 2011 08:03 AM (jOQSe)

We agree.

39 I have been reading this blog for years and Gabriel's pet issue, like Andrew Sullivan, is gay rights and gay marriage. To say otherwise is to deny Gabriel's many postings.

I stand by my post. Gabriel has a fundamental question to decide for himself, and if his posts are any indication of where is heart lies, the rule of law will lose.

Posted by: Tristan Phillips at May 18, 2011 08:16 AM (0tV1H)

Good for you.  Me too.  And I used to be suspicious of him, and read his posts with an eye to busting his hump, but there just wasn't much of anything wrong.

I'm sure there've been many postings.  It's a hot topic in the law, and has been for years.  And a hot topic amongst conservatives, oh by the way.  Doesn't mean it's his pet issue.  Means it gets lots of publicity.

And if you complain about not defending laws when a lefty does it, and you say it's illegitimate, then doing it yourself and excusing it by saying they do it is no justification.  Under the rule of law.

It seems to me this issue turns on "substantially similar to marriage."  Reasonable minds may disagree on what exactly that phrase means, and I'm sure the WI SCt would be happy to provide guidance.  But to say he's not following the rule of law is a little much, if this is all you have.  If the law is vague or ambiguous, you don't declare it unconstitutional and not defend it.  You go get the men in black robes to weigh in.

Maybe you could refresh me on some past post where he's gone against the rule of law.

40 It's the new Selma!

Yeah, i grew tired a long time ago of the "this is the most important civil rights since slavery" bullshit. Not to mention the constant accusations of bigotry and the insistence that anyone opposed to gay marriage is a closeted homo and of course the attacks on Christians. I'm surprised this post didn't whine that Walker was preventing people from loving each other.

I'm always reminded of a comment i saw on a liberal blog from a gay marriage supporter who whined that the Jesus freaks, farmers and various other unsavory people that  he didn't like, but who had exercised their right to vote and voted against gay marriage, should be ignored because they don't represent everybody but a single judge should be paid attention to because that judge represents everyone and done got some schoolin' dont'cha know. Maybe if the gay community weren't such sanctimonious fuckwits they'd have broader support.

41 An old saying about geese and ganders applies here. If the gay left is going to use the courts to ram their agenda down our throats, they shouldn't complain when the same tactics are used against them. 

42 36 Lou,

Yeah I have a hard time wrapping my head around why I am expected to celebrate a portion of the citizenry's bedroom choices to be "fair"....

I don't get "celebrated' for being a straight, mostly monogamous married man over the last 24 years.  I don't ask for special treatment thereby, and I have yet to be offered "protected species" status vis a vis unmarried hypersexual gents in the workplace, but somehow add in "liking the same flavored ice cream" to the  mix and mankind is supposed to get its panties in a bunch when people don't celebrate my kissing my "life partner"?  Nope the gays want to set the rules to play by then fine we'll all play by those rules.

If bambi not enforcing DoM is t3h aw3som3s then what Walker is doing is just fine by me as well Gabe.

Just holding you to your standard bub.

43 Ya'll know how how the anti-war movement has just disappeared? Turns out they were just (another) anti-conservative movement. Then we have the 'gay rights' movement.

44

I  for one welcome our new poligamist and non-nuclear families, midget and circus-side show families are welcome as well.

Posted by: Reality TV producer at May 18, 2011 08:20 AM (pr+up)

A to the men!  Just think of the wonderful progeny they'll continue to unleash upon society! 

45

From Drudge link:

 

A man who won $2 million on a Michigan lottery show has told a TV station that he still uses food stamps.

Leroy Fick of Bay County admitted he still swipes the electronic card at stores, nearly a year after winning a jackpot on "Make Me Rich!" He told WNEM-TV in Saginaw that more than half the prize went to taxes.

Fick says the Department of Human Services told him he could continue to use the card, which is paid with tax dollars. He told WNEM: "If you're going to ... try to make me feel bad, you aren't going to do it."

The TV station says people have seen Fick driving a new Audi convertible. Messages seeking comment were left with his attorney and the state today.

46 Ahnuld...you....ARE....the FATHER!

47 As someone else pointed out upthread, the legal mechanisms to protect these "rights" already exist. You can appoint anyone as your attorney-in-fact, whether to dispose of property, make medical decisions, whatever. They have ALWAYS existed. The only thing they DON'T do is force everybody to say, "Two guys fucking is okay and natural. Just as natural as a man and woman. Let's give them a baby and pretend we're not all fucking insane." But gay rights nutriders will never admit that.

48

oops, meant to post that on the headlines post.   Sorry!

 

49

Posted by: booger at May 18, 2011 08:26 AM (9RFH1)

We agree with booger!  !!!Eleventy!!!

50 3 Hrothgar,

that notion "I am the law" is only getting worse...look at last week's Indiana Supremes basically saying "4th amendment...nah not really" ruling....

the entire body of law has devolved into a shakedown racket ran by lawyers to steal money from the electorate coming and going.

51 I don't know any of the specifics..but I think I'm safe to say that Gabe acted.....stupidly.

52 I've got no problems personally with domestic partnerships that are the legal equivalent of marriage. However, I do not believe that marriages should be granted by the state, but by churches. Churches should not be able to interfere in the Governments granting of domestic partnerships anymore than the Government should be able to interfere with whom a church decides to marry or not marry according to that church's religious doctrine. Form a church that sanctions same-sex marriage and I'm ok with it, but don't expect me to be a member, or to support a government initiative to force churches to do so.

53

I don't get "celebrated' for being a straight, mostly monogamous married man over the last 24 years. 

We need to have a little talk.

54 48 EoJ,

but, but some gay dude wasn't allowed in to visit his life partner who was laying in a coma.....!


eleventy!1!

of course I have seen many girlfriends denied the same "right" if they are not "married" either.....

yeah running to the court and going Jihadi Jim on this issue has jaded a lot of people who had evolved into otherwise shrugging about people's sexual proclivities....


"BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY!" acting as your baseline rhetorical device means you likely are not a lot of fun at dinner parties.

55 #40 Fubar This post. Seems Former Gov. Doyle didn't want to follow WI law so he did this instead. I'll leave it to people more familiar with WI law to show the details. Gabriel's position is clear: He thinks following the law is cruel, which to me says he's more interested in his pet issue more than the rule of law.

56 Would you rather he put up a half-assed defense of the law, getting the implementation of the Constitutional Amendment blessed by the courts.

Gabe, good intentions, feel-good stories, and incremental-ism are the tools of the left; strict interpretation of the Constitution is the shield of the right.

Still haven't seen a gay marriage proponent define the Government's interest in gay marriage.

57

"State governments have lots of power.  They are the basic sovereign unit.  They lent some power to the feds, but kept the vast majority."

What about the states created after the creation of the federal government?

"And if gays are entitled to domestic partnerships, then polygamists have even more of a right to official polygamy supported as a "domestic arrangment"."

So?

58 Hey lets throw open the borders, increase taxes 75%, eliminate the Military, make all grades just pass/fail, give reparations to all who want one except white males, and yada yada yada

59 54 Mrs. Sven10077,

we did darling....

and my ass still hurts from facing the prospect of losing half of everything we owned.

Thanks for forgiving me.

60 And if you complain about not defending laws when a lefty does it, and you say it's illegitimate, then doing it yourself and excusing it by saying they do it is no justification.  Under the rule of law.

