Scott Walker Launches 2016 Site

Via the Washington Post:

Scott Walker is making an early push to stockpile money for his likely presidential bid, asking donors to raise $27,000 by mid-July, when he is expected to launch a White House campaign. An e-mail that went out to supporters Thursday asked them to be the first donors to a new “testing the waters” committee, which he can use to raise and spend money as he considers a run. All contributions made to the committee now would go to his eventual campaign. Donors were urged to visit a new Web site and participate in “The Race to 270” by raising $27,000 by Sunday, July 12. That is the day before when supporters expect Walker to formally launch his campaign in the Milwaukee area.

As of now there are twelve officially declared GOP candidates.

Scott Walker Backs Constitutional Ban If SCOTUS Rules For Same-Sex Marriage

Via CBS News:

Potential Republican presidential candidate and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says that he would support a constitutional amendment allowing states to enact same-sex marriage bans. "I personally believe that marriage is between one man and one woman," Walker said Sunday on ABC News, answering a question about an upcoming Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage. "If the court decides that, the only next approach is for those who are supporters of marriage being defined as between one man and one. The Republican governor, who has said he will announce a decision on a run for the White House by the end of the summer, presides over a state where same-sex marriage is legal. Walker had supported a 2006 Wisconsin's constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, but a federal judge declared the law unconstitutional in 2014. Walker has previously told reporters that, despite his beliefs, he has been to a same-sex wedding reception for a gay member of his family.

Welcome To The Year 2112

Hey, he's only off by 97 years. But maybe this kind of math is what caused Wisconsin's $2B deficit.

Scott Walker Teases 2016 Presidential Bid

Yesterday's Star Wars reference by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker got washed out in all of the hoopla about Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. Pity.

WISCONSIN: Madison Becomes Nation's First City To Explicitly Protect Atheists

Via the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

In what is believed to be a first in the nation, the Madison City Council has voted to amend the city's equal opportunities ordinance to make "nonreligion" a protected class. The ordinance, which was approved Tuesday night, adds atheists to the official list of people who could face discrimination. It comes as Indiana is facing a firestorm of criticism over its new "religious freedom" laws amid charges that it is a thinly disguised attempt to permit discrimination against gays. "This is important because I believe it is only fair that if we protect religion, in all its varieties, we should also protect nonreligion from discrimination. It's only fair," said Ald. Anita Weier, the bill's chief sponsor, Madison's WISC TV reported. It was sponsored by 14 of the council's 20 members. Julaine Appling, president of Wisconsin Family Action, said the Madison ordinance wasn't necessary. "I figured it was an April Fool's joke. Unfortunately it's not an April Fool's Joke," Appling said. "It's very Madisonian." Todd Stiefel, chairman of the Ohio-based nonprofit Openly Secular, called the Madison vote "magnificent."

RELATED: The above-quoted Julaine Appling, you may recall, had a delicious meltdown when same-sex marriage was legalized in her state. She has predicted that Wisconsin's ban will be reinstated when SCOTUS rules in June.

WISCONSIN: Court Rules Against Catholic Archdiocese In Bankruptcy Case

In 2013 it was revealed that while the Archbishop of Milwaukee, now-Cardinal Timothy Dolan sought the Vatican's permission to move that money into a cemetery fund in order to shield assets from the victims of sexual abuse. The Archdiocese declared bankruptcy in 2011.

UPDATE: Here's the AP's report.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago said Monday that the fund created by New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan when he was archbishop of Milwaukee is not covered by a federal law that protects religious organizations from government interference. Attorneys for clergy sexual abuse victims say Dolan created the fund to hide money from their clients. The archdiocese filed for bankruptcy in 2011. Hundreds of victims have since filed claims against the archdiocese. The appeals court's ruling reverses a judge's decision that had found that the cemetery fund couldn't be touched. The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Scott Walker At CPAC: If I Can Beat Union Protesters Then I Can Beat ISIS

The DNC reacted immediately: "If Scott Walker thinks that it’s appropriate to compare working people speaking up for their rights to brutal terrorists, then he is even less qualified to be president than I thought. Maybe he should go back to punting."

