PDA

View Full Version : Legal Iowa High Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban


Pages : [1] 2

jAZ
04-03-2009, 08:24 AM
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102691961

Iowa High Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban
by The Associated Press

NPR.org, April 3, 2009 The Iowa Supreme Court unamimously struck down the state's gay marriage ban Friday, ruling that it violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples.

In 2005, Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, sued on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples in Polk County who were denied marriage licenses. Some of their children are also listed as plaintiffs.

The case was appealed to the state Supreme Court in 2007, after Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson agreed with the plaintiffs and ruled that the ban was unconstitutional.

Hanson's ruling prompted nearly two dozen people to apply for marriage licenses in the county, Iowa's most populous and home to Des Moines. Only one couple, Sean and Tim McQuillan of Ames, managed to get married before Hanson stayed his decision the next day.

During oral arguments before the state Supreme Court in December, Des Moines lawyer Dennis Johnson argued that the ban violated his clients' due process and equal protection rights.

"We are suggesting that everybody be able to participate equally in an institution that has existed since the beginning of this state," Johnson said during arguments.

Roger Kuhle, an assistant Polk County attorney, argued that the lower court's ruling for the plaintiffs violates the separation of powers and that the issue should be left to the Legislature.

"We are not here opposing the individual plaintiffs' sincerity. We are here because, in our view, the issue is one for the Legislature to decide as a matter of social policy," he told the seven-member court.

During oral arguments, Chief Justice Marsha Ternus explained that the high court would determine whether the district court erred by finding that the same-sex marriage ban violated the state constitution, and whether it erred by not allowing the county's expert witness testimony.

The timing of the ruling's release could be awkward for state lawmakers, who are on track to end the legislative session in coming weeks.

Before the ruling, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal told reporters that it's "exceedingly unlikely" that the Legislature would deal with the gay marriage issue this year, regardless of the court's ruling.

"This is the final step in a lengthy legal proceedings," the Democrat said. "We're going to wait and see that decision and review it before we take any action."

Around the nation, only Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed gay marriage before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows domestic partnerships.

New Jersey and New Hampshire also offer civil unions, which provide many of the same rights that come with marriage. New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and legislators there and in New Jersey are weighing whether to offer marriage. A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont is before the state House.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 08:25 AM
The Iowa Supreme Court unamimously struck down the state's gay marriage ban Friday, ruling that it violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples.
Iowa ain't California or Massachusetts. Face it folks, it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.

patteeu
04-03-2009, 08:38 AM
Iowa ain't California or Massachusetts. Face it folks, it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.

What a lame argument.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 08:40 AM
What a lame argument.

Yea, funny how the Constitution becomes lame the minute it doesn't favor your position.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 08:41 AM
Iowa ain't California or Massachusetts. Face it folks, it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.

I am torn on the issue. I am for State's Rights. However, the Constitution states "All are equal under the law..."



The Right, who claim to be such strict Constitutionalists, seem to want to piss on the Constitution when this issue comes about.

Iowanian
04-03-2009, 08:43 AM
BOOOOOOO

You're right, Iowa isn't California and judges should remember that.

Judges shouldn't be legislating from the bench.


Legislators are already working on amendments that will define it between 1 man and 1 woman.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 08:44 AM
Well, now Prop 8 just needs some overturning.

Seriously, this is no different than the Civil Rights movement of the '60s. People don't learn from history.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 08:44 AM
BOOOOOOO

You're right, Iowa isn't California and judges should remember that.

Judges shouldn't be legislating from the bench.


Legislators are already working on amendments that will define it between 1 man and 1 woman.

When that happens you will have more of an argument. Until then, I cannot see how this is legislating from the bench?

jAZ
04-03-2009, 08:45 AM
Legislators are already working on amendments that will define it between 1 man and 1 woman.
Yeah for stripping constitutional rights from citizens!

jAZ
04-03-2009, 08:45 AM
When that happens you will have more of an argument. Until then, I cannot see how this is legislating from the bench?