Nope, I disagree.  It's fine.  Or I don't.  God, this is so much fun!

61 FUBAR, you know that Gayb has been riding thi issue like a catamite at the FultonSt fair. And he's just as shrill as Sullivan. The actual Wisconsin constitution is irrelevant to him. Let's play a game, shall we? We can pretend to care about homomarriage and Gayb can pretend to respect.the law. Both will share the same level of reality. It used to irritate me,Gayb's pet obsession. But now I just feel bad for Gayb for being such an emotionally driven drama queen, Sucks to embody a stereotype.

62 I declare a truce. 

63 62 Hobgoblin,

At least he is not the drama queen Andi Sully is....

Gabe thinks that getting his pet cause by whatever plots, twists, and drama it takes is fine....

I think stopping less than 5% of the population from dictating matters of faith, law, and comity by the inverse means is just as fine.

64 61 A Modern Judge,


your thumbs ever hurt from "deciding"?

65 Another thing I've learned. Gabe throws post after post favoring gay marriage and sticks around to defend zero of them. Annoying.

66

On the polygamy tip:

http://tinyurl.com/2bbxe8

"Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order"

Problem is, traditionalists, leftists and libertarians are completely unable to agree (beyond a certain irreducible minimum like 'rape and murder are bad') which things are violative/subversive.

I'm not one to push homogamy through the courts -- but it is coming.  Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow ...

67 I'm torn, honestly.

It seems we have no rule of law in this country when it comes to the how the left operates.

So do we continue with this hugely unfair advantage or do we just give their shit right back to them?

We're so far fucked I'm half-tempted to say, "Shades of Obama? Good! Let's see how they fucking like it to have the will of the voters subverted because OUR GUY doesn't care for how they voted."

I don't know. I'm tempted to take that position because I don't like when some motherfucker escalates on me. My first instinct is always to escalate right back. It's basic game theory -- they fuck you over, you fuck them right back.

And beyond the strategic value, I guess I'm just in the mood to start dropping napalm on our political enemies. If this whole country is going down, we might as well go down fighting.

68 "shades of President Obama's refusal to defend DOMA section 3, even though though it was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. It also recalls Governor Schwarzenegger and AG Brown's refusal to defend Prop 8 in court, despite that constitutional amendment being passed by the people of the State of California." Sooooo, it's only "cruel" and "cowardly" when it's done to laws you favor? Interesting argument for moral relevancy.

69 66 Another thing I've learned. Gabe throws post after post favoring gay marriage and sticks around to defend zero of them.

Too busy putting on his purty pink makeup or singing along to "Hello, Dolly" or some other stereotypical activity engaged in by teh gheys?

70 Gabriel Malor is homosexual? 

71 your thumbs ever hurt from "deciding"?

Yep.  That's why I take four months of vacation.

72
I'm missing the 'cruel' part?

Justify the 'cruel' remark, please.

73 66 EoJ,

he's probably doing us a favor because I like and respect him on every topic but this.  He has a restrained and fair mind on all matters but this.

Gabe and I once had a back and forth on why convincing people like me who 10 years ago was a mostly silent supporter of their efforts to quietly lobby their way to slow societal acceptance of their lifestyle to aid them in their efforts would lead to a better conclusion than their ACT UP! wing's antics.

ACT UP! deciding "no we want cookie now!!!!!' and getting their way through gaming the courts has shown me that the protestations a decade ago that gays were not likely to sue Churches who did not recognize their marriages were "words just words".....

so they've lost me.....

Gays want to be treated like everyone else they need to get their hysterical wing under control first not use them as a non-attributable asset.

74
Explain to the cruelty of this decision to me now or I am dumping glitter on the whole lot of you.

75 At least he is not the drama queen Andi Sully is.... You're right. Comparing Walker to BHO is the epitome of reasoned restraint. I know you're being flip, but Gayb gets old damned quick on his hobbyhorse.

76 Its Wisconsin...  I doubt he was elected for social issues.. he was elected to fix their economy.
Priorities.

Exactly!  I should be making these decisions!

And that stuff about the 'economy' thing you were talking about.  I should make those decisions too.

77 the left sets the rules and tactics we have no choice but to use those against them.

78 69 Warden,

exactly....

Gabe is arguing that Ogabe ignoring the law is good because it gave him his cookie but Walker ignoring the law is bad because "I want my cookie'.

Saying the two actions are equal at all is folly.  Ogabe set the new rule when he decided to ignore DoMA which introduced the 'cause I say so level of logic into the defense of law by an executive game.  Ergo Gabe can thank Ogabe for this.

The days of Conservatives stupidly allowing the leftoids and professional shitstirring wing of Legal Beagles to have two sets of rules and playbooks is ending.

You want to practice "lawfare' get ready for it.

79 Explain to the cruelty of this decision to me now or I am dumping glitter on the whole lot of you. It was cruel of Gabe to say that Jim Crow laws and anti-miscegenation statutes should have been vigorously defended, because they were enacted by the will of the people.

80 77 Hobgoblin,

I don't think gabe is a superstar openly as Gabe on Craig's List.

It really does bother me that I have been moved against the gay's initial position based on "LAWFARE!" by their idiot wing, but I have.

81

What I do know that this decision by Governor Walker is cruel. Cruel and cowardly.

Not one of your more compelling arguments, counselor. Have any others?

82

It's "cruel" because that's a buzzword that makes people feel sympathy/ guilt rather than think about the absurdity of pretending men "marrying" other men is some sort of universal human right.

83 Boo friggin' hoo!

Teh gheys don't get their way for once, and now Gabe decides that a Governor is not supposed to defend the Constitution, 

Cue the world's smallest violin.

84 This post. Seems Former Gov. Doyle didn't want to follow WI law so he did this instead. I'll leave it to people more familiar with WI law to show the details.

Gabriel's position is clear: He thinks following the law is cruel, which to me says he's more interested in his pet issue more than the rule of law.

Posted by: Tristan Phillips at May 18, 2011 08:38 AM (0tV1H)

I think you're confused.  But maybe I am:  The WI law is the domestic partnership law.  Doyle wanted to follow it, and defend it.  What did he do instead, again?

Gabe doesn't think following the law is cruel, he thinks Walker's decision to not defend the law is cruel.

We can argue about whether it's his pet subject, but that's a matter of opinion.  I'll stipulate that it's his pet subject, just to move us along.

But as far as following the rule of law: if you disagree with Holder, you have to disagree with Walker.  To be consistent.  Right?

If Holder should defend laws he disagrees with, Walker should also.  Right?  If Obama shouldn't opine on the constitutionality of laws, and instruct his AG not to defend the ones he thinks are unconstitutional, then Walker shouldn't either.  Right?  

Walker and his AG are doing exactly what Obama and his AG are doing: not defending a law.

85 This doesn't leave much room, and Walker is following the only sensible interpretation of this section.  English words have to have meaning, or else everything just falls apart.

Oh please!  The only thing that matters is what I think.

86 Jim Crow laws and anti-miscegenation statutes Yes,this is EXACTLY like that. Dogs, firehoses and campy films.

87 @60 - I knew you'd see the light.

