Homosexual couple could face jail time if married

Video here

link

I wonder if this law there using is also applied to straight couples that leave the state to marry.

Sorry but I think the law should be applied to everyone that not just who people dislike…

I really doubt that it will be, but I never knew that it was illegal to seek the protection of the law.

Many corporations are incorporated under Delaware law, as it is the easiest in the nation–yet the corporations are NOT resident in Delaware.

I don’t see how, from a legal standpoint, this would be any different.

You misunderstand what the purpose of “law” is: to promote the common good and maintain order. The recognition of same-sex “marriage” does neither. Since you misunderstand this fundamental idea of Western tradition, please hand over your voting card.

“Marriage” is not recognized between people of the same-sex. If it were, then marriage would simply cease to exist, because why wouldn’t any formal pairing of human beings not be a marriage? (I don’t care to argue this point. It’s just one of many reasons not to accept the idea of homosexual “marriage.” It’s not worth discussion, and you can find lots of good reasoning on the rest of the forum.)

Marriage does exist and has existed for longer than we can trace back in human history, and it is recognized and has always been recognized in every State of the United States as being between two consenting members of the opposite sex as an aid to reproduction and the raising of children. Thus, if two people of the same sex obtain a marriage certificate in an unjust State and then try to pass themselves off as married in a virtuous State that doesn’t recognize homosexuals as being married, then those two are commiting fraud and should be fined and perhaps jailed. And perhaps killed… just kidding, I don’t believe in capital punishment.

The solution: either force all States to recognize homosexuals as being capable of being “married,” thereby redefining marriage and destroying any meaning left to the idea, or force all States to deny marriage to homosexuals. You are obviously a proponent of the former, which makes you anti-marriage. I am a proponent of the latter. Praticing homosexuals can do what they want with their bodies and souls, but Catholics don’t have the legal or moral obligation to encourage them.

Commence sputtering and vitriolic denouncement of Catholics as “homophobes” and “spreaders of hate”… :rolleyes:

God Bless,
Telemachus

For people who have dial-up or who just don’t want to watch the video, here is some information about this thread:

When **** 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.

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.

jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=768670

Thanks! I couldn’t load the video.

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.

“It’s hard for me to imagine a jury of citizens wanting to convict anyone under this statute,” he said.

Go Wisconsin! I hope they keep it on the books. And why wouldn’t a jury convict? I would. They would be breaking the law, and a good one at that. Fraud is a serious crime.

Those laws were usually enacted to prevent miscegenation.

Hate to say it, but Wisconsin may be the next victim of judicial activism. It would only take one judge to get the ball rolling throw this law out and force the state to recognize the marriage.

It is time for a Constitution Amendment to ban gay marriage.

From the posts below, it appears this law was not written to apply to gay marriages, but actual marriages (no such gay civil unions when that law was written in all probability).

So it wasn’t designed specifically to target gays.

I don’t want one.
If Gays want to marry I have no problem with that.
If they want to marry in the Church invoking a Sacrament then I would rethink the whole thing.
But the world will always do things that Catholics should refrain from doing and that’s just how it is.
I think that there should be laws that make it harder to get a divorce because that’s the real problem.
I also think that adulterers should face some real penalties, like going to jail for awhile.
The Gay thing is way down on my list of concerns.

The problem is that it’s not that great of a leap from allowing gay marriages to attempts to force churches to host gay “weddings.” It should be near the top of everybody’s list of concerns. Not only that, but it also redefines marriage. Marriage, whether the liberals like it or not, is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

I don’t think that Catholic Church can be forced to do anything of the sort.
That doesn’t worry me.
May I ask why the Gay issue is of such concern to you?
There are so many problems that we face as a society.
Why did this particular issue capture your interest?

The problem is that states and some national governments have tried and (in some cases succeeded) in compelling agencies run by the Church to cater to homosexuals like heterosexuals. Adoption agencies for one: being forced to allow homosexuals to adopt.

The underlying issue is the homosexual agenda (as well as the abortionist agenda) trying to force the Church to retract on teachings or trying to undermine the teachings themselves using the law to do it.

“Marriage” is not recognized between people of the same-sex

**It is in California and Massachusetts, as well as Canada and other countries.

You or I may not like it, but it IS recognized by the civil law of these jurisdictions.**

You or I may not like it, but it IS recognized by the civil law of these jurisdictions

And it is precisely ‘how’ this ‘got’ recognized by those jurisdictions that is the problem.