You can see how often that phase is thrown around when it makes no sense. Just a blind talking point.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 08:46 AM
BOOOOOOO

You're right, Iowa isn't California and judges should remember that.

Judges shouldn't be legislating from the bench.


Legislators are already working on amendments that will define it between 1 man and 1 woman.

Are you okay with doing away with a legal definition of "marriage" and just calling it civil unions? Leaving marriage to the churches?

jAZ
04-03-2009, 08:47 AM
Are you okay with doing away with a legal definition of "marriage" and just calling it civil unions? Leaving marriage to the churches?

Civil Unions for All.

Iowanian
04-03-2009, 08:50 AM
Are you okay with doing away with a legal definition of "marriage" and just calling it civil unions? Leaving marriage to the churches?

No.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 08:50 AM
No.

Why? What's wrong with that plan?

jAZ
04-03-2009, 08:51 AM
Why? What's wrong with that plan?

Teh Gheys.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 08:52 AM
I assume this video might highlight the reason why conservatives are against gay marriage. It actually makes a lot of sense.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/haidt

SBK
04-03-2009, 08:55 AM
Iowans you shall obey your black robed rulers!

jAZ
04-03-2009, 08:57 AM
Iowans you shall obey your black robed rulers!

We should just eliminate the judicial branch and fight wars instead.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 08:57 AM
For those legislating from the bench people, is it always legislating from the bench any time a court rules a law unconstitutional?

Otherwise, I don't see the logic behind a stance since it's their job.

SBK
04-03-2009, 08:58 AM
We should just eliminate the judicial branch and fight wars instead.

No, the judicial branch should operate within the framework of where they're supposed to. The judicial branch is the weakest branch, or supposed to be--but today they're the strongest.

Chief Faithful
04-03-2009, 08:59 AM
Well, now Prop 8 just needs some overturning.

Seriously, this is no different than the Civil Rights movement of the '60s. People don't learn from history.

In one sentence you just minimized the whole black struggle.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 08:59 AM
For those legislating from the bench people, is it always legislating from the bench any time a court rules a law unconstitutional?

Otherwise, I don't see the logic behind a stance since it's their job.

It is legislating from the bench anytime the verdict is not in your favor.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:00 AM
No, the judicial branch should operate within the framework of where they're supposed to. The judicial branch is the weakest branch, or supposed to be--but today they're the strongest.

So by following the Constitution they violated what framework?

Perhaps you can point out to everyone where in the Constitution it states "marriage" is between 1 man and 1 woman?

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 09:02 AM
No, the judicial branch should operate within the framework of where they're supposed to. The judicial branch is the weakest branch, or supposed to be--but today they're the strongest.

I never saw it as the weakest. Can you cite this in the Constitution?

In one sentence you just minimized the whole black struggle.

:spock: What? How so?

patteeu
04-03-2009, 09:03 AM
Yea, funny how the Constitution becomes lame the minute it doesn't favor your position.

What are you talking about now?

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:04 AM
What are you talking about now?

Wow, how quickly they put on the "I is dum" hat.

SBK
04-03-2009, 09:06 AM
I never saw it as the weakest. Can you cite this in the Constitution?



:spock: What? How so?

The judicial branch is supposed to interpret the law, today they legislate it. It is the judges who determine how we live, not the people, or the legislators.

Really I don't care much on this one, I left Iowa several years ago, and I'm glad I did.

mlyonsd
04-03-2009, 09:07 AM
BOOOOOOO

You're right, Iowa isn't California and judges should remember that.

Judges shouldn't be legislating from the bench.


Legislators are already working on amendments that will define it between 1 man and 1 woman.

Yet another reason not to live in Iowa. :harumph:

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:07 AM
The judicial branch is supposed to interpret the law, today they legislate it. It is the judges who determine how we live, not the people, or the legislators.

Really I don't care much on this one, I left Iowa several years ago, and I'm glad I did.