88 87 FUBAR,

and according to Gabe that was not a big deal when Holder and Bambi decided to sit out defending a "bad law"......

we were lectured on it being better to have a zealous defender of DoMa as I recall....

well in reply since that was said to be the new normal "here ya go" is the right shrug of the shoulders for us conservatives to angst over this "TRAGEDY!!!!!"

89 substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

This doesn't leave much room, and Walker is following the only sensible interpretation of this section.  English words have to have meaning, or else everything just falls apart.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 18, 2011 08:56 AM (G/MYk)

"Substantially similar."  That is an ocean of room.  Ask a hundred people, and you'll get a hundred different answers.  Hence the need for the men in black robes to opine.

90 FUBAR, the constitution supersedes the statute

91 "...Churches should not be able to interfere in the Governments granting of domestic partnerships anymore than the Government should be able to interfere with whom a church decides to marry or not marry according to that church's religious doctrine."

Posted by: hobbes at May 18, 2011 08:36 AM (du4U/)

This.

IMHO "marriage" is a matter of spirituality and "civil union" is a matter of a partnership agreement.  The state is competent in areas of contract law but incompetent in matters of spirituality- vice versa for churches.

So, again IMHO, this entire issue can be defused by simply getting the state out of the "marriage business" and having the state certify partnership agreement between individuals- if those individuals wish to have those agreements blessed by a church then that should be between them and the church and the state should stay the hell out of it.

Of course that arrangement precludes any special interest group from using the power of the state to force doctrinal changes on churches (in direct violation of the 1st amendment BTW) which, I have a sneaking suspicion, is what the whole issue is really all about.

92 I have *zero* problem with Gov. Walker playing by the rules the lefties set up in the first place.  ZERO.  We *have* to start fighting to win these things, and we're not going to do it by playing nice.

No, NO NO!!!!
That way lies the death of the Republic.  We don't play by the rules because it is to our political advantage-it isn't, we play by them because that's what keeps the barbarians at bay.  The rule of law will win in the end if we keep fighting for it. 

Gabe-It doesn't matter what the consequences of the law are or if they are desirable.  It could require that folks just be nicer to each other on days ending in y.  The fact is that the constitutional amendment is quite clear, and therefore the successor law is obviously void.  You know this. 

If you want a law permitting civil unions or gay marriage, then repeal the amendment and get it passed.  No, it probably won't happen soon unless the courts do what they are so fond of and just make it law by fiat.  Do you really want to live in that country?

93 86 Chuckit,
quite...every win by the gays is heralded as "justice finally being done" no matter what level of intellectual, precedence squashing gymnastics it takes.....

I particularly enjoy the fact that Prop 8's striking judge was Gay himself and wanted to get "married"....

yeah that is a really detached arbiter of justice Gabe....

94 and according to Gabe that was not a big deal when Holder and Bambi decided to sit out defending a "bad law"......

Posted by: sven10077 at May 18, 2011 09:06 AM (kq1lG)

Oh.  In that case, Mr. Malor has some 'splainin' to do!

95 Somehow, I suspect that even though this law is blatantly unconstitutional in WI based on a very plain-language and common sense reading of the relevant amendment, Gabe would be all jazz hands and happiness when a dickbag liberal court throws out the challenge to the law because the plaintiff could not show standing based on any harm incurred, because this doesn't hurt anybody! Fuck off. Speaking of which, FUBAR: is what Walker is doing illegal? Or is it merely a tactic you don't approve of?

96 95 Nighthawk,

BINGO

this is a slow build to Gays trying to dictate to pastors' doctrine on sexuality.

97 It's impossible to vacuum up glitter. Please show some restraint.

98 98 Fubar,

it's been a bit and I am usingmy Bing-fu to get the link but yeah evidently when it was bambi and Barney Miller shrugging it was 'actually better for the defense of the law" so I am sort of at a loss as to why thisis "cowardly and cruel" all the sudden.

and Ace/Gabe if Gabe corrects me I'll apologize

99

These are qualitatively different events.  One involves a rational interpretation of written law and the others involve obvious America-haters perverting Constitutional interpretations (when they even bother trying to make Constitutional arguments, which is rarely) in order to selectively enforce law and distort our nation.  One needs to be able to discern between these types of situations, which isn't very difficult.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 18, 2011 09:07 AM (G/MYk)

94 FUBAR, the constitution supersedes the statute

Posted by: hobgoblin at May 18, 2011 09:07 AM (dDarv)

Yes, the Constitution supersedes the statute.  But the wording is vague enough that there is enough doubt that Walker could and should go to court to get it clarified.  "Substantially similar."  How similar is "substantially similar"?  Nobody knows but the men in black robes.

Not saying I agree, but that's the state of the law.

100

"Oh please!  The only thing that matters is what I think."

For federal judges, there's one way to remove them: impeachment by the Senate.  If this doesn't happen as often as you'd like (about a dozen times in our nation's history, including resignations before actual vote to remove from office), take it up with your Senator.  (Alternatively, the legislature a/o executive could just start ignoring the judiciary when they don't like what it says. [The O admin has moved in this direction, e.g. on the drilling moratorium.]  Seems to me that would be messier, but YMMV.)

State judges, for the most part, can be tossed out in elections, as in Iowa.  Knock yourself out.

101
oh yes, all you married guys: if you ever go to a strip joint, DO NOT RUB UP against the strippuh wearing the glitter.

That shit gets everywhere.

102 Posted by: pep at May 18, 2011 09:08 AM (gmlb7)

You CANNOT have the rule of law when half the people in the country (and close to 100% of the judges) believe the rule of law is whatever they want.

What you are advocating is that we enforce their laws while they ignore ours.  At that point, the Republic is some undead monstrosity worse than dead.

Our judiciary system needs massive reform to make sure that judges are forced to follow the rule of law.  Until then, we must protect our interests, which means using the system as it is used against us.

103 96 Pep,

I hate to be the one to break this to you but the "republic" is already dead if one side constantly ignores the electorate and runs to the courts every time the votes don't add up to their liking....

you know sorta like the last 35 years on environmentalism, and the last 15 on "gays", and on and on......

I am tired of being expected to be the only team to keep on pretending this is not a war over what comes next....

the Old Republic is already dead.

104 Gabe sometimes gets too emotional and fails to think things through. Gay marriage and Sheriff Arpio (sp) bring out his weaknesses. It is a simple matter to read the WI Constitution and see if Gov. Walker has a legitimate basis for his actions. It is not easy to do if you let your emotions get in the way.

105

Oh ... please.  Use some common sense.  Domestic partnerships were created, SPECIFICALLY, to mimic legal marriage in every way but label.  There is no room in establishing whether that sort of category is "substantially similar" to marriage.  I mean, come on.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 18, 2011 09:10 AM (G/MYk)

You think common sense has anything to do with it?  Whose common sense?  You think it's my interpretation?  It's not.  You may not realize it, but you don't want to rely on common sense when interpreting vague legal wording.  You want to be told exactly what it means.

106

IMHO "marriage" is a matter of spirituality and "civil union" is a matter of a partnership agreement.  The state is competent in areas of contract law but incompetent in matters of spirituality- vice versa for churches.

Well said Nighthawk and thanks for clairfying my poor attempt at the argument.

107 The whole "gay marriage" issue is and has always been about forcing acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Civil unions are not enough for the homosexual crowd because it "sounds different" than "marriage." 

If marriage can't be defined as one man and one woman, what's the point in defining it at all?