This is not law ‘of the people’. This is judicial activism. We have no ‘say’ in this sudden decision to ‘grant a right to marriage’. The entire definition of marriage has been ‘changed’ without changing.

It’s comparable to, if you will, make a ‘legal decision’ that suddenly all women will be called ‘men’ in order to hold down jobs that had been ‘male’ only. The law in the court would state, "only men may apply for jobs that are designated ‘male only’. Seems clear, even if you don’t agree, right? Now obviously women will not REALLY ‘become men’. And there is no ‘change’ of the law that would state, for example, “any PERSON, not just any male person, may apply for any job and not be refused on grounds of not being of the male sex”.

No, instead, the law would still be on the books as "Only men may apply for jobs that are designated male only’. BUT. . . women would be ‘called’ men, so they could apply for the job.

It’s CRAZY, isn’t it? But that’s the ‘legal reasoning’ that allows these kinds of judges to ‘change the law without changing the definition’.

I have to echo Molly2000z’s remarks: whatever other gripes you may have about the larger issue, no church in this country is going to be forced to conduct gay marriages, or interracial marriages, or marriages of Christians to Buddhists, or marriages of two people who refuse to wear their Mormon undergarments.

This law is clearly Unconstitutional:

Article 4 Section 1:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States

  1. This means that any citizen of any State may travel to another state, and be entitled to the privileges and immunities granted there.

  2. Only Congress has the power to limit Interstate Commerce, namely travel between States. Period. And this power is limited by the above clause, as well as numerous Supreme Court decisions.

Loving vs Virginia explicitly struck down the statutory provision of “interstate travel to evade law” as Unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, and also that is was completely out of the power of the Virginia Legislature to try and regulate interstate commerce. The same holds true for this Wisconsin law. No State Legislature, in any capacity, can prevent its citizens from leaving the State in order to obtain privileges and immunities in another State. See recent articles on lots of Sex Offenders moving to Colorado where the offender registries are pretty lax. Many states are really, really ticked that a sex offender can leave a good address with the local PD, arrive in Colorado, and then pretty much disappear. Yet they have no power whatsoever to stop them.

Gambling is a prime example. Most States expressly prohibit gambling, yet no state Law can prohibit a person from traveling to Las Vegas, gambling, and returning with their winnings (a benefit of the gambling privilege).

This law is all but irrelevant. It is already unenforceable, and will ultimately be struck down. No there’s no **“judicial activism” **involved, just strict interpretation of Article 4 Section 1 and the 14th Amendment Supra Loving vs Virginia.

If Churches refused to act for the state and didn’t celebrate ‘legal’ marriages nobody who wants to ‘force’ them to celebrate any marriage would have a leg to stand on.

When was the last time a divorced person without a decree of nullity has sued the Catholic Church for refusing to celebrate his/her marriage?

I hope the both of you are right.

Incorrect. Marriage according to law, has certain legal benefits. It is NOT for procreation (according to LAW). For example, if a man were to go to a bar and shack up with a woman and get her pregnant, the law would force him to pay child support. The law WOULD NOT force him to get married (which is what the law would do if marriage really was about raising children). Also, the law would have to not allow two people who are elderly to get married since they would not be able to bear or raise children.

As to your argument that if we allow homosexuals to get married then this would mean that any formal pairing of humans would be a marriage, this is also silly. For example, I can legally form a corporation with anyone I want. But that doesn’t mean that if I agree to go out for coffee every Monday with someone that I would be forming a corporation. A corporation has a specific legal purpose, and so does marriage. There are many “unions” (for lack of a better word) that are legally recognized besides marriage (corporation being one example).

The fact is, if you don’t want to marry someone of the same gender there is nobody forcing you to. Also, there is nobody forcing you to pay for someone else who wants to marry someone of the same gender. If you want to believe that marriage (as a legal contract) should always be between a man and a woman then you are free to believe that. You can even form your own community where everyone there can agree to that. You can even get married and have that be recognized by the state if you want. Therefore, I think what is really motivating you is bigotry. You have clever intellectual excuses for your bigotry, but it’s still bigotry.

I think the Wisconsin law is great. I hope other states pass the same law.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, homosexual acts are never to be approved(section 2357).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.