How did they legislate this as opposed to interpreting the equal protection we all get under the Constitution?

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 09:07 AM
The judicial branch is supposed to interpret the law, today they legislate it. It is the judges who determine how we live, not the people, or the legislators.

Really I don't care much on this one, I left Iowa several years ago, and I'm glad I did.

You didn't answer the question.

If a court rules a law is unconstitutional is it always "legislating from the bench"?

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:08 AM
Yet another reason not to live in Iowa. :harumph:

Yeah, cause Gay people are bad and will make you turn green and grown horns and scales.

mlyonsd
04-03-2009, 09:09 AM
Yeah, cause Gay people are bad and will make you turn green and grown horns and scales.

Don't be stupid.

patteeu
04-03-2009, 09:10 AM
Well, now Prop 8 just needs some overturning.

Seriously, this is no different than the Civil Rights movement of the '60s. People don't learn from history.

Except that we amended our constitution in order to address racial issues after the Civil War but we haven't done so wrt sexual preference.

Iowanian
04-03-2009, 09:10 AM
Its not the same as marraige. period.

If you support this, get it done in your own state.

In the mean time, if there has to be "something"...call it a civil union, and assess a $1000 fee on the license application for anyone from out of state trying to leverage this and pay for some roads or something.

I can understand why some desire this, from the perspective of being allowed in hospital rooms and financial arrangements, but I think it puts an undue burden on employers with benefits etc.

Its also not news that I have a moral objection as well.

Get ready to be upset, I think the Iowa House and Senate will come back over the top with something.

SBK
04-03-2009, 09:10 AM
You didn't answer the question.

If a court rules a law is unconstitutional is it always "legislating from the bench"?

You show me a state that when given the opportunity has chosen to allow gay marriage.

Name me 1 institution other than some judges that have said gay marriage is something we must have.

I'd even like to see where gay marriage is protected in the constitution for that matter.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 09:11 AM
Except that we amended our constitution in order to address racial issues after the Civil War but we haven't done so wrt sexual preference.

I'll grant you that. The underpinnings (equality) still remain the same.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:12 AM
Its not the same as marraige. period.

If you support this, get it done in your own state.

In the mean time, if there has to be "something"...call it a civil union, and assess a $1000 fee on the license application for anyone from out of state trying to leverage this and pay for some roads or something.

I can understand why some desire this, from the perspective of being allowed in hospital rooms and financial arrangements, but I think it puts an undue burden on employers with benefits etc.

Its also not news that I have a moral objection as well.

Get ready to be upset, I think the Iowa House and Senate will come back over the top with something.


Sorry but the whole civil union vs. marriage argument is pretty much splitting hairs. The end result is the same. You say tomato, I say tomato.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 09:12 AM
You show me a state that when given the opportunity has chosen to allow gay marriage.

Name me 1 institution other than some judges that have said gay marriage is something we must have.

I'd even like to see where gay marriage is protected in the constitution for that matter.

So you're admitting to picking and choosing.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 09:12 AM
No, the judicial branch should operate within the framework of where they're supposed to. The judicial branch is the weakest branch, or supposed to be--but today they're the strongest.

:spock:

WTF, they have the authority to rule laws unconstitutional. That's not the weakest, that's the strongest. At least until the contitution is amended to strip citizens of their constitutional rights.

Iowanian
04-03-2009, 09:13 AM
Sorry but the whole civil union vs. marriage argument is pretty much splitting hairs. The end result is the same. You say tomato, I say tomato.

Sorry, I don't really give a shit if your opinion differs.

Its not the same thing. period.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 09:13 AM
In one sentence you just minimized the whole black struggle.

Black > Gay?

WTF?

patteeu
04-03-2009, 09:13 AM
For those legislating from the bench people, is it always legislating from the bench any time a court rules a law unconstitutional?

Otherwise, I don't see the logic behind a stance since it's their job.