Tweet Of The Day - Dropkick Murphys

The band is renowned for their ardent support of unions and the working class. Scott Walker is absolutely the last person who should be using their music.

WISCONSIN: Legal Team That Won Marriage Asks For $1.2M In Attorney Fees

Via the Pioneer Press:

The legal team that successfully fought to overturn Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage is asking a federal court to award it nearly $1.25 million to cover attorney fees and costs associated with the case. The legal team, headed by the ACLU, sued in February to overturn a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on behalf of eight couples. In a filing late Friday afternoon in U.S. District Court in Madison, the team wrote that in part, the hours they put into the case were driven by an aggressive defense of the amendment by lawyers for the state. "Defendants' decisions to file multiple motions, conduct discovery, assert novel arguments, and frantically try to stop marriages from occurring increased the substantive and procedural complexity of plaintiffs' counsels' work in the trial court and the Court of Appeals, and thus the time required to competently prosecute the action," wrote lawyers for the plaintiffs. Under federal law, as prevailing parties in a civil rights action, the plaintiffs can seek an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, they wrote.

Same-sex marriage became legal in Wisconsin in October after the Supreme Court declined to review the ruling of the Seventh Circuit Court.

WISCONSIN: GOP Nominee For AG Says He'd Defend Ban On Interracial Marriage

Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel, the GOP nominee for state Attorney General, says that he not only opposes same-sex marriage, he'd defend a ban on interracial marriage if one were on the books. Via the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

For months, Schimel has said he would have defended the state's ban on gay marriage in court because the attorney general is obligated to uphold state laws and provisions in the state constitution. As he discussed his stance on that issue last month on an Oshkosh cable access program, he was asked if it would have been his obligation to defend a ban on interracial marriage if he had been an attorney general in a state with such a law 60 years ago. He sighed and said, "Yeah, it is." "It might be distasteful to me ...but I've got to stay consistent with that — as the state's lawyer, it's not my job to pick and choose."  Responding to the criticism, Schimel issued a statement Wednesday that said: "Love and the law are colorblind, as they should be. Many shameful, racist laws were changed over the course of time in this country by legislators, the courts and the people's direct votes. But if Susan Happ wants to make up new laws, or change old ones, she's running for the wrong job."

Happ is the Democratic nominee for Attorney General. Wisconsin is one of nine states that never outlawed interracial marriage.

Wisconsin AG Concedes Defeat, State Begins Issuing Marriage Licenses

Via the Associated Press:

Wisconsin's Republican attorney general is conceding the fight to preserve the state's gay marriage ban is over. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals from five states, including Wisconsin, seeking to prohibit same-sex marriages. The order immediately ends delays on marriages in those states. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen had filed Wisconsin's appeal in hopes of preserving a 2006 state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. His spokeswoman issued a statement Monday saying the Department of Justice made every attempt to defend the state constitution but acknowledged gay marriage is now legal.

And the licenses have begun!

Wisconsin Haters Have The SCOTUS Sadz

"The high court’s denial of our Wisconsin case and these other cases is profoundly disappointing. However, at some point the US Supreme Court will take a case on this issue. Wisconsin’s marriage amendment is on hold, but should the Court ultimately rule that the US Constitution does give the states the right to determine for themselves what marriage is, our amendment will be reinstated.” - Julaine Appling, head of Wisconsin Family Action.

BREAKING: SCOTUS Denies Review In All Seven Marriage Equality Cases, Marriage Comes To Five More States

Via USA Today:

The Supreme Court refused to get involved in the national debate over same-sex marriage Monday, leaving intact lower court rulings that will legalize the practice in 11 additional states. The unexpected decision by the justices, announced without further explanation, immediately affects five states in which federal appeals courts had struck down bans against gay marriage: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Utah.

It also will bring along six other states located in the judicial circuits overseen by those appellate courts: North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming. The action will bring to 30 the number of states where gays and lesbians can marry. Appeals courts in Cincinnati and San Francisco are considering cases that could expand that number further, presuming the Supreme Court remains outside the legal fray.

Which Legal Team Will Get To SCOTUS?

The New York Times reports on the "dueling" going on to be the legal team to argue for same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court.