108

(sorry - should have said "take it up with your Senator *and Representative*, since the House has to set it up for the Senate to knock it down)

109 107 Bevel,

exactly....the moonbats and the "I want my cookie" crowd have undone trust and faith in the rule of law by ignoring the will of the people, and US precedence every time they want whatever cookie it is on a given day.....

Judges want to be "the deciders" and able to overturn the will of the electorate, fine but they better remember what happens to Usurpers.....

in THIS nation the voter is King not some jackass in a robe.

110 For federal judges, there's one way to remove them: impeachment by the Senate.  If this doesn't happen as often as you'd like (about a dozen times in our nation's history, including resignations before actual vote to remove from office), take it up with your Senator.

A wholesale reorganization of the Federal Judiciary could be done by Congress.  Get rid of the regional circuits, or just the 9th, and organize by specialty - make all judges go through a reappointment/confirmation process for the new jobs - after we get Lindsey off of the Judiciary panel.

111 #96 pep

The republic, at this point, is *already* going down in flames.  You know why? Because we've let the lefties dictate the rules of the game to us.  We have to "play fair" and they can fight dirty.  Enough. How much more do you want to bend over and take?

112
The losers in all this are the children. These poor kids don't have a chance in this world.

113 I thought I was pretty clear.

Marriage. SECTION 13. [As created Nov. 2006]  Only a mar-
riage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recog-
nized as a marriage in this state.  A legal status identical or sub-
stantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals
shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

114

"the Old Republic is already dead."

It died 150 years ago.  Then its successor died 79 years ago.  We're on the third or fourth now, depending on whether you count the civil rights/great society era as another "death"/fundamental change or not.

115 What I do know that this decision by Governor Walker is cruel. Cruel and cowardly.

When did Andy Sullivan start doing guests posts on Ace?

116 Speaking of Walker; how go those recall elections, did he get a VoterID bill in the pipe, did Google take their thumb off of Althouse?

117

Assuming this is an accurate description:

"The registries allow same-sex couples to take family and medical leave to care for a seriously ill partner, make end-of-life decisions and have hospital visitation rights. But according to Fair Wisconsin, they still confer only about a quarter of the rights associated with marriage, lacking provisions to allow couples to file joint tax returns or adopt children together."

... is that "substantially similar?"  Hospital/will stuff, but not tax/adoption stuff?

118

"the Old Republic is already dead."

It died 150 years ago.

It was stillborn, Marbury vs Madison smothered it in the womb.

119 It's the new Selma!

LOL @ this.  If I saw a caravan of mincemeats picketing a Nation of Islam house of drug dealing, gun running and whoring while wearing a bow tie I might have a bit more respect for Gabe's pet issue.  I wouldn't support the fucking insanity of the wish to turn a tradition inside out but I'd admit they have some nads mixed in with their complete dumbfuckery.  But the poofter panthers add to their stereotypes by attacking the groups that are least likely to physically fight back.

And Gabe gets the vapours.  Oh the humanity.

120

"in THIS nation the voter is King not some jackass in a robe."

So the voters need to vote for Congressmen who will start impeaching those JIARs.  No other way around it under the Constitution as it is.

121 You think common sense has anything to do with it?  Whose co mmon sense?  You think it's my interpretation?  It's not.  You may not realize it, but you don't want to rely on common sense when interpreting vague legal wording.  You want to be told exactly what it means. You're typing that on a Mac, aren't you? That's exactly the kind of mindless groupthink I would expect from a fucking Beatles fan. I rebuke you.

122 125 PoP,

I wish I could agree but the legal beagles can make "a is a" read as "a is a, unless it is b, or in some cases c"....

the voters, legislators, and Presidents may as well hand them blank sheets of paper because they literally do whatever they want these days.

123

If it were even remotely realistic to believe this "domestic partner" legislation wasn't just the camel's nose in the tent, Gabe, I'd agree with you.

But it is just that. Your hysteria in the last paragraph gives it away.

124 A legal status identical or sub-
stantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals
shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

Posted by: Article XIII Section 13 WI Constitution at May 18, 2011 09:18 AM (nQR0p)

"The registries allow same-sex couples to take family and medical leave to care for a seriously ill partner, make end-of-life decisions and have hospital visitation rights. But according to Fair Wisconsin, they still confer only about a quarter of the rights associated with marriage, lacking provisions to allow couples to file joint tax returns or adopt children together."

... is that "substantially similar?"  Hospital/will stuff, but not tax/adoption stuff?

Posted by: Knemon at May 18, 2011 09:19 AM (Da+uN)

Thank you, Knemon.  No "common sense" is going to settle this question, and you want it settled.  Walker's common sense is not going to be the same as the previous Democrat governor's common sense.  Obviously.

It's really not black and white, folks.  Go to court, get clarification, and make plans going forward.  Certainty is your friend.

125 It really does bother me that I have been moved against the gay's initial position based on "LAWFARE!" by their idiot wing, but I have.

That's where I am.

I used to take a very libertarian position towards domestic partnerships. Live and let live, I said.

Not any-fucking-more. Because the other side won't LET ME BE.

So fuck their agenda. Any government legitimization of gay marriage means they're gonna push that shit on my kid in public schools. So fuck 'em. The radical gays set the tone and now comes the push back. Because I'm NOT FUCKING HAVING IT.

Tooth and nail all the way, bitches. I tried to be reasonable, but my hand was forced.

Not one inch.

126 Posted by: Knemon at May 18, 2011 09:12 AM (Da+uN)

Unfortunately the Senate exemplifies the problem of the judiciary.  The GOP philosophy is that we should trust in who the president appoints - thus, every kind of horror gets through without much scrutiny.  The Dem philosophy is to torpedo judges who would rule against them - thus, we get GOP appointees who 'grow' on the bench.

With this kind of philosophy, the odds of getting a judge removed are remote.  The Senate just isn't a good vehicle for handling judges and never has been.

As for states, I wish my state elected judges.  It doesn't.

127 Posted by: hobbes at May 18, 2011 09:16 AM (du4U/)

Thank you!

128

"It was stillborn, Marbury vs Madison smothered it in the womb."

Yes and no.  Buck's gotta stop somewhere.  In theory I like the idea of each branch as a co-equal interpreter of the Constitution -- but just as you can't have a democracy with two voters (C.S. Lewis's argument for traditional male dominance w/in a marriage, IIRC), you can't really have three final interpreters.

So either we don't need a final interpreter, or we need one, but it should be some other branch.  If it's Congress, that means that any law they pass is presumptively constitutional, and all the courts can do is enforce it as written.  All fine and dandy until Congress passes the Close All Catholic Churches Act of 18xx.  If it's the President -- yikes.

129 @107&108&114&116
Guys-we all agree on the current state of the law and abuse thereof by judges and lefty activists.  But the way you fight that isn't to destroy what remains so that the law degrades into a battle of raw political power.  If you do that, you will have completed the trip to tyranny.  You fight it by electing statesmen who won't put other than strict constitutionalists on the bench.  You do it by persuading the people to elect only judges who have a track record of adherence to the law as written.   That's a much slower process, but it is happening.  If we use lefty tactics, we throw away the victory that is coming.  Don't fall for it.

130 126 Knemon,

I have a better idea....

I think rather than having to impeach every judge that decides he has found a hill to die on we just bide our time until we kick over the whole burned out log.