It's always legislating from the bench when a court suddenly finds something unconstitutional that has been unremarkable under the very same constitution for decades/centuries. Amend the thing through the proper channels if you want to change it.

Prometheus
04-03-2009, 09:14 AM
Iowa ain't California or Massachusetts. Face it folks, it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.

According to activist liberal judges who consistently get spanked by the voters whenever voters are given their voices.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:14 AM
Sorry, I don't really give a shit if your opinion differs.

Its not the same thing. period.

How isn't it? Does it not end up with 2 people being "joined" legally?

Iowanian
04-03-2009, 09:14 AM
Gays already have every single right that a non ghey has at this time.

Straight people can't marry the same sex either. These laws are Special rights....not equal rights.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 09:14 AM
The judicial branch is supposed to interpret the law, today they legislate it. It is the judges who determine how we live, not the people, or the legislators.

Really I don't care much on this one, I left Iowa several years ago, and I'm glad I did.

You don't care, because you know that your complaint has nothing to do with ruling a law unconstutional,since that's the job of the judicial branch.

patteeu
04-03-2009, 09:15 AM
How did they legislate this as opposed to interpreting the equal protection we all get under the Constitution?

When you recognize that this isn't an equal protection issue, you'll be a lot more likely to understand it.

SBK
04-03-2009, 09:15 AM
:spock:

WTF, they have the authority to rule laws unconstitutional. That's not the weakest, that's the strongest. At least until the contitution is amended to strip citizens of their constitutional rights.

It's not a surprise to me that one of our most liberal members thinks the judicial branch is the strongest.

Unelected masters.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 09:16 AM
Gays already have every single right that a non ghey has at this time.

Straight people can't marry the same sex either. These laws are Special rights....not equal rights.

:rolleyes:

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:16 AM
I am sorry..but this is one of the reasons I had to leave the Repub party. Too many Repubs want activist legislation because they are afraid of gay people. They toos the Constitution they love to claim the Left hates, out the window on this whole argument.


And patteeu, there is nothing in the Constitution that says 2 gay people cannot get married under the law. In fact, to say otherwise is discrimination.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 09:16 AM
Don't be stupid.

Because Iowa's judges follow the constitution?

patteeu
04-03-2009, 09:16 AM
So by following the Constitution they violated what framework?

Perhaps you can point out to everyone where in the Constitution it states "marriage" is between 1 man and 1 woman?

Does the constitution state that "marriage" is limited to 2 people? If not, are you going to argue for the "equal protection" of group marriages?

Prometheus
04-03-2009, 09:16 AM
Well, now Prop 8 just needs some overturning.

Seriously, this is no different than the Civil Rights movement of the '60s. People don't learn from history.

Homosexuality is not the same as race and gender. The Supreme Court has, thus far, refused to make that equivocation. Until that changes you are just singing in the rain. Don't hold your breath.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:17 AM
Gays already have every single right that a non ghey has at this time.

Straight people can't marry the same sex either. These laws are Special rights....not equal rights.

No they do not.

Iowanian
04-03-2009, 09:17 AM
...and Irishgayhawk comes over the top with an astounding argument.

I guess there is no reason a man shouldn't be able to have 2-4-6-8-10 wives now either....

patteeu
04-03-2009, 09:17 AM
Wow, how quickly they put on the "I is dum" hat.

I'll assume this is a retreat.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 09:17 AM
It's always legislating from the bench when a court suddenly finds something unconstitutional that has been unremarkable under the very same constitution for decades/centuries. Amend the thing through the proper channels if you want to change it.

That's stupid.

They ruled on a law banning gay marriage when it was brought to them on appeal.

That's exactly how the process works.

My god, why are the facts of the matter so irrelevant to this discussion.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:18 AM
Does the constitution state that "marriage" is limited to 2 people? If not, are you going to argue for the "equal protection" of group marriages?

No it doesn't. That was actually a tradition instituted by the church way back when.