In a half-dozen briefs filed in recent weeks, some of the best lawyers in the nation spent many pages arguing that their case was the right one in which to establish a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. They pointed out the attractive features of their own cases and the shortcomings of others. In legal jargon, streamlined cases without procedural pitfalls are said to be good vehicles. That made the fancy lawyers sound a little like car salesmen. The case from Virginia, one brief said, is “an excellent vehicle.” The one from Wisconsin, said another, is “an ideal vehicle.” The one from Utah, perhaps the leading candidate, was said to be, with the swagger of understatement, “an appropriate vehicle.”  The battle is for a place in the history books. Still, the sniping among the lawyers was a little unseemly, said James A. Campbell, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending the bans on same-sex marriage in Oklahoma and Virginia. “As I would read their briefs,” Mr. Campbell said of his dueling adversaries, “I would write in the margin: ‘That’s an implicit dig at this case’ and ‘That’s a dig at that case.’”

Among the teams vying to be heard are AFER, GLAD, Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Freedom To Marry head Evan Wolfson: "Every attorney in the world, it seems, is now eager to be the one that stands before the court in the freedom to marry case, but what really counts is the compelling collective presentation we will all make, no matter which case it is."

BREAKING: Supreme Court Lists ALL Marriage Cases For Consideration On 9/29

Via the Wall Street Journal:

Mark your calendars: the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider its next steps on gay marriage when the justices meet for the first time since their summer break. The court on Wednesday listed gay marriage petitions from five states – Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin – for consideration at its Sept. 29 private conference. Officials in those states are asking the court to decide whether state bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional. The justices use the September meeting to wade through stacks of appeals that pile up during the court’s three-month recess. The court at some point after the conference is expected to add several of those cases to its docket for the term that begins Oct. 6. Court watchers are eagerly awaiting word on whether one or more gay marriages cases will be among them. The court is under no obligation to act right away. It’s possible the court could take additional time to mull its options, particularly because of fast-moving developments in other gay-marriage litigation.

More from USA Today:

By scheduling all for consideration simultaneously, the justices gave equal footing to the Indiana and Wisconsin cases just decided last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. The 10th and 4th Circuits previously ruled in the other cases. The court could agree to hear one or more cases this winter; deny them all, or delay its decision for a while. In all five states, federal district and appellate judges have agreed that state bans on same-sex marriage should be struck down as unconstitutional. But those decisions are on hold pending the Supreme Court's review. Additional gay marriage cases could be added to the justices' list soon. A ruling is expected from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit on cases from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. And just this week, the 9th Circuit heard oral arguments in cases stemming from Idaho and Nevada. Cases from Texas and Florida remain at the appellate court level.

AFER reacts via press release:

“Gay and lesbian couples in Virginia should not have to wait another day to enjoy their right to marry,” said AFER Executive Director, Adam Umhoefer. “The distribution of our case for the Court’s consideration brings us one step closer to our mission of marriage equality for all Americans. Our Constitution’s guarantee of liberty and equality soon will be realized for all loving and committed couples, no matter what state they reside in.” The Court is expected to release an Orders List on October 6, 2014, that will indicate which – if any – marriage equality case or cases it will consider for its 2014-2015 term. If the Court denies review in Bostic, the July 2014 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that struck down Virginia’s marriage ban will be binding and gay and lesbian Virginians will be able to marry in the Commonwealth.

NCLR reacts via press release:

The couples in the [Utah] case—Kitchen v. Herbert—are represented by Peggy Tomsic of the Salt Lake City law firm of Magleby & Greenwood, P.C., Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Mary Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), and former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal of the law firm of Hogan Lovells. Said Tomsic: “The State of Utah and the plaintiff couples agree that it is important the Supreme Court take this case and settle the constitutional questions at stake, questions that matter so much to the families we represent and to so many others across the country.” Said Bonauto: “It is time to end the legal bans that keep committed couples from standing up and making the unique pledges of marriage to each other—pledges that would allow their families protection and security everywhere in this country.”

Matt Baume: Marriage News Watch

Clip recap:

A massive victory for equality in Wisconsin and Indiana, with one of the most strongly-worded decisions yet. A judge in Louisiana has ruled against marriage equality, but there are some problems with his ruling. There are major oral arguments this week in multiple states, and more cases move closer to consideration by the US Supreme Court.

