There's a comedy gold mine in Scott Walker's non-answers!!!

By next summer, will Scott Walker's non-answers be a comedy writers biggest resource for jokes? Maybe.

Here's John Oliver's take on Scott Walker's non-answer about attending a gay marriage:

Here's another look at Oliver's version of Walker's RSVP response:

Walker takes away religious freedom for others with wacky sounding "1st Amendment Defense Act!"

Scott Walker is now pushing a bill on the national stage, that even red states Arizona and Indiana rejected after strong public opposition. Cap Times:

Scott Walker supports the First Amendment Defense Act — but what does it do?: "Absolutely. I mean, to me, protecting our constitutional rights shouldn’t just take a piece of legislation," Walker said when asked by the Christian Broadcasting Network in Iowa last week if he supports the bill.

The bill supposedly protects churches from doing something they’re not required to do; perform same sex marriages! So this is just more trash talk on taxpayer time just to energize the radical right wing low information voters:

In a press release announcing the bill, co-sponsor Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, noted specifically that the bill would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from stripping a church of its tax-exempt status. 

 Because the First Amendment Defense Act goes even further than protecting churches:

The bill protects anyone who "acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."

Lee, asked by NPR about a hypothetical scenario in which a university fires an unmarried woman for having sex with a man, offered this: "There are colleges and universities that have a religious belief that sexual relations are to be reserved for marriage … Those colleges and universities have the right to make that decision on their own … It is, again, a slim minority of those that do. But those that do have this ought to be protected in their religious freedom." He offered similar arguments involving a university denying employment to a person married to someone of the same sex.

Quicker than you can say “social engineering, big government Republicans are putting themselves in our bedrooms. And I’m not just talking about their membership in Adult Friend Finder or AshleyMadison either.

Kaylie Hanson, director of women's media for the Democratic National Committee: "First, we learn that Jeb Bush’s policy agenda called for publicly shaming single mothers for having children out of wedlock. Then we learned that Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Scott Walker all support legislation that would allow a woman to be fired for having premarital sex. Republicans should be ashamed of themselves."

Scott Walker admits, he prefers conservative laws that are Unconstitutional.

Scott Walker admits he would set out to change the rights protected by the Constitution for same sex couples, by passing an amendment that takes away those rights. That's what Republicans call "small government," getting bureaucrats out of our way so we can enjoy our freedom and liberty. No social engineering there, no taking rights away to protect and endorse a religious definition.

The Supreme Court is the final word, say Republicans:

1. Guns: We were all supposed to believe we have unfettered gun rights, because the Supreme Court said so, because the first half of the 2nd Amendment didn't mean anything at all.

2. Corporate Speech: We were all supposed to believe corporations had free speech rights, because the Supreme Court said so. Ironically, anti-government Republicans gave our "people" rights to a government created entity, the corporation.

3. Corporate Religion: We were all supposed to believe corporations had religious rights, because the Supreme Court said so too. Go Hobby Lobby, having dominion over private individuals, their lives and their choices. They still have some freedom and liberty, for now.

4. Same Sex Marriage: We were all supposed to believe same sex couples could marry, because the Supreme Court said so. You know, an affirmation of the mumbo jumbo sighted in the 14th Amendment. What did it say....:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Not So Fast: But now Scott Walker is leading the charge against the language above.

"The only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage."

Marriage itself sets in motion a complicated maze of state and federal rules and tax laws that cannot be separated out. Turning it into an exclusively religious act would end all that, never mind those who don't practice a religion. The implications are huge and way too complicated for guys like Scott Walker and Mike Huckabee:

Huckabee: "the Supreme Court tried to "unwrite the laws of nature and the laws of nature's God."

And that's the trick. Republicans have been saying this for some time now. Paul Ryan is big on "God's law" before our own man made Constitutional law. Their intentions are obvious, but never talked about: Gods law will provide the slippery slope to deviate from our founding document. Of course, that won't stop any of them from criticizing the infallible, and very "liberal" Pope Francis.

Stephen Colbert pretty much said it all for us:

Stephen Colbert manifested on YouTube to mock the dissenting Supremes: "It's hard to believe that gay Americans achieved full constitutional personhood just five years after corporations did," he said.

Walker's Constitutional Amendment will Coerce Americans to Act in Opposition to their Conscience when it comes to Same Sex Marriage.

Scott Walker wants to turn the 14th Amendment inside out. He wants to give states the ability to ban same sex marriages, a coercive policy that would make gay Americans - in his words "act in opposition to their conscience!" How hard is it to grasp the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But here's what Walker just wrote on Facebook that targets gay Americans specifically, and turns the meaning inside out:

"The only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage." 

Doing just the opposite of what Walker said he didn't want to do, Walker's Facebook tantrum turned the 14th Amendment into ashes:

"I call on the president and all governors to join me in reassuring millions of Americans that the government will not force them to participate in activities that violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

Actually, the courts decision doesn't force anyone, including churches, to violate their religious beliefs.