You re hurting your own argument.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 09:18 AM
Homosexuality is not the same as race and gender. The Supreme Court has, thus far, refused to make that equivocation. Until that changes you are just singing in the rain. Don't hold your breath.

Correct. It doesn't, however, make me any less right or the court any less wrong.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 09:18 AM
Gays already have every single right that a non ghey has at this time.

Straight people can't marry the same sex either. These laws are Special rights....not equal rights.

Yes they, can. See opening post.

SBK
04-03-2009, 09:18 AM
So you're admitting to picking and choosing.

No. I'm saying that without activist judges gay marriage goes nowhere.

In this country we're given certain inalienable rights, from our creator, among them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Somehow judges have found that the right to life isn't in fact a right to life, and that a dude marrying another dude is in the constitution. LMAO

If the state votes on it and alters the law accordingly, so be it, but when it's legislated from the branch of government that isn't in the legislation business....

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:18 AM
I'll assume this is a retreat.

Well, you make an ass out of yourself with the best of them. Damn that Constitution.

Iowanian
04-03-2009, 09:19 AM
Here come the dog lovers......Fred's been such a loyal dog, he licks my face, eats food from my mouth, sleeps in my bed....we's gettin' married too!

Prometheus
04-03-2009, 09:19 AM
...and Irishgayhawk comes over the top with an astounding argument.

I guess there is no reason a man shouldn't be able to have 2-4-6-8-10 wives now either....


Write it down. If this shit ever survives....that will be the next logical step. Period.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 09:19 AM
...and Irishgayhawk comes over the top with an astounding argument.

I guess there is no reason a man shouldn't be able to have 2-4-6-8-10 wives now either....

I know why you are arguing the way you are. I linked a video to what makes sense to me.

But your arguments hardly hold water and are a breadth above super-semantics.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:20 AM
...and Irishgayhawk comes over the top with an astounding argument.

I guess there is no reason a man shouldn't be able to have 2-4-6-8-10 wives now either....

Um, in a country that is supposed to be free, if that is how people choose to live their life, they should. It is none of your business if that is what they choose to do.

Iowanian
04-03-2009, 09:20 AM
well, I know she's 13....but 45 year old men used to marry 13 year old's all the time, and she'll tell you its love and she wants to get married too! Who are you people to say its not true and shouldn't be legal!!! YAAAAAAAAAR!

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:20 AM
This is when the Right pisses on that whole Freedom of Religion crap and want to shove a Christian philosophy down everyone's throat.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 09:21 AM
It's not a surprise to me that one of our most liberal members thinks the judicial branch is the strongest.

Unelected masters.

If by liberal you mean pays any attention to the flowchart of the constitution up to the point of amendment.

That you hate that flow doesn't change the facts of the matter.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 09:21 AM
No. I'm saying that without activist judges gay marriage goes nowhere.

In this country we're given certain inalienable rights, from our creator, among them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Somehow judges have found that the right to life isn't in fact a right to life, and that a dude marrying another dude is in the constitution. LMAO

If the state votes on it and alters the law accordingly, so be it, but when it's legislated from the branch of government that isn't in the legislation business....

Umm, what?

Iowanian
04-03-2009, 09:21 AM
You don't care about freedom...you won't even let your neighbor use a yard light without throwing a shit fit, and won't talk to him because you're afraid of him because he's black.


Um, in a country that is supposed to be free, if that is how people choose to live their life, they should. It is none of your business if that is what they choose to do.

patteeu
04-03-2009, 09:22 AM
I'll grant you that. The underpinnings (equality) still remain the same.

Where does your concept of equality stop and why? Is it unconstitutional to limit marriages to two people? Is it unconstitutional to limit marriages to people over a certain age?

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:22 AM
Here come the dog lovers......Fred's been such a loyal dog, he licks my face, eats food from my mouth, sleeps in my bed....we's gettin' married too!

Yes, and now the Bill O'Reilly tactic of running to extremes to force Christian philospohy down our throats.

