Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Walker Veered Right On Gay Rights - - Then Just Veers

As the US Supreme Court on Tuesday confronts the implications of barriers to gay equality, let's document where our Governor/book 'author comes down on these issues.

After his election as Governor, he moved in 2011 to bar gay couples from enjoying fundamental rights taken for granted by straight couples:

Gov. Scott Walker believes a new law that gives gay couples hospital visitation rights violates the state constitution and has asked a judge to allow the state to stop defending it.
And he supports the very restrictive 2006 Wisconsin constitutional amendment adopted by referendum that banned both same-sex marriage and civil unions.

And on same-sex marriage itself? You can decipher his recent word-salady response and decide if it's the end product of skilled obfuscation or crossed wires:Just
"The interesting (thing) on the generational standpoint is I've had young people ask me I think an appropriate question, is not expanding it to include folks who are not one man and one woman but rather questioning why the government is sanctioning it in the first place," he said on the [Meet the Press] show. "I mean, that would be an alternative to say not have the government sanction marriage period, and leave that up to the churches and the synagogues and others to define that."


Reagan's Disciple said...

I think your confused James. Marriage is certainly not a right. It is a privilege that has been defined by our government as a union between a man and a women.

I can not marry a man, nor can I marry my sister or mom, I can not marry a tree or a dog either. If marriage were a right, there wouldn't be restrictions placed on it. I also don't recall seeing a marriage right in our US Constitution

The first issue is the definition of marriage and how it affects individuals. The second issue is how to change law. Whereas, I would seek to change it through legislature, the LBGT society is trying to again change law through the courts.

To be honest, this issue is so far down the list for me, it really doesn't matter one way or the other.

I guess you guys can thank Slick Willy for this definition too. He was the one who signed it into federal law.

James Rowen said...

I addresssed gay equality. Read the lede.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

Since the Judicial branch is one of the co-equal branches of government, pursuing that as a tactic is perfectly valid.

I not that the right had no objection with Citizens United.

I note that, in fact, conservatives have absolutely no hesitation to seek changes to laws via th courts. Until, that is, people they don't like try to do so.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

Also: "our government" is an entity that is established by the citizens, for the citizens, and if the citizens decide to 'redefine' marriage (which in reality, societies have done pretty much continuously down through history) then it is perfectly acceptable to do so, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.

Rich Eggleston said...

I think Reagan's Disciple is confused -- not surprising for someone who goes by that nom de plume. The issue is checks and nbalances, and how important they are to our system of government. Without a judicial branch serving as a check on the legislative branch -- or on the electorate itself in states like California -- there's no telling how many freedoms we might lose at the hands of a bunch of bozos in the Legislature -- or the voting booth.

Reagan's Disciple said...


To end your confusion, there are no problems with checks and balances. The problems arise from activist judges who create laws, rather than interpreting them.

Reagan's Disciple said...

@ Zombie,

So then you are okay if citizens choose to continue with the existing definition of marriage as well, correct?

In your own words, that should be "perfectly acceptable to do so," right? Even if it makes some people uncomfortable.

If you support marriage as one man and one women, be sure to thank Bill Clinton. He signed it into law.

jamie said...

Do his actions mean that gay and lesbian persons or citizens now have the right to get out of any legal contract for no reason other than that they have a sexuality of attraction to the same sex ? because that's all that marriage is.... a binding legal contract.
if this is the case then call me gay!

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

be sure to thank Bill Clinton. He signed it into law.

And now he says that law was wrong and should be removed. It may come as a surprise to you, but there are many things that Democratic politicians do that are opposed by liberals.

So then you are okay if citizens choose to continue with the existing definition of marriage as well, correct?

Correct! If you want to continue in a heterosexual marriage, you are perfectly free to do so, even if same-sex couples do so also!

And continuing to work to change the opinions of people who insist that gays are not to be afforded the equal protection of the Constitution will also be A-OK! In fact, since almost 60% of Americans are fine with same-sex marriage, it seems to be working!

Reagan's Disciple said...

Or look at it this way....

When the rules are applied universally to everyone, there is no discrimination. Nobody is telling anyone they can't marry.

I can't marry a man, nor my sister or my mother or father or a tree or bush.

Neither can you or anyone else. Marriage is not a right.