The judges have been emboldened by their Death Penalty antics, their butting in on military matters vis a vis 'gitmo etc etc.....

you have a bunch of hippie activists who see their swan songs as one last opportunity to 'stick it to the man".

Mark my words when we take back the Whitehouse, and try to undo Ogabe's overreaches the courts will try to get in the way.

131 You're typing that on a Mac, aren't you? That's exactly the kind of mindless groupthink I would expect from a fucking Beatles fan.

I rebuke you.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 18, 2011 09:22 AM (hlY6R)

PC.  And it's not my mindless groupthink.  It's the law's.

And hey.  I just happened to hear "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" on the radio the other day.  Got me to thinking - dangerous, I know.  You're saying their teeny-bopper stuff sucks, their drug-addled stuff sucks, their Eastern sitar stuff sucks.  It all sucks.  Even though it all sounds completely different.  What are the odds?

132

"As for states, I wish my state elected judges.  It doesn't."

So work towards a referendum/constituional convention/amendment/statute at the state level, whatever it would take in your state's particular constitutional design.  There are ways to restrain the judiciary.  (Only problem for the right is, the most famous example -- FDR's court-packing threat and the resulting "switch in time" -- was what got us where we are today.  The judiciary can be a force for the right just as it can for the left.  Today, the federal judiciary breaks down roughly like this: old fogeys are lefties dreaming of the return of Zombie Earl Warren; late boomers and early gen X-ers lean right; Obama's putting in a new bunch who are more activist on social stuff but less on criminal and economic stuff than the first group.)

133 Posted by: chaeli at May 18, 2011 09:25 AM (seZ+B)

I agree 10000%!

134 When your opponent fights dirty using Queens-berry rules doesn't work. As the libs continue to use such tactics to get their way we have no choice but to fight back just as hard. I see little difference in this and using enhanced techniques on terrorists. We shouldn't stop using enhanced techniques in war and we need to stop handcuffing ourselves with with rules our adversaries refuse to follow.

I get rule of law but when one group in power subverts the rule of law the other group trying to defend their principles will never win. This is WAR just by a different means of violence and like any other war there truly are no rules until the WAR is over. Conservatives need to stop denying that we are in WAR over where this country is going, in this we are just like the libs in their view of terrorism.

135 131 warden,

The moonbats won't let me "leave them alone" because they never leave us alone on anything.....

expecting them to honor any 'live and let live" is the ultimate folly....

they want to order what lightbulbs I buy down to how much toilet water I can use per flush.

The snake of the $uper$tate needs crushed before it is in the baby's crib.

136

"Mark my words when we take back the Whitehouse, and try to undo Ogabe's overreaches the courts will try to get in the way."

No doubt.  So (assuming that the Senate has also been retaken) actually USE the nuclear option this time.

If -- and only if -- Senators feel their reelection depends on it, they will do what you want.  Hit them in the donation-wallet and at the ballot box.  The path is clear -- it's just going to be very hard to do.  Everything worth doing is.

137

So I'm supposed to believe that some gay couple who went to the trouble to get a legalized domestic patrtnership agreement have been kept out of the ICU? Or that somehow the "end of life decisions" are being made by some guy's evil sister instead of his lover to his detriment? This is a recurring event/s?

Or is perhaps, "signing up with the county clerk" not quite legal enough for certain really important decisions?

I can't see the tuition bill of my 18 year old college freshman which I PAY without his perimission and the completion of several legal forms. I can't see his medical records for which MY insurance is billed. I can't see the grades for the classes I paid for without his permission. I can't get a pin to file his tax return electronically. But someone's lover who signed a registry at the county clerk's office, god knows how many years/lovers ago, can make end of life decisions?

This little "signing" up thing is not the same as a power of attorney and shouldn't be defended.

138 Kill ALL the gays, and anyone who dresses fashionably. That way they will stop breeding die off. Jesus told me so.

139
Mark My Words^©® is copyrighted and a registered trademark phrase belonging to Soothsayer, LLC 2011.

140 146,

someone left the irony on....

no straight has ever called me "breeder" bub

141 And hey.  I just happened to hear "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" on the radio the other day.  Got me to thinking - dangerous, I know.  You're saying their teeny-bopper stuff sucks, their drug-addled stuff sucks, their Eastern sitar stuff sucks.  It all sucks.  Even though it all sounds completely different.  What are the odds? It's not by chance. It's a professional commitment to churning out multi-disciplinary sucktastic products. I never questioned theor professionalism. They were the first Six Sigma blackbelts of shitty pop music. And now, I rebuke you A SECOND TIME.

142 If you do that, you will have completed the trip to tyranny.

The problem is that inherently our system of appointing lifetime judges who are difficult to remove invites tyranny.  The founders got it wrong here.

And the feckless GOP leadership has proven, time and again, that they aren't even willing to challenge appointments.  With one wing of our party devoted to electability uber alles, the people who worm into leadership positions generally don't care much about the judiciary.

The system needs an overhaul.  We should amend the Constitution to make judges have term limits and easier to replace.  Until then, use the system aggressively to protect your interests, because the other guys will, and they aren't going to stop because of your restraint.

143 147 Soothsayer,

I'll paypal you a penny bub.

144 136 Posted by: pep at May 18, 2011 09:26 AM (gmlb7)

Nicely put.  It's in our interests to do it right, even when they cheat.

145 And now, I rebuke you A SECOND TIME.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 18, 2011 09:33 AM (hlY6R)

I hope your perfect little angels rebel and listen to hippie music.

146 152 FUBAR,

no sorry because they will use the very system we are discussing to undermine the will of the majority the minute THEY are out of power Fubar....

simply put conservative judges don't act this way and because they don't this playing field is uneven....since our judges are too honorable to aid the right in 'LAWFARE!" we need to have our elected executives play by the Ogabe/Holder playbook even more not less....

the right doesn't get to sue to overturn the law 1/100th the time the moonbats do....at best we get a slight nudge rightward not these lurches the leftoids get.

147 FUBAR, Joking aside - is what Walker's doing illegal or is it that you just don't approve of the tactic. I really don't know - put me some knowledge.

148 154 PoP,

or the little cretins will declare it "the correct new spelling!".......

I am finally getting to the "get off my lawn" stage I guess.

149 The problem is that inherently our system of appointing lifetime judges who are difficult to remove invites tyranny.  The founders got it wrong here.

To be fair, 'lifetime' functionally meant 'ten, fifteen years at the most' back then, given the differences in life span.  We simply never made appropriate adjustments as realities changed, is all.

150 Nicely put.  It's in our interests to do it right, even when they cheat.

Posted by: FUBAR at May 18, 2011 09:35 AM (1fanL)

If you play poker with that philosophy you'll wind up walking home wearing a barrel like in a 1930's cartoon.

151 @155
You are correct, the left has had their way with the law for many years.  They were able to because too many people didn't see the danger in electing politicians who would put activist lefties on the bench.  That is changing dramatically, despite Barry putting his pets on the SC.  You don't hear lefties talking about a "living constitution" anymore because they know it's political poison. 

152 Another freaking illogical comparison. First sign of being a progressive. Walker is not defending a law based on that it is unconstitutional based on a simple reading. Obama is not defending DOMA based on pandering to part of his base that 'feels' it is unconstitutional.