But here's where Walker's more dictatorial, authoritarian intentions shift into overdrive, "coercing people to act in opposition to their conscience," denying gay Americans the very essence of equal protection under the 14th Amendment. He actually said this:

"No one wants to live in a country where the government coerces people to act in opposition to their conscience.

Jaw dropping in his inability to understand, Walker doesn't see that his venomous vision would directly "coerce people."  Perhaps, like the 2011 protesters in Madison, he sees gay marriage as an attempt to "intimidate" him.

Framed in the intentionally deceptive way only low information voters would understand, Walker made this insulting and contradictory declaration:

"We will continue to fight for the freedoms of all Americans."

Scott Walker's Bill of No Rights starts with Marriage.

That equal protection clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment, is pretty clear: “(it) provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws."

Unless of course we're determined to create second class citizens, like Scott Walker is advocating with a constitutional amendment allowing states to discriminate. Think about it, if you have to add an amendment, than you're changing a right already protected by the Constitution.

Same Sex Marriage Flip Flop!!

The inconvenient truth about marriage is that it really deals with our legal and economic responsibilities to each other. It's not just a religious concept. Without this legal commitment, can you imagine the chaos. We could all just walk away from each other; spouses, kids, relatives.

But chaos is the name of the game for Republicans pushing the phoniest kind of rugged individualism and pure religious fundamentalism. 

According to Scott Walker, in an interview by ABC’s Jonathan Karl, he would try to change the legal commitment marriage provides to all of us, giving it to the union of a man and a woman. Anyone else, second class citizen status. It also creates a monetary nightmare for couples in states that allow marriage and need all the legal economic responsibilities the federal government provides, like Social Security...unless they get rid of that too:

Walker said he would be open to the idea of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, a process that he emphasized would have to originate from the states. “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 woman is ultimately to consider pursuing a constitutional amendment.”

God puts Walker in charge, to rewrite the Constitution and leave states to decide who's created more equal than others.

We’re all created equal, right? So the argument surrounding the legality of same sex marriage should be focused on equality, and not a historical or religious based idea that is forever changing, right?

None of this seems to matter in the media, even to some attorney pundits, who keep talking about how the constitution protects or doesn't protect gay marriage. Equality under the law trumps all of it. Even vacuous Republicans like Paul Ryan, who want to bypass the constitution by saying our God given rights come first, can’t argue that even God made us all equal.

So when Republicans like Scott Walker want to carve out an exception to those God given rights, and turn them over to the states to politically micromanage for our creator, why isn't anyone asking him how that’s Biblically possible?

The Republicans blatant politicization and manipulation of the Christian religion was front and center as GOP candidates gathered in front of 1,000 people at the evangelical Point of Grace Church. Come on, really? I’m assuming the church is not taking advantage of the standard tax exemption most houses of worship take? Cap Times:

Walker told reporters he's holding out hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule that states can bar same-sex marriages. But if that's not the case, he suggested that voters should seek a constitutional amendment to allow state-level bans.

Remember, it’s not the definition of marriage, it an issue of equality:

"I think the appropriate route is … to pursue a constitutional amendment allowing the states to determine what the definition is," Walker told reporters.

Walker knows it’s not about jobs, a lesson he learned after Wisconsin voters gave him a pass on his disastrous jobs creation record, a failed promise his voters just laughed at as though it were an inside joke.

But the crowd wasn't gathered at the church to talk about the economy. Most attendees said they were most concerned with where candidates stood on social issues and national security. Troy McGill, of Ankeny, said he'd like to see a governor run for president, but more than that, he wants a candidate who will say what he or she means and stick to it.

Conservatives love authoritarian leaders willing to go against the public and “stick to it,” doing the “right thing:”

Walker said, "The best way to minister is to accept God's calling when you least expect it," Walker said. "We felt it was a calling to get in that election. We felt we were called to do the right thing..."

Walker won't learn from the court's decision on Gay Marriage. No curiosity.

Isn't anyone else fed up with the Republicans outright use of their beloved conservative activist Supreme Court? That's where every law these overreaching right wingers go to shred the constitution with the blessings of the judicial branch they own apologetically. 

In the WKOW clip below, Scott Walker openly admits he's anxious to give the same sex marriage decision up to their stacked Supreme Court, because apparently the constitution allows for the tyranny of the majority to do whatever it wants. Voting peoples rights away is another "will-of-the-people" thing winner-take-all parties want.

He also isn't interested in learning about why he might be wrong about gay marriage, even when he's given a list by the court that struck down the state law:

"Until the U.S. Supreme Court either chooses not to take it up or were to rule that the law here and elsewhere is unconstitutional, we are still obligated to support the constitution as it was amended by the voters."

Here's the list gov:

In the opinion, Judge Richard Posner, a President Ronald Reagan appointee wrote that the state's rationale for the ban “is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously.”

