ADVERTISEMENT

State Supreme Court hears arguments on gay marriage amendment

By MCCLATCHY-TRIBUNE   Tuesday, November 3, 2009 - 7:29 p.m.
ADVERTISEMENT

Nov. 3--MADISON -- The state’s ban on gay marriage should be tossed aside because lawmakers did not take the right steps to amend the Wisconsin Constitution, a lawyer argued Tuesday before the state Supreme Court.

Voters must be asked separately about every change proposed to the constitution, attorney Lester Pines argued. But in 2006 they were asked one question with two parts -- whether the state should ban same-sex marriage and whether it should ban similar arrangements, such as civil unions.

Voters didn’t have a chance to vote “no” to one part and “yes” to the other, so the entire amendment should be thrown out, Pines said.

“This case is about the rights of voters,” Pines said.

But Assistant Attorney General Lewis Beilin told the court the constitution was properly amended because the two parts of the amendment were closely related and part of the same general purpose -- “to preserve the unique status of marriage.”

The court is expected to rule by the summer.




reader COMMENTS (30)
whoanellie
Nov 9, 2009 at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal

This issue has already been voted on and it was a no to same sex marriage why are we revisiting it??? I guess if they push it long enough people will just get tired of hearing it and let it pass! Marriage is between a man and a woman, anything else is an abomination so says God. Even if you make it leagal you will still have to answer to a sovereign God.

Biscuit5
Nov 8, 2009 at 6:37 p.m.
Suggest removal

I have never come across an application asking me if I was gay nor asking if I was strait evidently potential employers dont care as long as you can do the job,I try to keep my religion to those that choose to listen and I dont flaunt my sexuality by making it a political issue or issues out of it I make an effort to keep that which is no one elses business to my self.If gays want to get married have at it the marrige certificate is only a legal issue you see I got married because I love my wife not for legal issues ,medical benifits or financial gain.
B

prounion
Nov 8, 2009 at 7:50 a.m.
Suggest removal

Or are you sticking with "its just wrong." Seems like you would need to back up that statement if you want other people to live their lives according to your opinion of "wrong."

prounion
Nov 7, 2009 at 7:17 a.m.
Suggest removal

Why is it perverted? Where do you get that info from common sense. You are taking a very interesting approach to this discussion. I have not heard the common sense arguement that homosexuals are perverted.
.
I am going out on a limb here and guess that you believe in the Judeo-Christian god and that what you consider to be common sense has been taught to you since you were a toddler. I will be very interested to see how you can support your perverted statement.
.
The list would seem to indicate that the practice is completely common in nature, not perverted whatsoever. So lets hear it Biscuit - support your statement of perversion.

Biscuit5
Nov 6, 2009 at 11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal

christianity is not the basis of my arguement just common sense,evidently someone on the gazette staff is gay they wont allow my opinion

B

prounion
Nov 6, 2009 at 10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal

Come on the curiosity is killing me! try again B5 but phrase it in a christian way.

davvic
Nov 6, 2009 at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal

B5-The same can be said about you. Your thinking is "perverted" and you couldn't be more "wrong". Oh, and you still haven't answered my question. Is the only time you ever have sex in order to procreate?

Biscuit5
Nov 6, 2009 at 12:52 a.m.
Suggest removal

homosexuals and lesbians have made a choice to become part of a perverted society that should not have any rights especially rights of marriage they are perverted and wrong I vote no and always will.
B

prounion
Nov 5, 2009 at 4:21 p.m.
Suggest removal

B5 - I missed that one, can you try again?

Biscuit5
Nov 5, 2009 at 11:46 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
prounion
Nov 5, 2009 at 8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal

How did you come to judge that it is wrong? On what basis is it wrong?

Biscuit5
Nov 4, 2009 at 1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal

ok thanks for the neat list of animals,its not what God or nature had in mind its just wrong and I will still vote no,I dont march around with a sign that says im a heterosexual and dont make it a point for everyone to know my business, would I discriminate? yes cause i dont care about what you choose to be just who you are

B

prounion
Nov 4, 2009 at 11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal

Wait a tick....if god used intelligent design to create life, and there is homosexuality in nature, then can he really hate homosexuality? Or does the devil introduce all of these animals to sin?