153 progressoverpeace -- this has been happening for a lot longer then Obama's term. 

154

In this corner, carrying the bloody scimitar and threatening to push a wall down on any "deviants," uncontrolled Islamic immigration and creeping sharia throughout what we used to call "The West."

In the other corner, wearing the pink trunks, gay marriage.

Let's get it...  Oh, that was quick.  

155 Gabe since I do not have the link I apologize but if I recall correctly you waded into the comments on the topic on one of the other threads on it and essentially split the difference.

Since I don't have the quotes I'll accede that you were against the tactics Bambi used to get to where you want him to go.

I'll simply ask you straight out, "do you support ACT UP!'s "LAWFARE!" model?"

156 164 Beagle,


yeah....

like i pointed out in the Indiana SCotUS thread the other day.....

these moonbat judges have an interesting internal monologue going on.....

they try to give the 'gitmo detainees more rights than we have, and they try to protect people that the 'gitmo detainees domestic allies would kill.

157 I had a gay co-worker frothing at the mouth about this today.  I pointed out that we don't live in Wisconsin, so it really doesn't make a difference, but he was still pretty steamed.

When I pointed out that this was the same gameplan that Obama and Holder have been using, his reply was pretty much along the lines of "Well, it's okay when liberals do it, because it's for justice!"  Typical.

I'm actually pretty neutral on the entire topic of gay marriage.  But it warms my heart to see us use the same tactics against the Dems.  And I have to chuckle watching them get so wound up watching their tactics used against them.  And we have the added bonus that Walker is actually obeying the state constitution. 

The Dems bought this particular ticket.  Now they gotta get on the ride.

158 I think the title of this post should be- Gov Walker Defends Wisconsin's Constitution.

159 Is Walker also not enforcing the law?  That was my bug with Obama.  To say that a law is unconstitutional and unenforceable is one thing, to continue to enforce the law you say is unconstitutional seems like oath-breaking, and that's what Barry is doing.

160 So?
I--and I wager most rational people--don't give a tinker's damn about whether you objected strenuously to the JEF's course or wrung your hands in a most aggressive fashion over the antics in CA. The bottom line is: The left set the rules, we are going to play by them. The debate about whether what has happened was right is over--we lost. And you, and yours, are real turds because not only did you change the rules, but now you're trying to make us follow the old rules while you continue to play under the new ones.

Screw that.  Don't like it: Tough Shit. This one-way ratchet bullshit is over.

161 Ultimately, executive nullification via sabotaging lawsuits is a form of legislating-on-the-sly that perverts the separation of powers. Small "r" republicans should seriously consider the consequences of letting governors and presidents simply pick and choose which laws they will defend. That sounds a lot like rule by executive whim, rather than representative rule via the legislature.

-Gabe


spoken like a lawyer Gabe.....

the problem is you are able to ignore the wild overreach that has gone on in court decisions by judges and justices allowing their 'secular' political bent to overrule fair readings of precedent and common sense application of logic to the law as written and read by laymen.....

A is A Gabe, not a is a or b and sometimes even c

If a judge wants to craft law by going 180 on the precedence then they need to hang up the robes and have the balls to run on their lunacy.

162

"Obama did things that no American would ever think of doing"

Like what?  FDR was American, didn't stop him from doing heinous things.  Norman Thomas was as American as they come, didn't stop him from being a full-on Socialist.

Obama's failures are not attributable to his being supposedly non-American.  They're attributable to his being an academic lefty.

163  I see marriage as a social construct, designed to further that society. In order to do so procreation must be encouraged. Obviously, same-sex unions are incapable of this.

 If you look, societies of all sorts follow this premise, no matter how primitive or advanced.  The idea of same-sex unions is an illogical premise in accord with societal survival, so it never can be the driving force IN that society.

 Thus homosexual unions can be looked at as what they are--an aberration. I don't intend that to be judgmental, merely an observation.  Personally, I have no concern about who hooks up with who, the unending IN YOUR FACE prevalent today disgusts me, though.

164 Let me know when Gov Walker and his supporters start black-balling businesses and individuals for their position on this issue and I'll warm up my outrage meter. 

Until then, this is not the social truce you're looking for. 

165 It is precisely for the reasons Gabriel has laid out in his second blue-box paragraph that people of all stripes should support some form of contractual consent arrangement through the state which is different from marriage.

There are many state functions which have been tied onto marriage.  Marriage has always been, at all times and all places, previous to a few USA state aberrations, between a man and a woman.  That said, there are many state and legal accretions that have been tied to marriage which do not necessarily need to be restricted to the also important religious, culture, and yes, even state benefits of marriage between a man and a woman. 

Without reference to the 'oughtness' of such relationships, there is no danger of crowding out the special place marriage has in society if we make official state contracts between two people dealing with health decisions and jointly owned property.  Nor do I think there is any sort of strong economic reason to complain about paid leave to care for a loved one.  On the macro level, there is plenty of evidence to show that knowing that there is available the love and support of a close relationship speeds recovery and sometimes even prevents it.  Certainly a loved one (even of the same sex!) is going to give better and cheaper care than if that person is made a ward of the state...

As a person with strongly evangelical convictions, I think WI has been on exactly the right track, right up to this point.  Marriage is between a man and a woman and is for the purpose of procreation.  Anything else isn't marriage.  That doesn't mean that the state shouldn't be interested in allowing people to dictate who will make their health decisions, who will inherit their goods, or who is going to take care of the ill.  None of those things impugn the special place marriage has in society, and Walker is making a big mistake by taking away this distinction. 

166 "Ultimately, executive nullification via sabotaging lawsuits is a form of legislating-on-the-sly that perverts the separation of powers." Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:31 AM Maybe not. The Gov. is obliged to enforce the law even if he or she doesn't like it. The Gov. is also obligated to defend the State Constitution. Where is there an obligation, in writing, to defend a law in court? A Gov. could easily argue that his clearly stated duty to defend the Constitution overrides any supposed duty to defend a law.

167 If you want this domestic partner law then change the Wisconsin constitution because right now it does not allow it. How is that so difficult to understand? The same argument cannot be made by Obama about the DOMA.

168 I'd like my dog to visit me in the ER, Stephen Hawking to make my end of life decisions, and sick leave to care for my seriously ill pet goat. Where is my justice?

169 That doesn't mean that the state shouldn't be interested in allowing people to dictate who will make their health decisions, who will inherit their goods, or who is going to take care of the ill.  None of those things impugn the special place marriage has in society, and Walker is making a big mistake by taking away this distinction. THEY ALREADY CAN. This isn't about legal rights. This is about Hunky Jesus being able to spread his asscheeks in your face and you having to sit there and take it. Are you curious' dad?

170

If he believes its unconstitutional, he needs to arrange for outside representation in this constitutional litigation.  The executive is entitled to independently judge constitutionality but its not entitled to de facto override the independent judgment of the legislature and the courts.

 

Unlike Mallor, I'm against Same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships, the whole kit-and-kaboodle, but this is basic government stuff.

171

"Obama isn't an academic lefty.  He's an idiot who is looking to exact revenge on the US and the West."

To me, a recovering AL, these are synonyms.

"He's about destroying the systems, not shaping the nation."

Eh, maybe.  I think he's just trying to "shape" it in a crappy direction and doing so incompetently even on his own terms.  But he could be the Full Manchurian, I guess. We'll never know (unless he's dumb enough to be taping himself).