Posner wrote that “when there is no justification for government’s treating a traditionally discriminated-against group significantly worse than the dominant group in the society, doing so denies equal protection of the laws.”

Posner also focused in part on the children of same-sex couples in the opinion, writing that they “would be better off both emotionally and economically if their adoptive parents were married.”

Wisconsin voters added the same-sex marriage ban to the state's constitution in 2006. That popular vote was one of the reasons lawyers for the state said the ban should be upheld. That argument did not sway Judge Posner, who wrote: “Minorities trampled on by the democratic process have recourse to the courts; the recourse is called constitutional law.”

See Posner's decision here. And like Walker, his AG attack dog coincidentally also likes the odds of winning in the activist court. It's so obvious:

J.B. Van Hollen had always believed that this case would ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Same Sex Marriage opponents stumped that "the need for a mother and father," "biological reality," "regulate procreation through the state," didn't go over well.

Same sex marriage got its day in court and proponents essentially bulldozed opponents under with logic and reason. In many ways it highlights the sharp conservative activist Wisconsin Supreme Courts approach to almost everything that comes before it. Why weren't the questions raised in the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals asked or even considered important to the debate here in Wisconsin? A shocking and embarrassing contrast really between our "justices" and their "judges."

Here's what those involved in the legal challenge had to say:



WKOW's Greg Neumann highlighted the right wing scare tactics that believe it or not, conservative voters fall for hook-line-and-sinker:

Tribune: Judge Richard Posner waited just seconds before interrupting the solicitor general from Indiana, beginning a line of questioning about why children of same-sex couples should not be allowed to have legally married parents, as do children of heterosexual couples. To press his point, Posner told a fictitious story of a 6-year-old forced to go to school and see that he is different from his classmates. “Wouldn’t the children want their parents to be married,” Posner asked, also noting the thousands of children in foster care in Indiana who need to be adopted.  “What do you think is psychologically better for the child?” 

Mike Dean, attorney for Wisconsin Family Action, said the court was not interested in hearing the group's rationale that a child should grow up with both a mother and a father. “This goes back to the fundamental issue. Do we deny biological reality in order to legally affirm felt autonomy? Does a law exist to make people feel better?” Dean said. “That is their choice, but to go and say that therefore society as a whole must agree that relationship is the same as a heterosexual marriage, that is a step that cannot be taken.”

(Posner called) parts of the states' arguments "absurd" and "ridiculous." "These people and their adopted children are harmed by your law," Judge Richard Posner said.

During oral arguments, Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher contended there is a fundamental difference between same-sex and heterosexual couples that allows the government to treat them differently. "Opposite-sex couples make babies," he said. "Same-sex couples do not." But Posner expressed skepticism of the idea that the states were trying to promote procreation. "You allow all these sterile couples to get married," he said. "Why are you doing that if you're so interested in procreation?"

jsonline: Hamilton struck a similar tone ... The Indiana solicitor general defended the ban by linking marriage, as an institution, to procreation and the need for that to be regulated by the state. “Men and women create babies and there has to be a social mechanism to deal with that,”  Thomas M. Fisher said under heavy questioning.  Timothy C. Samuelson, the assistant attorney general from Wisconsin, repeatedly used the word “tradition”  to defend the ban in that state on gay marriage, leading exasperated judges to ask what he meant by that. Judge David F. Hamilton pressed Samuelson, expressing doubt that Wisconsin defined marriage as between opposite-sex people to encourage them to stay together if they have children: "I presume you're familiar with how that's been working out over the last twenty-five to thirty years," Hamilton said to Samuelson, the assistant attorney general. He went on to cite statistics bout out-of-wedlock births, saying Wisconsin's attempts to keep families together seem "pretty unsuccessful."

Posner, noted adopted children would benefit if their parents could claim the tax breaks and other perks of being married. "These children would be better off if their parents could marry, no? It's obvious," Posner said.

And despite the federal tax implications of marriage, our upside down AG wants local control:

Wisconsin Attorney General Van Hollen issued a statement, arguing states should be the ones to decide policies on marriage, divorce and child custody. "I am increasingly concerned about the federal government's reach into, if not domination of, powers guaranteed to the states and the people in the 10th Amendment," his statement said.

Saving the worst for last: Suggesting that some day the state will require mothers with children to marry a man, our own crazy zealot Julaine Appling continued to prove she's no deep thinker: 

After the arguments, Julaine Appling of Wisconsin Family Action noted the issue of same-sex marriage was likely to be ultimately determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Appling said men and women parent differently and children need both a father and mother. "What you're seeing is fatherlessness. What has fatherless done in Milwaukee?" she asked, saying single-parent families had contributed to crime and a lack of direction among young people.

Scott Walker gets Colbert treatment on Same Sex Marriage

Stephen Colbert plays with Scott Walker's complete whiff on same sex marriage. Colbert himself is taking no stand too:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,The Colbert Report on Facebook,Video Archive