Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Breaking Legal News!

The Washington Supreme Court has upheld that state's law restricting marriage to a union of one man and one woman. The vote was 5-4.

This places in perspective the argument tht the Marriage Amendment is unnecessary because same-sex marriage is already illegal in Wisconsin. It was illegal in Washington too, but with one more vote, it would have suddenly become legal. You can argue that we should have same-sex marriage, but when your side is arguing that it is constitutionally compelled, you cannot honestly claim, if we are to keep the traditional defintion of marriage, that the amendment is unnecessary.


Anonymous said...

I don't recall the constitution having an opinion on marriage one way or the other. (Not being a scholar of Wisconsin's constitution, I could be wrong.) However, should we amend the constitution to discriminate against a particular segment of our society? I don't think we should.

I really don't see what the big deal is anyway, except that certain people want to legislate their particular brand of morality. I don't understand how same-sex marriage would threaten my marriage in any way, which is one of the arguments opponents of same-sex marriage use.


Rick Esenberg said...


It doesn't have a thing to say on it which is the precise point of the Washington court's decision. It ought to be up to the legislature, and not the courts, to define marriage.

But since courts won't keep their hands off it, opponents of same sex marriage have found it necessary to make it clear that the constitutions of their various states do not create a right to marry a person of the same sex.

Had the proponents of same sex marriage not tried to impose their will by judicial fiat, none of this would be happening. That's why amending the constitution has come to be an issue.

Michael J. Mathias said...

I'm sorry, but don't you claim to be a lawyer? If you think the law gives you a right to do something that the state is preventing you from doing, and if the state refuses to act on your behalf, do you have any other option besides asking for the courts to intercede on behalf of, well, justice? How is a citizen asking for equal protection under the law representative of judicial fiat?

Anonymous said...

I've got to agree with Michael on this.

Besides, why does there need to be a "definition" of marriage? Why does anyone else care how two consenting adults choose to live their lives? Why shouldn't same-sex couples have the same rights as anyone else?


Rick Esenberg said...


That's fine, although I think the argument that the United States - or Wisconsin legislature - can be fairly read to give you a right to marry a person of the same sex is a poor argument. albeit one that activist judges might buy. No one would have dreamed that equal protection guarantees (which, for reasons I can't get into here, are not and cannot be read to require equality in all things)conferred such a right.

But - if you think you can win such a case, go for it. But then don't be disingenuous by suggesting that there is no "need" for a constitutional amendment because same sex marriage is already "illegal." You can't make that argument and then simultaneously argue that the constitution requires that it be legal.

As for the merits of same sex marriage, I blogged on this in March. I can think of lots of reasons that same sex marriage might be harmful to traditional marriage, although I can't say that I know for certain that any of them will occur. Given the centrality of traditional marriage to our society's well being, it may be preferable to move slowly on things like this. But that's all a subject for another post.

The one thing that would be a disaster is for same sex marriage to be imposed by courts.d

Dad29 said...

I'm confused.

Mixter tells us that "certain people want to legislate their particular brand of morality..."

That would be the Gay Activists, no?

THEY impose their "morality" through blackrobed jackasses such as found in the Mass Supreme Court.

Anonymous said...

Dad29, you are confused, obviously. I was, of course, referring to the radical anti-gay activists. And I used the word "legislate," which would not be through the courts. That might have been your other clue. Great comeback, otherwise...


Dad29 said...

OH, yeah, that's right, Mixter.

The BlackRobe judiciary-class merely IMPOSE their version of "morality"--they do not "legislate" their will. IOW, they attempt to substitute positive law for the Natural Law.


Omar Cruz said...

this report is fantastic, the infomation you show us is really interesting and is good written. Do you want to see something more? Look: this is a good page, you can visit too:legal buds must as objective Review the legal state of the medicinal use of marijuana in the United States.Federal and state laws were examined on medicinal use of legal buds.The pertinent drugs based on canabinoides were reviewed. Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and cases at level were evaluated federal name that they involve medicinal use of legal buds.
Head Shop, Herbal Grinders
Bongs, Glass Pipe. Visit us for more info at:

pedro velasquez said...

According to a statement from Nokia on Wednesday, sportsbook "Apple's action is an unsurprising development, which seems designed to put pressure on the ongoing dialogue between both companies". It is not yet clear which patents are the subject of the suit. Nokia was the first aggressor in the legal war, having sued Apple over the iPhone manufacturer's bet nfl use of GSM, 3G and Wi-Fi patents in October 2009. Apple struck back with a countersuit in December 2009. In March 2010, a Delaware court put both lawsuits on hold to give the US International Trade Commission time to issue its own deliberation on the matter. Then, in May, Nokia expanded its original suit to include the iPad as well as the iPhone.

Unknown said...

compact and contiguous districts that,king tours to the extent possible, respect municipal and county boundaries and (perhaps) geographical barriers that seperate one community from another. See. e.g., California’s Voter First Act. These principles restrict discretion in redistricting and, or so the theory goes, minimize the opportunity for political maneuvering. This doesn’t eliminate contention but the establishment of physical requirements reduces the opportunity for gerrymandering to protect incumbents or to maximize the opportunities for the party in power.