"There are many Americans who might have wanted to run around the world as President, blaming America for everything, but they would never dare to even try."

Bill Clinton -- again, indisputably American -- made some "apologies" in his day.

172 #136 pep

Apparently you're willing to take a few more inches of lefty.  Enjoy it.  Me, I refuse.

173 I'm actually pretty neutral on the entire topic of gay marriage.

I was a few years ago.  When I was in Indiana they started conferring benefits on domestic partners (in the state university system, anyway) so I figured the economic damage was done already. 

Then I moved to California. The behavior of the anti Prop 8 folks - coupled with the lack of any good explanation of what rights gay couples couldn't already have through existing legal arrangements - put me firmly in the no gay marriage camp.

Good job, gay activists. 

174 The lack of any good explanation of what rights gay couples couldn't already have through existing legal arrangements And this is why Gabe doesn't engage in debate on these posts - because it's indefensible. Filing joint taxes is a basic human right? You can't do it in Canada, but two dudes can marry here.

175

Gays were winning on the domestic partnership front.  In about 2004 there was a collective decision made to attack marriage (the sacrament, with all the history -- never including gay marriage -- that entails).  Since then their only victories have come through judicial activism.  

That was the one and only time I e-mailed Andrew Sullivan, to tell him what was going to happen.  And it did. 

Gay marriage exists mainly now to keep people from discussing important things.  It's the Angry Birds of issues. 

 

176 Utterly shameful. Although I do it every election, it is becoming increasingly difficult to vote for the Republicans these days. History will not remember Walker fondly for this.

177

"but then saw that we were faced with a non-American who didn't give a shit what "American" thought about the legislation was."

You're leaving out the role of every Democrat in Congress who voted for the damn thing.  Are they all "Indonesians" too?

Leftism isn't un-American in *that* sense.  It runs counter to what I think are the important principles of our founding, but it isn't some alien virus brought here by Beardo the Weirdo -- it's both a return to a feudal/guild stage and a gormless futurist statist urge, but it doesn't creep in through foreign pollution.  These people are our countrymen. They're just WRONG.

178

Not to push any buttons but doesn't zombietime often document the wholesome aspects of gay culture and examine how they just want to live like the rest of us (and not actually spit in the eye of the breeders).  I believe the last one I saw was the wonderful Easter celebration by the SF variety. 

179 @188
Since then their only victories have come through judicial activism.  

I basically agree with your points, but didn't they get gay marriage through by a legislative vote in VT or NH or somewhere last year?  Also, I've lost track of what happened in DC.


Of course, when one side makes a point of demonizing (and attacking economically) anyone who disagrees with them, it's a little easier to get the voter outcome you want.  I know whenever I was asked about my position on Prop 8 by canvasser I declined to answer.  I couldn't afford having my husband fired for my political views. 

180 So, people are pissed because Walker is defending the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin?

181 So, turnabout sucks, eh?

182 Again: There is absolutely nothing stopping a gay couple from having all the legal "trappings" of marriage they claim they are denied. For less than it costs to host a marriage ceremony, they can go to a lawyer and take care of everything. But they don't. And they lie, lie, lie and lie some more about how they can't. Because it isn't about the legal rights, it's all about one thing, and one thing only: They must force everyone and every institution to accept them and all they do.

Their end game is this: They will force ALL churches to not only recognize their "marriage" but they will force them to perform those marriages.  Because the radical gay left has a visceral hatred of religion.

Think that'll never happen? Did you forget that they were actively and publicly campaigning to yank the tax-exempt status of the churches that supported Prop 8? Yes, they will use the machinery of the state to crush any and all who dare disagree with them--all in the name of democracy and justice, no less.

183 Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 18, 2011 10:17 AM (TATbF)

I am curious why the debate has never focused on why it is or isn't reasonable for society to condone certain behaviors and discourage others. We use the tax code as a club to force people to do or not do a huge variety of things, but allowing society to define marriage is bad?

I have no interest in whether EOJ is a furry who gets off with other men. I do care whether he is allowed to legitimize his private behavior in a public forum, and make me pay for it.

184 Fucking socks.

185 5 So long as liberals use the court system as a blunt instrument to force laws on the rest of us, we should do the same, and not shy away from doing so.  If we enforce our laws while they ignore ours, we are the biggest idiots on the planet.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 18, 2011 07:39 AM (FkKjr)

THIS. No more fucking playing nice.

Let's see the media spin this shit, since they gave the JEF a pass on it. 

This Walker guy. I'm liking him more and more. 

186

"almost no American (raised in and tied to American culture) would even think of."

So the hundreds of Democrats who voted for this weren't raised in and tied to American culture?

I think you're taking the easy way out.  If Obama and the Pelosoids aren't really American and are part of a tiny minority who have lost (or per your understanding of Obama never had) their connection with America, it'd be relatively easy to draw a line around them and quarantine/expel them from the body politic (rhetorically/electorally, hopefully).

If, instead, they represent a substantial chunk of the population -- not as substantial as conservatives, but also not a tiny minority (let's say 1/5, which is about the proportion of the people that self-identify as "liberal") -- the task facing us is much more daunting.

"Reid and Pelosi were forced by the Indonesian."

I respectfully disagree.  They wanted this as badly as he did, and they didn't give any more of a shit about the procedure than he did.

187 I have no interest in whether EOJ is a furry who gets off with other men. I disagree. You're VERY interested, furrophobe.

188 Well, if the Congress were to pass, let's say, a law that specifically addresses and revokes a constitutional right, would the author feel that the President would have an obligation to defend it until the final appellate round is done?  One large difference between this act and O'Holder's-a specific constitutional amendment that directly addresses the subject matter.  The Legislature can't overturn the Constitution by statute. 

189 Well Gabe, there is a problem with your argument, it's called the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. A minor section of it says in Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The governor is expressly prohibited from enforcing any law that he knows to be UnConstitutional. IF he believes the Domestic Partnership Act to be unconstitutional, it is against the law to enforce it and hence it is up to the Courts to rule if it is or NOT. Where in the law does it say he has to defend a law in Court? DOMA is merely codifying what has been settled Law for over 200+ years in this country. Even you Gabe must admit that nowhere in the US until the, what the 1980s, has gay marriage or domestic partnerships been proposed. And DOMA is merely saying that IF one State chooses to recognize gay marriage, it doesn't force ALL the States to recognize said marriage under the Constitution via reciprocity. This is what makes Obama's refusal an abuse of the law because he is deliberately attempting to FORCE EVERYONE to accept gay marriage via one State passing it. That even you Gabe should see as clearly dictatorial and a blatant violation of intent no matter what side of the gay marriage debate you stand upon. Right now, if DOMA did not exist, you could have a same sex marriage in Mass. move to Wisconsin and lawfully demand recognition of your marriage in Wisconsin. That is the issue and as such it is apples and oranges to equate Obama's malfeasance of DOMA and Walker's obedience to the Law defending the Wisconsin State Constitution.

190 Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 18, 2011 10:47 AM (+61wI)

Furries UNITE!

Fight for the right to teach the children of America that furry love is the only true and pure love.

191 You forgot the public policy exception to FF&C.  It's why States have to have these laws and amendments to their constitutions.  They would be forced to accept these pseudo marriages otherwise.