Chief Faithful
04-03-2009, 09:22 AM
:spock: What? How so?

I'm surprised you are not aware of the concern many blacks have of the gay movement hijacking the Civil Rights movement. If you google the subject you will find no lack of discussion.

Here is a link to one I found with very little effort.

http://www.caglepost.com/column/Dennis+Prager/8606/Is+Gay+The+New+Black.html

This was first brought to may attention by a close black friend years ago. He was very indignant of gay's hijacking what he considered to be a movement of the black struggle.

From here you can do your own research.

SBK
04-03-2009, 09:22 AM
If by liberal you mean pays any attention to the flowchart of the constitution up to the point of amendment.

That you hate that flow doesn't change the facts of the matter.

Being liberal isn't a dirty word, you should embrace it. Don't belittle yourself by dancing around it.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:23 AM
You don't care about freedom...you won't even let your neighbor use a yard light without throwing a shit fit, and won't talk to him because you're afraid of him because he's black.

See there you go again telling lies. I did talk to him. Yes, he is black. And yes, I was free to bitch about it. He was also free not to turn it off.


This argument is irrelevant and you are just pissed cause you have no basis to your rant other than your own selfish opinion of the law.

Iowanian
04-03-2009, 09:24 AM
Yes, and now the Bill O'Reilly tactic of running to extremes to force Christian philospohy down our throats.


Ironic that I've not used any of those arguments and haven't seen anyone else to this point, except you....twice. Your cross must be a heavy one.

I'm sure being as full of shit as you are is a burden and probably does cause some gastrointestinal discomfort.

SBK
04-03-2009, 09:24 AM
Yes, and now the Bill O'Reilly tactic of running to extremes to force Christian philospohy down our throats.

Nobody here has forced Christian philosophy down your throat in this thread.

Somehow disagreeing with a judge means cramming religion down your throat?

Jenson71
04-03-2009, 09:24 AM
I wonder if there will be a constitutional amendment. I don't think the majority of Iowans are for gay marriage, but I could be wrong.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 09:25 AM
Being liberal isn't a dirty word, you should embrace it. Don't belittle yourself by dancing around it.

I'm taking on the merits of your point. You are dancing around the merits because you lose when you deal facts of the matter.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:25 AM
Nobody here has forced Christian philosophy down your throat in this thread.

Somehow disagreeing with a judge means cramming religion down your throat?

Um yea based on the argument. There is no legal reason as to why 2 gay people should not get married. It is all religous intolerance and people just being plain old scared of gay people.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 09:25 AM
Where does your concept of equality stop and why? Is it unconstitutional to limit marriages to two people? Is it unconstitutional to limit marriages to people over a certain age?

Good question.

If I say yes, the concept's line is as arbitrary as Iowanian's. If I say no, it opens a can of worms that might not be stopped - legally.

My opinion is that if it isn't hurting someone, it should be allowed. Of course, then there's the definition of "hurt".

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:26 AM
I wonder if there will be a constitutional amendment. I don't think the majority of Iowans are for gay marriage, but I could be wrong.

Actually Bush tried to go that route and the majority of the country said to leave the Constitution alone.

Iowanian
04-03-2009, 09:26 AM
And you were going to call the police, and whined about it relentlessly here

Its relevant because you only give a shit about rights that you believe to be the good ones.


See there you go again telling lies. I did talk to him. Yes, he is black. And yes, I was free to bitch about it. He was also free not to turn it off.


This argument is irrelevant and you are just pissed cause you have no basis to your rant other than your own selfish opinion of the law.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:26 AM
And you were going to call the police, and whined about it relentlessly here

Its relevant because you only give a shit about rights that you believe to be the good ones.

Ah, and you are scared of gay people. And for the record tool, he was in violation of the law. Something gay people are not.


Nie try though.

