Posted on 07/03/2008 6:49:26 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
Madison, WI - When Dick Myers heard that California was going to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, he and his partner of nearly 13 years considered traveling there to get married.
That is until Myers and his partner, Steve Brondino, learned of an obscure state law that makes it a crime for Wisconsin residents to enter into marriage in another state if the marriage would be prohibited here. The law imposes a penalty for those who enter into a marriage that's prohibited or declared void in Wisconsin of up to $10,000 and nine months in prison.
"If we would go to California and come back here, what are the chances we might be prosecuted?" Myers asked. "Neither of us could afford the legal costs in defending ourselves."
It's a concern for same-sex Wisconsin couples who might be considering a wedding in California, where the state Supreme Court recently legalized gay marriage, according to gay rights advocacy group Fair Wisconsin. However, it's unclear whether those couples would be prosecuted.
The group sent an e-mail to about 10,000 supporters to see if anyone was making plans to go to California to get married. It heard back from two, and followed up to warn them about the law, said Glenn Carlson, executive director of Fair Wisconsin.
"We're telling people, especially if you live outside of Dane County, to be careful," Carlson said. After receiving the warning, one person wrote back that "I'd rather be prosecuted than persecuted."
In 2006, 59% of Wisconsin voters supported a constitutional amendment that reads: "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."
Julaine Appling, chief executive officer of the Wisconsin Family Council, said the statutes are clear and the law should be enforced.
"If it were challenged and the courts decided to basically wink at it, and refused to enforce the law, we have a problem," she said, adding that the constitutional amendment clarified that no marriage other than between a man and woman is legal.
Penalty 'very serious'
David Buckel, marriage project director for Lambda Legal, said other states have similar laws, but Wisconsin's imposes the stiffest penalties. The national group advocates for civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people.
Lambda Legal posted on its Web site a list of frequently asked questions for people who might be weighing a wedding in California or another country, and included on the list was a reference to the Wisconsin law.
"We put the information out there because we're deeply worried about same-sex couples in Wisconsin who may not know about this," Buckel said.
"That's very serious for getting married," he said of the penalty.
Decisions about whether to prosecute are left to district attorneys.
The law is believed to have been enacted to prohibit underage couples from going across state lines to marry and returning to Wisconsin to live, Carlson said.
The issue has gained relevance with the California ruling in May, Carlson said. Massachusetts started recognizing same-sex marriages in 2004 but only for residents, he said.
Senate Republican Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau), one of the authors of the marriage amendment, said he had a hard time seeing how the law would apply to same-sex couples here, because marriages that wouldn't be recognized in Wisconsin are strictly ceremonial.
"You're not going to go after some couple because they got married in California," Fitzgerald said.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison) and his partner went to Canada in late 2006 to get married, but Pocan said he wasn't overly concerned about the impact of the law.
"It's not technically evading state law because it wasn't allowed anyway," Pocan said. "It's not something I was too worried about, and I've got a feeling that Brian Blanchard feels the same way."
Blanchard, the district attorney in Dane County, said that without evidence of an intent to defraud the government or another person, it would be difficult to imagine considering such a marriage as criminal conduct. Also, he called it a "poor use of scarce prosecution resources."
"It's hard for me to imagine a jury of citizens wanting to convict anyone under this statute," he said.
(Never fear; CongressLesbian Tammy Baldwin will "fix" this for ya!)
"It's hard for me to imagine a jury of citizens wanting to convict anyone under this statute..."
Better hope that we FIFTY-NINE PERCENT that VOTED "Not only No, but HELL, No" aren't seated on your jury, you Jerk!
A law not enforced not only doesn’t exist, it creates scofflaws.
I for one, cannot and never will understand how or why these folks get voted into pol. office! If your judgment is so bad that you are homosexual, how can anyone trust you to make decisions, use GOOD judgment in doing so, for your constituents??? It baffles me.
They’re already breaking laws on the books as it is. Sodomy ain’t legal in this state, and no one bats an eye.
I guess I’d better shut up. I was complaining about strict ‘fireworks’ laws earlier in the day. I’m sure some bonehead will come along and equate sodomy laws with fireworks laws and pull me up short. *SMIRK*
Also to prevent cousins marrying. Also to prevent polygamy.
Prosecute ‘em.
And marrying outside of your race...which personally doesn’t bother me. But same sex marriages sure do!
Wow, actually proud to learn this law is on the books. Every state should have this law in place. It’s one way to prevent frivolous court cases clogging up the system when marriage is already defined in a state.
Only two counties in this state are completely whacked and in the Death Grip of Socialism; Dane & Milwaukee Counties.
The rest of us are pretty normal. Except for the cow-tipping and random UFO spotting. ;)
TWO. The gay advocates found TWO couples out of 10,000 surveyed that responded to their “fishing.” And this is NEWS?
No. This is an AGENDA being pushed by this newspaper. Which is laying off 10% of it’s staff, LOL!
Gee. I wonder why?
I think I just answered my own question.
Is this a fag fine?
Just asking!
Do you honestly think anybody is going to get prosecuted over this? What they are doing is drawing attention to these laws so that they can (and will) get them repealed, much like some of those states that had 100+ year-old miscegenation laws still on the books.
I suspect this law violates the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause.