AlwaysaMom
Nov 4, 2009 at 10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal

First of all we are not addressing animals in regards to marriage and comparing a human person to an animal is wrong.
anotheropinion is totally right, finding someone who you want to commit to for the rest of your life is hard enough. What does it matter if she is with a she or he with a he.
Don't tell me God didn't want it that way. God looks at us each individually, no matter what and cares for each one of us.
Don't quote me from the bible because the book can be taken many ways.
Many don't like what others do and that is LIFE.

prounion
Nov 4, 2009 at 8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal

African Buffalo[21]
African Elephant[22]
Agile Wallaby[23]
Amazon River Dolphin(Boto)[19]
American Bison[21][24]
Antelope[25]
Asian Elephant[22]
Asiatic Lion[26]
Asiatic Mouflon[27]
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin[19]
Australian Sea Lion[28]
Barasingha[29]
Barbary Sheep[30]
Beluga[31]
Bharal[32]
Bighorn Sheep[30]
Black Bear[33]
Blackbuck[34]
Black-footed Rock Wallaby[23]
Black-tailed Deer[29]
Bonnet Macaque[14]
Bonobo[35][36][37]
Bottlenose Dolphin[19][38]
Bowhead Whale[19]
Brazilian Guinea Pig[39]
Bridled Dolphin[19]
Brown Bear[33]
Brown Capuchin[40]
Brown Long-eared Bat[41]
Brown Rat[42]
Buffalo[30]
Caribou[43]
Cat (domestic)[44]
Cattle (domestic)[45]
Cheetah[26]
Collared Peccary[46]
Commerson's Dolphin[19]
Common Brushtail Possum[47]
Common Chimpanzee[48]
Common Dolphin[31]
Common Marmoset[49]
Common Pipistrelle[50]
Common Raccoon[51]
Common Tree Shrew[52]
Cotton-top Tamarin[53]
Crab-eating Macaque[14]
Crested Black Macaque[14]
Cui[54]
Dall's Sheep[30]
Daubenton's Bat[41]
Dog (domestic)[55]
Doria's Tree Kangaroo[23]
Dugong[56]
Dwarf Cavy[39]
Dwarf Mongoose[57]
Eastern Cottontail Rabbit[58]
Eastern Grey Kangaroo[23]
Elk[29]
Euro (a subspecies of wallaroo)[23]
European Bison[21]
Fallow Deer[29]
False Killer Whale[19]
Fat-tailed Dunnart[59]
Fin Whale[19]
Fox[60]
Gazelle[25]
Gelada Baboon[61]
Giraffe[25][4][62]
Goat (Domestic)[30]
Golden Monkey[63]
Gorilla[64]
Grant's Gazelle[25]
Grey-headed Flying Fox[41]
Grey Seal[28]
Grey squirrel[65]
Grey Whale[19][66]
Grey Wolf[67]
Grizzly Bear[33]
Guinea Pig (Domestic)[39]
Hamadryas Baboon[68]
Hamster (Domestic)[39]
Hanuman Langur[69]
Harbor Porpoise[70]
Harbor Seal[28]
Himalayan Tahr[71]
Hoary Marmot[72]
Horse (domestic)[73]
Human (see Human sexual behavior)
Indian Fruit Bat[41]
Indian Muntjac[74]
Indian Rhinoceros[75]
Japanese Macaque[14]
Javelina[76]
Kangaroo Rat[42]
Killer Whale[19]
Koala[77]
Kob[78][79]
Larga Seal[28]
Least Chipmunk[80]
Lechwe[81]
Lesser Bushbaby[82]
Lion[26][83][84][85][86][87]
Lion-tailed Macaque[14]
Lion Tamarin[88]
Little Brown Bat[41]
Livingstone's Fruit Bat[41]
Long-eared Hedgehog[89]
Long-footed Tree Shrew[90]
Macaque[91]
Markhor[92]
Marten[93]
Matschie's Tree Kangaroo[23]
Moco[94]
Mohol Galago[82]
Moor Macaque[14]
Moose[95]
Mountain Goat[30]
Mountain Tree Shrew[96]
Mountain Zebra[97]
Mouse (domestic)[98]
Moustached Tamarin[99]
Mule Deer[29]
Musk-ox[100]
Natterer's Bat[41]
New Zealand Sea Lion[28]
Nilgiri Langur[101]
Noctule[102]
North American Porcupine[103]
Northern Elephant Seal[28]
Northern Fur Seal[28]
Northern Quoll[104]
Olympic Marmot[105]
Orangutan[106]
Pacific Striped Dolphin[19]
Patas Monkey[107]
Pere David's Deer[29]
Pig (Domestic)[108]

prounion
Nov 4, 2009 at 8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal

Also Biscuit there are many examples of homosexual behavior in other mammals. God mentioned he was going to burn allthose animals alive in hell for all etenity once they die though so they should really stop.

davvic
Nov 4, 2009 at 7:53 a.m.
Suggest removal

Biscuit5-First of all I don't put humans in the same category as animals/mammals so that was a pretty bad analogy. Secondly, are you telling me that the only time you have sex is to procreate??? I highly doubt that.