Iowanian
04-03-2009, 09:26 AM
Legislators, elected by the people and not appointed....are working on a solution to this right now.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 09:27 AM
I wonder if there will be a constitutional amendment. I don't think the majority of Iowans are for gay marriage, but I could be wrong.

You are right. There will be a push for an amendment. Bet the farm on it.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 09:27 AM
Nobody here has forced Christian philosophy down your throat in this thread.

Somehow disagreeing with a judge means cramming religion down your throat?

Amending the constitution to satisify your religion could though.

Iowanian
04-03-2009, 09:28 AM
Ah, and you are scared of gay people.

No.
(nice edit, doooosher)

I think its nasty that some people poop on each other for sport, but it doesn't make me afraid of it. I'm a turdophob!!!!

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 09:28 AM
I'm surprised you are not aware of the concern many blacks have of the gay movement hijacking the Civil Rights movement. If you google the subject you will find no lack of discussion.

Here is a link to one I found with very little effort.

http://www.caglepost.com/column/Dennis+Prager/8606/Is+Gay+The+New+Black.html

This was first brought to may attention by a close black friend years ago. He was very indignant of gay's hijacking what he considered to be a movement of the black struggle.

From here you can do your own research.

Just because black people may view it as hijacking doesn't mean the comparison is any less right. It's simply them keeping their monumental movement intact. I can empathize with that.

However, the underpinnings are the same. And I don't think any gay would say they are trying to take away from their own Civil Right's movement. Rather, they're just trying to get one of their own.

patteeu
04-03-2009, 09:29 AM
No it doesn't. That was actually a tradition instituted by the church way back when.

You re hurting your own argument.

Since it doesn't, does that mean that you believe it would be unconstitutional to discriminate against people who want to have a 3 way marriage or an even larger group marriage?

BTW, you're opinion about my argument is about as meaningful to me as my dog's tax planning ideas.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 09:29 AM
Legislators, elected by the people and not appointed....are working on a solution to this right now.

That's how the process is designed.

SBK
04-03-2009, 09:29 AM
Um yea based on the argument. There is no legal reason as to why 2 gay people should not get married. It is all religous intolerance and people just being plain old scared of gay people.

Have you read this thread? The only one who brought up "moral" disagreement mentioned it in the end of his post and didn't elaborate.

The argument here has been on how the judicial branch has overstepped it's bounds. A few of us have said if you want to change the law go through the proper channels.

The issue isn't fear of gays, it isn't religious intolerance, the issue is the government overstepping it's bounds.

Many of us here have a very strong moral disagreement with gay marriage, I am one of them, but my problem here isn't moral. My problem lies with the court and it's overstepping of it's bounds. They don't legislate, which is exactly what they've done here.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:29 AM
No.


I think its nasty that some people poop on each other for sport, but it doesn't make me afraid of it. I'm a turdophob!!!!

You are the epitome of a homophobe

SBK
04-03-2009, 09:29 AM
That's how the process is designed.

Then why are we talking about a judge?

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 09:30 AM
You are right. There will be a push for an amendment. Bet the farm on it.

I wonder though. I mean look at abortion. Every time there's an amendment or proposition up for banning it, it gets shot down every time. I wonder if this could be another one of those deals.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:30 AM
Have you read this thread? The only one who brought up "moral" disagreement mentioned it in the end of his post and didn't elaborate.

The argument here has been on how the judicial branch has overstepped it's bounds. A few of us have said if you want to change the law go through the proper channels.

The issue isn't fear of gays, it isn't religious intolerance, the issue is the government overstepping it's bounds.

Many of us here have a very strong moral disagreement with gay marriage, I am one of them, but my problem here isn't moral. My problem lies with the court and it's overstepping of it's bounds. They don't legislate, which is exactly what they've done here.


But they didn't overstep their bounds. That is just it. The Constitution says we are all equal under the law. Nothing was overstepped. That is just your argument cause you do not like their verdict.

SBK
04-03-2009, 09:31 AM
Amending the constitution to satisify your religion could though.

