First the good news: A U.S. appeals court has ruled that gay marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana violated the U.S. Constitution.
Now the bad news, especially for taxpayers: Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said he will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to an Associated Press report on the ABC News website. I don’t know about Indiana at this point.
Sigh . . . I’m going to restrain myself — because there are a few bigger problems in the world right now — except to say that the Wisconsin attorney general is surely fighting a losing battle, and probably knows it. But I guess he’s gotta do what he’s gotta do . . . yadda, yadda, yadda
Still, same-sex couples in those two states have reason to celebrate tonight: they are one court ruling away from marriage equality. I look forward to the day — after the Supreme Court ruling — when I can run a photo gallery here of happy same-sex couples getting married in those states.
And I look forward to the day when we will no longer use terms like “same-sex couples,” and will instead just refer to all newlyweds as “couples.”
– Jillian
Jillian Page 
“.. the Wisconsin attorney general is surely fighting a losing battle, and probably knows it. But I guess he’s gotta do what he’s gotta do . . . yadda, yadda, yadda”
The AG is an elected, I.E. partisan position. If the Judges’ decisions were after the November elections, then an appeal would probably not be made. Can’t give them pesky progressives a reason to vote, can we?
LikeLike
My wife asked me the other day how I felt about same sex marriage. My response was, Civil marriage or liturgical marriage? She just looked at me. In Civil marriage, I don’t care, what the society wants, is fine with me. This includes tax implications and everything. If I were to start the church of “Doug”, and in the church of Doug, it was legal to marry a tree, then this would be acceptable. This has NO legal ramifications what so ever. If the Catholic Church wants to say that only one man and one woman can get married, then let it be so, and let that have no legal, tax nor moral implications. I wish the Catholic Church would change the title of marital bonds to something not used in the civil legal system, say “Blissful Bonding”. My wife and I were married in 1995 (civil), then married in the church in 2001. You should have seen the look on my wife’s face when the priest told us we were living in sin, and couldn’t copulate until we were married in the eyes of God. “Father, what are you up to…tomorrow?” I separate church marriage and civil marriage, and one has no bearing over the other!
LikeLike
Marriage is a civil contract. The church just performs the ceremony.
LikeLike