You forgot the counties that Green Bay and La Crosse are in as well. I unfortunately live in one of the counties you mentioned.
Doubtful. There are many laws certain states have that conflict with others and there is never a full faith and credit issue. For example right to carry laws. For example, various speed limits on federal roadways. For example various ages of consent for things to be legal that differ from state to state (ie various drinking ages). Further it wouldn’t be as federal law allows states to refuse to recognize same sex marriage (DOMA).
The courts have long held that no state should be forced to recognize a marriage sanctioned by another state if that marriage offends a deeply held public policy of the second state. States have been permitted to refuse to recognize marriages from states with different policies toward polygamy, miscegenation, or consanguinity for decades. At this point, 39 states have passed their own DOMA law, and/or state constitutional amendments that reject ‘gay marriage’, noting that it violates their public policy and the majority of the citizens of their state.
No, don't shut up.
Being a pervert used to be a bad thing, punished by ostracism, at the very least.
Now, it's very hard to be a pervert, as most disgusting behavior is protected.
If you voice your disgust, you get punished.
I liked the old days when we threw rocks at perverts and drove them out of town.
OK, I volunteer. sodomy laws = fireworks laws. ;)
I hope you’re right, but it probably depends on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy gets up on that morning.
Ah Wisconcin should take a clue 3 days after Gay Marraige was enacted in California 8000 Ligtning Strikes hailed on California as the state burns....
I see a transsexual fight brewing here as well. IN some cases for those changing sex, govt has to call them the gender they are becoming but they really aren’t it yet....
What a warped perverted world we are living in, that we will have these even more bizarre loopholes to deal with.
Calling something that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, an ardvaark, doesn’t change the reality that it was born a duck, no matter how much desire for “change” they have.
They'll then certainly experience an eye opening over the "gay politics" of California. They might then divorce just in order to get back to Wisconsin.
I'm not trying to argue, just want to understand.
Do you mean that if I marry my cousin in AL, where it is legal, then 25 years later move a mile across the border into MS, where it is not legal, the state of MS will not recognize my marriage? My 10 kids will suddenly become illegitimate?
A good idea. Not gonna happen.
There is no way that a hotly contentious issue can be settled with a constitutional amendment, which requires almost national unanimity. A No vote in either house of the state legislature in 13 states will block the amendment. It isn't tough to come up with 20 states that would be likely to vote down such an amendment.
With the exception of the post Civil War 13th thru 15th amendments, which used what were at minimum shady tactics, no contentious issue has ever been settled this way.
Even Prohibition doesn't disprove this. Sentiment for both the 18th and 21st was almost unanimous. People just changed their mind over those 15 years. For very good reason.
If you want a constitutional amendment on marriage, you must first produce a national consensus in its favor. Since all the evidence indicates that support for gay marriage is growing, you've got a pretty tough battle ahead.
Translation: Out nation is doomed.
You can certainly make that case.
OTOH, naysayers have been saying that society is doomed since at least the time of the Greeks and the Hebrew prophets. They have not always been right.
Show me a nation or state that allowed it’s morals to decline and I’ll show you a nation or state that disintegrated from the inside.
I don’t know. Ask MS. It’s up to the state to determine if they would even make an issue out of it. I’d say if they have such a law, technically they would not have to recognize the marriage.
Just as if, in AL, both of you were 16 and got married, and then when to MS, which doesn’t recognize marriage between two people unless they are legal adults (18+). (This is hypothetical as I don’t know MS marriage laws.) If they had such a law they would be within their rights to not recognize the marriage. Or if you married a chimp over in AL but MS refused to recognize it. I’d say MS has the right to determine what is a legal marriage in that state.
It’s also a question of state sovereignty and enumerated powers. The Consitution never said anything about the federal government having the power to determine what a legal marriage will be, it has always been a state’s issue. That is because this was a power that the states did not give to the federal government, and so have retained it. All DOMA does is is the federal government affirming the fact states DO have the power to determine what marriage will be in their states, without fear someone will try to force them to do so by bastardizing the full faith and credit clause.
Some states have the death penalty, some do not. Some have various age differences for drinking, firearms ownership, etc. Full faith and credit do not apply to all laws so that one state must be forced to recognize other laws that are not on their own books.
Besides, if you move to MS from AL, you are voluntarily placing yourself under MS laws - you are agreeing to live under MS law by moving there. You have no protection or get to live under any AL laws if you are now a MS citizen. You can’t pick and choose which AL laws you want to drag along with you to MS.
The above is from the article. I would certainly hate to see prosecutors take time out from prosecuting real criminals to prosecute a gay couple for going to California to get married. What you or I think about the 'marriage' is one thing, spending my tax money prosecuting someone for it would pi$$ me off.
Well, I can se your point. However, prosecuting the first case may prevent them from having to prosecute more, if they let the first one slide.
My point is that legislating this, and wasting my tax dollars prosecuting it, is unnecessary. If Wisconsin wants to *not recognize it*, since it came from California, fine, but using prosecutor time on this is a waste of tax money.
Well, I doubt if the state would spend the time doing it. There is no real drive to prosecute such a thing whether it is a law or not. There are no WI clerks or judges that would recognize it, as the state Constitution was amended to define marriage as between a man and woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.