judge strikes down Wisconsin marriage ban

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

The map is ridiculously similar to the 2000 and 2004 elections now.

If Michigan is the next state, it will be exactly like the 2000 election.

[CountryClassSF]

I don't understand why they're doing it in this manner. It would be easier for SCOTUS to just strike the marriage laws down and be done with it.

And again, this is my *opinion*, it's not "Trolling", there are some people who want this to happen "slowly" because they know it bothers conservatives.

If it's unconstitutional in one state, not saying I believe it is, but if these judges are saying they are, isn't it unconstitutional in all states? Just create a uniform standard. I'll disagree, but atleast we can finally be done with the debate and just move on.

I hope others are genuinely happy. I will not be getting married because I don't believe in it. I wish all the happiness to those who will, even though I don't believe it is required under the constitution or a marriage. God bless.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't understand why they're doing it in this manner. It would be easier for SCOTUS to just strike the marriage laws down and be done with it.

SCOTUS punted the ball with Windsor because Kennedy was afraid the decision could end up being another Roe.  That is, a decision where the Court acted in the direction where public opinion seemed to be headed and in doing so stirred up a backlash that has served to undermine the credibility of the Court.  So he went for a decision that would lead to that result in a more gradual fashion and thus give public opinion additional time to evolve before rendering a final verdict in a future case.  Politically it made perfect sense and continues to do so.  However, I think it made an utter mess of the balance that our Federal system should have between our cosovereign National and State governments in order to achieve the aim of rendering a decision that was politically more palatable.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

The map is ridiculously similar to the 2000 and 2004 elections now.

If Michigan is the next state, it will be exactly like the 2000 election.

except new hampshire

I hope others are genuinely happy.

we are.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I hope others are genuinely happy.

I'm pretty pleased, yes.

[memphis]

Thanks for that, but try living in the San Francisco Bay Area and expressing a conservative view, you are labeled a hater, a bigot, yada yada yada, even if you are gay!

I never said that the whole world would embrace your opinions. I merely said that you are allowed to express them. Don't think for a second that you are a victim because just because your opinions are unpopular. More personally, I would also encourage you to accept yourself for who you are. Everybody has things he would like to change about his life, but can't. We are all doing the best we can with what we have. No sense in making yourself miserable about something that can't be changed.

[Sol]

MI had federal courts strike down, stay.

[SteveRogers]

I don't understand why they're doing it in this manner. It would be easier for SCOTUS to just strike the marriage laws down and be done with it.

And again, this is my *opinion*, it's not "Trolling", there are some people who want this to happen "slowly" because they know it bothers conservatives.

If it's unconstitutional in one state, not saying I believe it is, but if these judges are saying they are, isn't it unconstitutional in all states? Just create a uniform standard. I'll disagree, but atleast we can finally be done with the debate and just move on.

I hope others are genuinely happy. I will not be getting married because I don't believe in it. I wish all the happiness to those who will, even though I don't believe it is required under the constitution or a marriage. God bless.

SCOTUS almost certainly will strike down all the marriage bans, but one of these cases has to make it all the way to SCOTUS first. That's how courts work.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The map is ridiculously similar to the 2000 and 2004 elections now.

If Michigan is the next state, it will be exactly like the 2000 election.

Ignoring the fact that Gore really won Florida, Bush did win New Hampshire. Michigan would make gay marriage states be exactly equal states to the that officially voted for Gore or (inclusive) Kerry.

[Likely Voter]

It is likely that one of the Obama states will be added before MI. These days it is more a function of whether or not the Governor and the AG of a state chose to appeal the cases. So NV and VA (where both the Govs and AGs will not be making appeals) could end up getting SSM before MI.

Things can change after November if the Dems take control of both Gov and AG in some other states (including MI) or if some GOP Govs and AGs abandon their appeals (like what happened in NJ)

[SWE]

[Brittain33]

I've met plenty of conservative gays, including young Republicans. CountryClubSF reads like an inauthentic troll. Sorry, I just can't take the complaints about persecution seriously.

[IceSpear]

I don't understand why they're doing it in this manner. It would be easier for SCOTUS to just strike the marriage laws down and be done with it.

And again, this is my *opinion*, it's not "Trolling", there are some people who want this to happen "slowly" because they know it bothers conservatives.

If it's unconstitutional in one state, not saying I believe it is, but if these judges are saying they are, isn't it unconstitutional in all states? Just create a uniform standard. I'll disagree, but atleast we can finally be done with the debate and just move on.

I hope others are genuinely happy. I will not be getting married because I don't believe in it. I wish all the happiness to those who will, even though I don't believe it is required under the constitution or a marriage. God bless.

Nobody's trying to force you to get married. We're trying to stop you and your ilk from forcing people NOT to get married.

[Nhoj]

Not sure why you have it blue, it will be appealed by van hollen.

[pbrower2a]

Well, those responses don't exactly indicate that what I said above was wrong about intolerance towards a conservative point of view.

The libertarian view is that marriage is a personal choice not to be defined by the State except when force, fraud, or undue influence is involved.

Most of us liberals laugh at people who contend that permission for SSM will result in the harsh judgment of God against States that allow it. So where are the earthquakes?

[CountryClassSF]

Well, those responses don't exactly indicate that what I said above was wrong about intolerance towards a conservative point of view.

The libertarian view is that marriage is a personal choice not to be defined by the State except when force, fraud, or undue influence is involved.

Most of us liberals laugh at people who contend that permission for SSM will result in the harsh judgment of God against States that allow it. So where are the earthquakes?

I never suggested there would be any. But the problem is, the people did not get a say in this in but a few states.  The federal judges are finding a "right" that isn't in the constitution. For example, many gay conservatives who even support SSM, understand that it's not a constitutionally guaranteed protection.  I weep for our country.

but that being said, now that we know it's "inevitable," why do we still have to hear about it so much? Just a question.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Well, those responses don't exactly indicate that what I said above was wrong about intolerance towards a conservative point of view.

The libertarian view is that marriage is a personal choice not to be defined by the State except when force, fraud, or undue influence is involved.

Most of us liberals laugh at people who contend that permission for SSM will result in the harsh judgment of God against States that allow it. So where are the earthquakes?

I never suggested there would be any. But the problem is, the people did not get a say in this in but a few states.  The federal judges are finding a "right" that isn't in the constitution. For example, many gay conservatives who even support SSM, understand that it's not a constitutionally guaranteed protection.  I weep for our country.

but that being said, now that we know it's "inevitable," why do we still have to hear about it so much? Just a question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Because now gay people who happen to live in these states can know that they finally have the right to enjoy what any other person is already entitled to?

Oh, and because we like maps here, and if there's one thing this site is for, it's creating and updating maps.

[SteveRogers]

Well, those responses don't exactly indicate that what I said above was wrong about intolerance towards a conservative point of view.

The libertarian view is that marriage is a personal choice not to be defined by the State except when force, fraud, or undue influence is involved.

Most of us liberals laugh at people who contend that permission for SSM will result in the harsh judgment of God against States that allow it. So where are the earthquakes?

I never suggested there would be any. But the problem is, the people did not get a say in this in but a few states.  The federal judges are finding a "right" that isn't in the constitution. For example, many gay conservatives who even support SSM, understand that it's not a constitutionally guaranteed protection.  I weep for our country.

but that being said, now that we know it's "inevitable," why do we still have to hear about it so much? Just a question.

The constitution doesn't explicitly mention a right of black children to attend the same schools as white children either, and I know that you know that.

[Simfan34]

I'm sure he that takes exception to that, too.