Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

Legal Challenge to WI Anti Gay Amendment Going to Trial »

Posted by: david_nwpa 8 months, 3 weeks ago

7.0

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 21

Propped: 60

Comments: 7

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

A judge has rejected a motion from the state of Wisconsin to dismiss a lawsuit challenging a constitutional amendment that bars same-sex marriage and blocks the state from recognizing civil unions. The amendment to the state constitution was passed last year by 59 percent of voters.

Read Full Story at 365gay.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 7

0%
david_nwpa8 months, 3 weeks ago

The voter has been harmed in Wisconsin. The people were asked to settle two matters with one Amendment. If their law explicitly says that each Amendment can address only one issue at a time, then the law was violated. Voters have a right to seek redress as McConkey has done.
Reply
0%
jordan118 months, 3 weeks ago

So the foolish state tried to block redress for a bill that broke its own state law. Quite a waste of time, I'd say.
" Wisconsin law requires only one question be put to voters at a time.">>
Seems pretty clear to me. Are the state's attorney's stupid, or what?

Reply
2 Replies
- 0%
  lvrofwolves8 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  Sounds very underhanded if you ask me, voters getting screwed.
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    dandt16128 months, 3 weeks ago
    
    I agree. As for the voters getting screwed. Sadly I do believe that has been going on for many years.
    Reply
0%
Harbeas8 months, 3 weeks ago

I agree with the above comments. They should have had the voters vote on each issue separately. They might find the results a little different.
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  kxjoe8 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  I must agree. The questions were "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."
  The first one is already a state law, but they wanted it permanent by making it an amendment. The second pretty much bans civil unions of all sorts. Most experts thought the second part went beyond what the average person wanted to inflict against homosexuals. However, the first was so powerful to the Christians that it dragged the second along with it.
  Reply
gotyjop33Comment removed: User banned.