Wisconsin Gay Marriage ban struck down

"U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb in Madison Friday overturned Wisconsin's gay marriage ban, striking down an amendment to the state constitution approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2006."

Feels like this is happening weekly at this point. Good news as always

Also what's that gif from?

Good, it might take some time, but in the end social inequality will lose.

good news, too bad it will be appealed.

Bigots might kick and scream, but they will eventually lose in the end and they know it... Even if it takes another decade. They're grasping at straws and they will go down.

Good to hear.

But they can't be bigots they have gay friends!

Haha yeah lol :D

@chessmaster1989: gif is from Community

Take that you shitty state!

News like this always brightens my day

I dunno, gay marriage advocates better hope that if this ever does reach the Supreme Court that Scalia, Roberts, and company don't decide to smack them down. If they do lose at that level it will either take a new Court reversing that decision (which is rare and would probably take a lot of time and work to accomplish) or a constitutional amendment (and good luck with that in the next century or so). Yes, there are a lot of victories, but all of that could be undone in an instant if the Court rules against them, which is a real possibility (I think I read something not too long ago where Kennedy, the swing vote, didn't seem too keen on the idea).

Not good.

The ban being struck down isn't good? How so?

We are headed to Sodom and Gomorrah, God have mercy on your soul Alpha.

It's extreme.

We shouldn't be allowed to marry someone of our sex.

@Cyberdot I should be allowed to marry whoever the **** I want, and it would be none of your goddamn business.

This is what's wrong with the society today.

Denied!!

Please elaborate, why is it extreme and why shouldn't it be allowed?

More violation of the will of the people by a corrupt activist judge. It's scary how people are alright with this, it's only a matter of time before they try to do this with something that we care for like the Right to Bear Arms or even Free Speech or Religion.

For the record, I support equality, I just want the Government out of Marriage entirely. Also Marriage beyond the definition is not a right.

Hell breaking loose in 3,2,1...

So if the people voted to enslave black people, you'd be cool with that?

Have you been staking out the topic waiting for someone to come along and post a contentious reply in here?

It is a valid reply though.

No

False Analogy Fallacy. Slavery is not related to this issue, no one is advocating such a thing, furthermore it was the Federal Government that originally ruled that black people had no rights, not the American People themselves as there were states that tried to restrict it but they were struck down by Federal Judges.

@christiangmr14: So, if you want the government out of marriage entirely, you want all the benefits ALL married couples share taken? Like being able to flie taxes, visit your spouse in the hospital, and being able to adopt a child/children together? Because straight couples receive those. So why is "wrong" for gay couples? Just because you don't agree with, what you seem to think is a lifestyle choice, doesn't mean you should be able to decide who they want to marry, and spend their lives with. It should be their choice, and it should be legal.

You said that the court shouldn't violate the will of the people, so if the will of the people were to have slaves you'd be cool?

So where do you draw the line of what rights can be taken away by the peoples request? If it's ok to discriminate against gays because of what the majority want then surely it's ok to discriminate against other groups as well. Would you be ok with banning Christians from marriage or banning Christianity entirely if the majority of people wanted to?

I never said anything about people not being able to choose who they want to spend their lives with, please don't do that again.

I want the Government out of Marriage entirely, I coined it "Separation of Marriage and State", the only thing the Government should do is issue legal rights and benefits to couples, straight and gay. Marriage should be only between churches, synagogues, mosques etc...with no legal barrings or recognition by the State in anyway. It is wrong to use the Government to violate the definition of Marriage against the will of the people.

This would kill the issue entirely, it is the ultimate equality stance and it is the ultimate conservative stance as it is it the ultimate small Government stance.

Though I do not believe gay couples should adopt kids (haters gonna hate), a kid needs both a Mom and a Dad, it is essential to their upbringing and gay couples cannot provide that need. This does not mean that they are bad people or not loving, they certainly are, but it is not a healthy environment for a child to grow up in.

so single parents should have their kids removed?

But as long as the government is involved in marriage then shouldn't gays be allowed to as well?

And piss of with the no adoption shit, you disgusting waste of flesh. It sickens me how people like you want to tear families apart.

I never said anything about kids being removed from anyone. Please form an argument.

you said kids need both a mom and dad, and a single parent can't provide for those needs

You just said gays shouldn't be allowed kids. What you're saying is no better than "Blacks shouldn't be allowed kids because a child needs two white parents. Black parents will provide an unhealthy environment for the child to grow up in"

It's hateful nonsense.

Yep. A single parent cannot provide for those needs and neither can a Dad and a Dad or a Mom and a Mom. A child needs both a Mom and a Dad.

What I said was " a kid needs both a Mom and a Dad, it is essential to their upbringing and gay couples cannot provide that need. This does not mean that they are bad people or not loving, they certainly are, but it is not a healthy environment for a child to grow up in."

I didn't state anything about kids being removed.....that was a big straw man fallacy.

Do you have any evidence for that? I assume the answer lies in your username.

Except kids are removed from "unhealthy environments" so yes that is basically what you're saying

No it's not. Show me where I said kids should be removed from their parents? Do you guys know how to form an actual argument? It's just been fallacious attacks so far.

It's just your usual GS pattern. The longer a thread lasts, the more the shit piles up...

You said that it is a child's "need" and that living without a mom and a dad is "not a healthy environment for a child"

When children are not in a healthy environment that is grounds to remove them. Unless you're promoting keeping children in unhealthy environments.

They haven't been fallacious attacks, you just don't like having your own arguments thrown back at you

It's scary that so many bigots actually pretend to care about children. what he's saying isn't only harmful to gays but also children. Hate knows no bounds.

They are fallacies because once again show me where I stated anything about children being taken away from anyone? Until you can either show this (which you can't because I never stated such a thing) or you offer an actual legit argument to my original post, then there is nothing to discuss with you.

It's the logical conclusion of your views. I just laid it out for you, twice.

And for someone who cries about a lack of argument, you do seem to be dodging questions that would point out the ridiculousness of your point of view

I didn't bring up its validity though.

Then why complain?

Yes. The first primary evidence is within nature it's self. Only a man and a woman can produce offspring, no other combination works. It is obvious that this is how nature intends children to be raised. If you have a problem with this then it's just too bad, take it up with God and Nature, not me.

Secondly here are some sources to consider:

http://www.cfcidaho.org/why-children-need-male-and-female-parent

http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/15/mom-and-dad-kids-need-both/

http://www.christianpost.com/news/do-kids-need-both-a-mom-and-a-dad-mark-regnerus-discusses-his-controversial-study-at-erlc-summit-118375/

Finally what does my username have to do with anything? Because I'm a Christian? Does that bother you? If so that is not very tolerant and tough luck, I have the Right to be an open Christian just like you have the Right to be an open Muslim, or a Jew, or an atheist. I respect the Freedom of all religions, including the Freedoms of those who don't have a religion at all.

You know, you can disagree, and strongly I might say, with someone without trying to undermine them at all cost. Why do you automatically presume that those who are not in line with your views on gay rights and whatever cannot care genuinely about the children or exhibit any other form of authentic concern? They may or may not be genuinely concerned about the children but how exactly are you able to tell? And again, why does it have to constitute hate?

We can't complain about something unless we're addressing its validity now?