Biscuit5
Nov 3, 2009 at 10:39 p.m.
Suggest removal

It is so simple,the rules were not written with homosexuality or lesbianism in mind. are there any other animals or mammals other than nightcrawlers that are gay or lesbian? and as far as I knew sex was for procreation not recreation
I would vote "no"
B

jaf2
Nov 3, 2009 at 10:33 p.m.
Suggest removal

Copperguy;

I'll accept the last part of your reply "There is no language in the US Constitution similar to that in the Wisconsin Constitution..." and concede, especially since the primary topic is of no consequence to me because I haven't lived in WI for 20-some years. However, the voters for US amendments (yes the legislators are the voters) still must vote for or against the amendment(s) in their entirety. I originally missed the fact that it was state supreme court.

copperguy
Nov 3, 2009 at 9:54 p.m.
Suggest removal

oops. This one should work:

http://sc-media.wicourts.gov/sc-media/08...

janesvillean
Nov 3, 2009 at 9:54 p.m.
Suggest removal

I have the same question as booch11. It's so tangential to most topics that it looks like trolling to me (poisoning discussion).
.
In any case, this question before the court regards the STATE Constitution -- which can be amended by voters via referendum. The First Amendment, establishment clause, or any other, would only apply if there were a compelling federal interest in the matter. At this level of litigation, the state Supreme Court may or may not turn to US constitutional law to reach a decision, but in any case are bound to interpret and rule on the basis of the one before them, our state constitution.

copperguy
Nov 3, 2009 at 9:48 p.m.
Suggest removal

Here's a link to the audio of today's Supreme Court arguments, if anyone's interested.

mms://sc-media.wicourts.gov/sc-media/08AP1868.wma

copperguy
Nov 3, 2009 at 9:44 p.m.
Suggest removal

jaf2: You stated, "because voters could not choose between the establishment clause and free expression clause?" Again, voters did not choose either. Voters chose their legislators, and those LEGISLATORS (for emphasis, not yelling) voted for the amendments. There is no language in the US Constitution similar to that in the Wisconsin Constitution that is the basis of McConkey's appeal.

booch11
Nov 3, 2009 at 8:47 p.m.
Suggest removal

NVgrf,
what exactly is it you are adding to this or any other discussion? is that all you can type?

jaf2
Nov 3, 2009 at 8:45 p.m.
Suggest removal

Don't believe I mentioned anything about a ballot box. It is still voted on by members of each states' legislature, which is representative of the people who did put them there at...um...the ballot box. A vote is a vote, whether by each elector individually or by a representative of the same.

copperguy
Nov 3, 2009 at 8:27 p.m.
Suggest removal

jaf2: Try another approach. The US Constitution is not amended at the ballot box. Maybe try reading it some time.

anotheropinion: Excellent point. Seems to me you have a solid grasp of what true conservatism really means.

jaf2
Nov 3, 2009 at 8:16 p.m.
Suggest removal

does this argument invalidate the first amendment, because voters could not choose between the establishment clause and free expression clause? or for that matter of the entire religion question from the general free speech, free press, or right to assemble? Be careful which can of worms you choose to open based on lame---REALLY lame---"reasoning".

lakennedy
Nov 3, 2009 at 7:49 p.m.
Suggest removal

anotheropinion: It doesn't when you can think logically. But, when you bring your particular brand of religon into the mix, it becomes very complicated.

anotheropinion
Nov 3, 2009 at 7:46 p.m.
Suggest removal

Why is everyone so polarized about this issue? As a true conservative, government has no business telling people who they can and cannot marry. Two consenting adults...OK by me. Let's move on...love is where you find it. Oh for the record, I am a man who is married to a wonderful women and I have two great kids. As married folks know, it takes a lot of work to make a marriage thrive. So if you have found someone who you want to marry, more power to you! What difference does it make if you are both XX or XY?

NVgrf
Nov 3, 2009 at 7:44 p.m.
Suggest removal

It's all Obama's fault!

Before you post a comment, consider this:

Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy Agreement
  • Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
  • Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
  • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
  • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind.  Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
  • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
  • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.
  • Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
  • Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  • Help us get it right. If you spot a factual error or misspelling, email newsroom@gazettextra.com or call 1-800-362-6712.
  • Remember, this is our site. We set the rules, and we reserve the right to remove any comments that we deem inappropriate.

Post Comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

ADVERTISEMENT