Judge Says It’s ’Difficult’ to Stop Wisconsin Gay Marriages

Sunday Jun 15, 2014
Rev. Tony Larsen and his partner Craig Matheus are refused a marriage license by Racine County Clerk Wendy Christensen.
Rev. Tony Larsen and his partner Craig Matheus are refused a marriage license by Racine County Clerk Wendy Christensen.  (Source:AP Photo/Scott Anderson)

The federal judge who is putting a stop to gay marriages in Wisconsin says it was a difficult decision.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb on Friday put the marriages on hold after striking down the law and ordering clerks not to deny issuing the licenses.

But she says in her ruling that putting it on hold is difficult "After seeing the expressions of joy on the faces of so many newly wedded couples."

Crabb says because the U.S. Supreme Court had put a similar ruling out of Utah on hold, she had to do that in Wisconsin.

Crabb says it is understandable that same-sex couples don't want to wait any longer than they have to in order "to receive equal treatment under the law."

Copyright Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Gay Marriage

This story is part of our special report titled "Gay Marriage." Want to read more? Here's the full list.


  • , 2014-06-15 10:19:26

    Marriage is not about love. Marriage is about building social boundaries around a relationship that will produce children. It’s about establishing that a couple are off-limits to others, while attaching the norms to discourage them from straying from the relationship. As soon as we begin to think marriage is anything else, it no longer serves the state to sanction it.

  • , 2014-06-15 11:00:26

    I keep hearing that gay sex is normal and natural. the normal and natural function of the rectum is to eliminate feces. nothing more. normal and natural comes with at least the chance of creating life. Civil union would provide the same rights as marriage but the word married makes them FEEL normal, even though creating life can never happen. So how can anal sex be considered normal? Again, what is the normal function of the rectum?

  • , 2014-06-15 11:11:44

    boundaries that will produce children? off-limits? attaching norms to discourage straying? See a cattle breeder with your scheme. Can’t imagine what you think of the penis that eliminates wastes.

  • , 2014-06-15 11:53:06

    Bullocks! So first Anonymous coward is saying that two heterosexual people who are unable to have children are then also wrong for marrying since its only purpose is to have and raise children? Hypocrite much? Second Anonymous fool acts like gay sex is only about anal sex...ha ha! Like heterosexuals don’t have anal sex? This line of thinking will eventually be weeded out by Evolution.

  • , 2014-06-15 15:35:33

    anonymous coward? like yourself and the other one? also anonymous.... if only gays had sex such as oral and anal, the only kind of sex they can have, human beings would soon be extinct. throw all of the stones that you like, gay sex only leads orgasm, nothing more and it never will

  • , 2014-06-15 15:59:01

    I realize that us "haters" can all look alike sometimes, but try not to confuse us. The first two comments are not from the same person. I only wrote the first one. Also, I’m not a coward just because I’m anonymous. I’m anonymous because that’s how it identifies me since I don’t have an account here - just like it works with you anonymous "heroes." The main confusion seems to center around heterosexual couples who aren’t having kids. I agree with this. It has redefined marriage into something which is really none of the state’s business, as compared to an institution from which new citizens come (something that really IS the state’s business). What is the point of having the state "certify" our love for each other??? I can point out the value of having society recognize that breeders are paired, not just as a warning to others, but also because it becomes something married couples are expected to live up to under penalty of being recognized as a less worthy partner and citizen. All of this is to respect and protect and encourage the undertaking of family living, the value of which should be pretty obvious in today’s declining society. True, a lot of couples have entered into marriage without following through, and perhaps that has diluted the value of it. Of course, it’s impossible to walk through a crowd of couples and pick out which ones are the breeders and which ones aren’t --- except for gay couples, in which case only an absurd overdose of political correctness would inspire anyone to overlook the fact that they’re not breeding pairs. No matter how hard they try, they’re a pair of male penguins at the zoo who will never really lay an egg. But on the (remotely) off chance that I’ve missed something, I’ll throw out some ideas you probably haven’t thought about: Suppose two guys get "married", and then one cheats on the other. Sociologically, biologically, politically, economically -- who, really, is supposed to give a crap? What exactly is this relationship protecting? But this one’s even better: Suppose two guys get "married", and then one starts cheating with a woman. Now explain who/what the "marriage" is protecting? But even more importantly, who exactly is going to walk up to Bill and ask him how Ted is doing in the presence of Mary in order to remind him of his marriage vows? Or better, who is going to tell him to stay away from Mary because he’s sworn himself to Ted? See, you can bully people with political correctness, but you’ll NEVER get them to actually treat/view/respect the relationship the same way. Mainly because it isn’t. But I’ll offer you a truce. I’ll admit that non-breeding heterosexuals are what really ruined marriage. Gays didn’t ruin marriage; they’re just proof of how badly heterosexuals wrecked it, when it because so misunderstood that even gay couples started thinking they could be in it.

Add New Comment

Comments on Facebook