192

"I am curious why the debate has never focused on why it is or isn't reasonable for society to condone certain behaviors and discourage others."

It has, occasionally.  One one side is the language I quoted from US v. Reynolds (polygamy) above:

"Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."

On the other is the so-called "sweet mystery of life" passage from Planned Parenthood v. Casey (abortion) (and quoted in Lawrence v. Texas (buttsecks)):

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define oneÂ’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

The problem is, most people will accept BOTH statements in the abstract, but we'll never all agree what they suggest in a particular case.  One man's "own concept of existence" is another man's "violation of social duties."  So the debate is probably not capable of resolution.

193

Since any hospital that receives Medicare/Medicaid is now federally obligated to allow visits from gay partners, why was it even necessary to create this registry?  Oh, yeah -- I forgot about the Left's Embryonic Stem Cell Routine.

Embryonic stem cell research yields no results that adult stem cells do not. (In fact, adult stem cells have yielded advances, whereas embryonic stem cells haven't.)  Embryonic stem cell is completely unnecessary, except for the fact that it allows pro-abortion activists to claim that killing embryos is necessary to cure DYING! people.  It traps politicians into the emotional "dilemma" of having to choose between more people DYING! or compromising on abortion.

In this case, of course, we seem to have an interest group exagerrating or possibly just lying about abusive behavior that either doesn't exist, or that is already illegal anyway, just so they can get sympathy from casual observers.  So Scott Walker is the evil, heartless governor who is trying to destroy a shrewd law that wasn't needed in the first place.

194

Gay conservatives remind me of the mythical social liberal/fiscal conservative (ie. Schwarzenegger) that we are always supposed to be looking out for as our saviours.  To be the former means you are not going to be the latter.  Sullivan is the prime example of the genre of gay conservative.  I'll say I'm the true conservative but if you don't back gay marriage (or whatever practice he engages in), I'll turn on you like a rabid dog.  And, to satisfy this tiny percentage of gay conservatives, let's savage groups that are substantial and actually vote for us.  If San Fran, the epicenter of American gayness, were some family paradise as opposed to a city where they have leather festivals with live sex in front of children, maybe I could take the positions of how gays just want to be like everyone else seriously.   

195 I don't think the comparison between Walker and Obama is a slam dunk here. DOMA had been on the books for 14 years and upheld numerous times in lower courts before Obama decided to go AWOL. DOMA was from the start a response to judicial activism. Something that's bad. The Wis law was passed specifically in response to a Constitutional amendment. It was from the start a response to citizen activism. Something that's very good.

Since it was the judicial system which was the cause of strife and the impetus for DOMA it's particularly egregious that Obama would attempt to leave the law with no defense in that system. The Wis law on the other hand is an attempt to thwart a reponse to judicial activism in the Wis courts, the state amendment. Leaving the law without state defense does not put into a weak position via the courts. It's highly likely a judge could be found to support it with no defense at all.

196

#96   We don't play by the rules because it is to our political advantage-it isn't, we play by them because that's what keeps the barbarians at bay.

No, firepower keeps the barbarians at bay.

197 The other thing to bear in mind is that the Obama admin did not just go AWOL on DOMA issues. That is not great but in reality the Obama admin, as defender of DOMA in court, actively thwarted or tried to eliminate any defense. The strategy was an attempt to kill DOMA by suicide or at the very least wound it to the point recovery wasn't possible. Walker on the other hand has not done this.

198

The registries allow same-sex couples to take family and medical leave to care for a seriously ill partner, make end-of-life decisions and have hospital visitation rights. But according to Fair Wisconsin, they still confer only about a quarter of the rights associated with marriage, lacking provisions to allow couples to file joint tax returns or adopt children together.

  . . . Said another way, the public does not want to encourage homosexuality.  Just like the public does not want to encourage other abnormal things that a small percentage of the population has the urge to do, like eating potting soil or sofa cushions.

And this is completely absurd.  End-of-life issues can be handled by granting one's partner power-of-attorney.  As for family/medical leave, I couldn't get that to take care of my best friend of 35 years.  Does anyone have the link to the activist group for Best Friends Who Don't Sleep Together But Who Want All The Benefits Of Marriage?

199 I'd be a lot more concerned about this if I still believed we were a nation of laws, not men.  Reality compels me to grapple with the facts, and they are that every jackass in a position of authority runs his own fiefdom as he sees fit.  It's every serf for himself now.

200

#192 Y-not

As soon as I typed that I began to think I was probably wrong.  I should know better than to use the word "only". 

201

Sorry, Gabe. You are on your own here.

Walker's right. We have got to stop fighting the statists with one hand behind our back, even on your pet issues.

202 "Those who seek to ban Gay Marriage need to realize that a government powerful enough to do so is also powerful enough to force Religious voters to do irreligious things. "

No one is seeking to ban gay marriage. You cannot ban what does not exist. Marriage between those of the same sex has never been an institution in any society in the history of this planet, and has never been an institution in the history of this country. In order to ban something, it has to exist in the first place, and it doesn't.

The "privileges" that exist in marriage (legal benefits, etc.) are akin to the privileges that exist when one retires, or one becomes disabled. They are a reserved status for a specific state of being which the gay community seeks to undermine and ultimately destroy. It would be the same as if I demanded collecting Social Security because I "feel old" or a disability pension because I "feel injured."

I feel old and injured, and I can't help it, because I was born this way. Give me special rights and privileges.

Sounds kinda ridiculous, doesn't it?

You cannot prohibit what is not real. You can't ban gay marriage, you can only refuse to recognize it...much as I refuse to recognize someone's application to collect social security because they "feel old".

203 Wont defend that law. Shrug. So?

You cannot prohibit what is not real. You can't ban gay marriage, you can only refuse to recognize it

Indeed. Its nonsense to call a union between two men "marriage" like its nonsense to call two boards and a rock a "tasty sandwich." It doesn't matter how much people stamp their feet and cry hate, reality does not bend.

204 I have no problem with the law itself. That said, the left pulled this shit already and nobody did anything about it. Like 219 I don't want to fight with one hand tied behind my back. So fuck them. Tey wanna play dirt, we play dirty.

205

Given Gabe's vigorous defense of his tome here in the comments section, how soon will it be before he ends up coming to full bloom in David Brock-like-flowering and ends up making these same arguments over at the Media Matters echo chamber? 

Seriously, since his silence speaks volumes, is it safe to assume that Soros's goons haven't already gotten to him with the Brock "treatment"?  Watch your back, Ace.

206 "To the morons suggesting I called Obama's DOMA decision "not a big deal", actually, I called it "unjustifiable" and condemned it." As I read your "condemnation," it appears that you were condemning Obama's refusal to stop enforcing it while abandoning its defense: "Obama's Unjustifiable DOMA Decision Setting aside whether the President can choose not to defend in the courts laws that he believes to be unconstitutional and still meet his obligations under the Take Care Clause, it seems to me there's a more fundamental problem with his DOMA decision yesterday. He has stated that he (and the Attorney General) believes that DOMA section 3 is unconstitutional and therefore indefensible. But he has instructed Executive agencies to nevertheless continue to enforce this so-called unconstitutional law." That's a far cry from the case with Ryan, who's refusing to defend it or to implement it, IIRC. While I understand that a foolish consistency can be the hobgoblin of little minds, it's helpful to your point if you have some consistency in your condemnations.