Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Marriage Against Cultural Revolutionaries

The people of Wisconsin, like people throughout the entire United States, simply reaffirmed what we all know to be true

The question concerning the nature of true marriage has now been placed before voters in 31 states. In absolutely every case the people have voted to uphold marriage as the exclusive union of one husband and one wife, intended for life, open to children. Marriage is the basis of a family, which is the first cell of society and the first mediating institution of any truly human and just society. Homosexual Equivalency Activists fail to make a relationship which is ontologically incapable of being a marriage to be a marriage by Judicial Fiat.

P>MADISON, WI. (Catholic Online) - In a unanimous decision in Case # 2008AP1868, styled William C. McConkey v. J.B. Van Hollen (in his role as Attorney General), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin did the right thing. They upheld the clearly expressed will of the people of Wisconsin to defend marriage against the Homosexual Equivalency Activists who are engaged in a cultural revolution. 

I read this fine opinion, from beginning to end. The way a Lawyer reads such opinions. It is solid and a model for other Supreme Courts to follow in this emotionally charged environment. I encourage other lawyers and all people truly interested in this vital issue to do the same.  Go Here:

The question concerning the nature of true marriage has now been placed before voters in 31 states. In absolutely every case the people have voted to uphold marriage as what it is, the exclusive union of one husband and one wife, intended for life, open to children. Marriage is the basis of a family, which is the first cell of society and the first mediating institution of any truly human and just society.

The Homosexual Equivalency Activists are intent on using the Courts to try, through some kind of legal "hocus pocus", to effect a sort of cultural alchemy, making a relationship which is ontologically incapable of being a marriage to be declared to be a marriage by Judicial Fiat. In effect, they are engaged in a cultural and social revolution.

"Ontology" is a "ten cent" word used by philosophers and theologians. It refers to the essence of something, the nature of being. A head of lettuce is not a rock. A human being is not a dog. Two women are not two men. Two men are not two women. Neither can two men or two women ever be a marriage.

This is true even if either of those two combinations of human couplings, man and man, woman and woman, engage in self masturbatory sexual activity for a prolonged period, living under the same roof with the intention to stay together for life. That  does not render that relationship a marriage. 

On June 30, 2010 the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in a well written and well reasoned opinion upheld the State constitution, and the Natural Law. The Court affirmed that marriage is what it is, a union between one man and one woman, intended for life, and open to the bearing and rearing of children, which constitutes a family, the first society and the first mediating institution.

Oh I know, many media reports concerning this important case speak of the Court somehow "banning" what is being called "gay" or homosexual "marriage". That is because the Homosexual equivalency movement has been hard at work with their propaganda machines spinning the coverage.

The people of Wisconsin, like people throughout the entire United States, simply reaffirmed what we all know to be true - because it is written in the Natural Law and has been affirmed universally for centuries across cultures.  

The 7-0 holding of this Court, and the very well written opinion which it rendered, affirmed that the constitutional amendment reaffirming that marriage is what it is, was properly placed before voters in a proper statewide referendum in 2006 and they overwhelmingly agreed with it. 

The referendum asked Wisconsin voters whether marriage is between one man and one woman. It asked those same voters whether the law should somehow call homosexual partnerships a "marriage'. Nearly 60 percent of the voters of Wisconsin answered clearly, NO! 

The people of Wisconsin affirmed what we all know to be true. They affirmed what most people know is critical for any truly stable society. Marriage, and the family and society founded upon it, must not be replaced by a counterfeit.

This was one of many cases brought by public interest legal groups committed to this cultural revolution. They are dedicated to what I call the "Homosexual Equivalency Movement". Groups like the Lambda Legal Defense Fund filed a "Friend of the Court" brief in this important case. Go to their website and look around!

What is clear is that they have a radically different vision of the nature of the human person as well as marriage and the family and society founded upon it. They are dedicated to nothing less than a cultural revolution. They are a part of what we should begin to call the "Homosexual Equivalency Movement".  After all, that is their aim.

I use that phrase intentionally to get the real issue across. This is not about discrimination against anybody. The folks I refer to as "homosexual equivalency" supporters insist that all Americans recognize a legal equivalency between true marriages and cohabitating practicing homosexuals or face legal punitive consequences. They want to place the police power of the State behind their vision of a "brave new world" and force the rest of us to accept it or face the consequences.

The folks pushing and funding these law suits are social engineers and cultural revolutionaries. For example, the Human Rights Campaign uses the Courts and the legislature to force this kind of "new culture" on all of us. They want to have the Police Power of the State as the enforcer of their cultural revolution. They have very good lawyers at their disposal and a massive endowment. Go to their website. Read their mission.

The Justices of the State of Wisconsin were unanimous in their opinion: "The two propositions contained in the marriage amendment plainly relate to the subject of marriage. And as the text of the amendment and context of its adoption make clear, the general purpose of the marriage amendment is to preserve the legal status of marriage in Wisconsin as between only one man and one woman.

"Both propositions in the marriage amendment relate to and are connected with this purpose. Therefore, the marriage amendment does not violate the separate amendment rule of Article XII, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Rather, the marriage amendment was adopted by the people of Wisconsin using the process prescribed by the constitution, and is properly now part of our constitution."

Wisconsin Family Council President Julaine K. Appling gave a statement to the Press after the opinion was released: "The lawsuit's accusation that the marriage amendment addresses multiple subjects was just a sneaky attempt to tear down what the voters clearly wanted. The court was right to reject this baseless lawsuit. Judges and politicians should never toss aside the will of the people in order to impose a system that intentionally deprives children of a mom and dad. Which parent doesn't matter: a mom or a dad?"

It really is that simple. This case and other efforts throughout the Nation are not about denying "rights" to anyone. They are about defending the moral basis of a truly free society against cultural revolutionaries who want to create a new society based upon a very different vision of the nature of the human person, the path to human freedom and flourishing, the nature of marriage, the family and the society founded upon it. 

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online