Brian Brown Has The Seventh Circuit Sadz

"In the 7th Circuit case, Judge Richard Posner crafted one of the most ideologically-driven and personally invested rulings I've ever read from a federal justice—and that's saying something! Indeed, the craziest moments of Posner's decision are not merely ludicrous and poorly reasoned, they're scandalously offensive. For example, he insinuates that the people of Indiana and Wisconsin—whose marriage laws his decision strikes down—were acting against children's welfare by instantiating in law the ideal that kids have both a mother and a father!

"But it gets even worse than that. To take another—and perhaps the most egregious—example: We know that the tradition of marriage as the union of husband and wife is nearly universal to the human experience; it is a tradition honorably celebrated and sincerely believed in by nearly every religious tradition and philosophy, throughout history and in our own day. It constitutes a deeply held belief for literally billions of people worldwide.

"Well, Posner compares that tradition to cannibalism and ritualistic suicide! Marriage Supporter, you should be outraged, as I am, that the deeply held beliefs of millions of Americans like us can be subjected to such calumny by high-level judiciary official in our land. We should be disgusted to find the votes of millions of Americans to protect marriage and the interests of children in having a mom and a dad compared libelously to something as grotesque as cannibalism! The redefinition of marriage is not inevitable—not by a long shot." - Hate group leader Brian Brian, in a blog post titled A Major Victory because Louisiana. 

Local Haters Have The Wisconsin Sadz

"We are deeply disappointed but not surprised at this ruling. We knew we had the most liberal panel of judges on the 7th Circuit. When they denied the state’s request to have the case heard before all ten judges on the court, we pretty much knew what to expect. I was in the courtroom last Tuesday. I knew then what the outcome was going to be. Judge Posner in particular made his opinion quite clear. His clarity took a backseat only to his sarcasm. The struggle to preserve and protect traditional marriage is far from over. This ruling does not change the fact that a marriage of one man and one woman is the healthiest, most prosperous, and most stable place not only for the man and woman but also for the children they may bring into the world. The ruling is a denial of reality. While every marriage may not have children, every child has both a mother and father. This ruling denies children of either a mother or a father. Our organization will continue to aggressively take the message everywhere across this state that marriage between a man and woman is good not only for the individuals in a given marriage, but is also good for Wisconsin." - Julaine Appling, head of Wisconsin Family Action.

Editorial Of The Day

From the editorial board of the New York Times:

As important as the federal appeals court ruling was on Thursday declaring same-sex marriage bans in two states to be unconstitutional, the clarity and blunt reasoning behind the decision was equally momentous. Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Richard Posner put the case for equality starkly. “Homosexuals are among the most stigmatized, misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities,” he wrote. Denying them the freedom to marry imposes “continuing pain,” he said, and claims that allowing same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual unions or children, or other state interests, were “totally implausible.” “Our pair of cases is rich in detail but ultimately straightforward to decide,” Judge Posner wrote in the decision striking down bans in Wisconsin and Indiana. [snip] Petitions for Supreme Court review of pro-marriage-equality rulings from the Fourth and Tenth Circuits have been filed and are supported by both sides of the issue. There is no reason at this point for the justices to prolong the harm to same-sex couples and their families by waiting for all the remaining state battles to play out.

Tony Perkins Has The Seventh Circuit Sadz

"I am very troubled that this court failed to recognize the self-evident truth that children need and deserve a mom and dad. The ruling doesn't appear to allow society to choose to maintain a coherent definition of marriage. The courts have no true constitutional authority to unilaterally change the definition of our most fundamental social institution. Yet this court is engaging in judicial activism unlike yesterday's federal court ruling which upheld the right of Louisiana voters to preserve natural marriage in their state's public policy.

"The Seventh Circuit's radical departure from natural law and the received wisdom of human history continues to undermine the legitimacy of the courts in the eyes of a majority of Americans. Marriage redefinitions imposed by judicial fiat cannot change the truth about marriage, men, women, children, and parenting. Ultimately, the American people will have the final word as they experience the consequences of marriage redefinition and the ways in which it fundamentally alters America's moral, cultural and political landscape." - Hate group leader Tony Perkins, via press release.