You're unreal. A Dave Lanesque hatred of religion bends your vision.

Jenson71
04-03-2009, 09:31 AM
I wonder though. I mean look at abortion. Every time there's an amendment or proposition up for banning it, it gets shot down every time. I wonder if this could be another one of those deals.

I think in Iowa, it's just a majority referendum to change the Constitution. 51% of the people might make gay marriage unconstitutional in the state by simple election.

Does anyone know for sure?

SBK
04-03-2009, 09:32 AM
But they didn't overstep their bounds. That is just it. The Constitution says we are all equal under the law. Nothing was overstepped. That is just your argument cause you do not like their verdict.

This isn't an equal rights issue.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 09:32 AM
Have you read this thread? The only one who brought up "moral" disagreement mentioned it in the end of his post and didn't elaborate.

The argument here has been on how the judicial branch has overstepped it's bounds. A few of us have said if you want to change the law go through the proper channels.

The issue isn't fear of gays, it isn't religious intolerance, the issue is the government overstepping it's bounds.

Many of us here have a very strong moral disagreement with gay marriage, I am one of them, but my problem here isn't moral. My problem lies with the court and it's overstepping of it's bounds. They don't legislate, which is exactly what they've done here.

So they legislated it by ruling it unconstitutional, which is their entire job?


Have some people missed basic government or something? Checks and Balances?

patteeu
04-03-2009, 09:32 AM
Yes they, can. See opening post.

Speaking of which, one of my rare FYPs:

Iowa ain't California or Massachusetts. Face it folks, activist judges with no respect for constitutional principles or the separation of powers aren't just coastal phenomena anymore.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:32 AM
Since it doesn't, does that mean that you believe it would be unconstitutional to discriminate against people who want to have a 3 way marriage or an even larger group marriage?

BTW, you're opinion about my argument is about as meaningful to me as my dog's tax planning ideas.

Right, is is not meanigless you just asked me for my opinion.

If 3 people want to get married then let them. That is their choice. That is how they choose to live their life. They are not hurting you. They are not forcing you to do it. They are not infringing upon you in anyway.

Glad to see the Republicrats like you wanting to enforce their way of life on everyone.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:33 AM
This isn't an equal rights issue.

Yes it is.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 09:33 AM
I wonder though. I mean look at abortion. Every time there's an amendment or proposition up for banning it, it gets shot down every time. I wonder if this could be another one of those deals.

The difference on this though is that every time there's an amendment or proposition to ban this....it wins. Even in California. Heh. That's an important if inconvenient, for you, distinction.

:)

SBK
04-03-2009, 09:33 AM
So they legislated it by ruling it unconstitutional, which is their entire job?


Have some people missed basic government or something? Checks and Balances?

No, the problem is many people haven't seen that the judicial branch has overstepped their bounds for decades.

patteeu
04-03-2009, 09:34 AM
Well, you make an ass out of yourself with the best of them. Damn that Constitution.

LOL, I'm defending the constitution even though I don't agree with the result on this one. The same can't be said about you or most others on your side here.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 09:34 AM
Yes it is.


In your opinion.

Your opinion is not law of the land....fortunately. At least not yet. :)

jAZ
04-03-2009, 09:36 AM
Then why are we talking about a judge?

We aren't. We are talking about how the law they passed was unconstitutional, and you were bitching about how the unanimous determination by the Iowa supreme court that a law is unconstitutional is someone a violation of their authority and how amazingly ignorant or dishonest that bitching is.

Oh, and that the next step in the constutional process is to change the document to take away the rights of citizens because that's what yucky and religion factors determine must be done.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:36 AM
In your opinion.

Your opinion is not law of the land....fortunately. At least not yet. :)

And opinion is the only reason people don't want gays to get married.

Why are you afraid of gay people being married? Are you that fucking insecure that you feel it would lessen your worth or existence somehow?

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 09:36 AM
The difference on this though is that every time there's an amendment or proposition to ban this....it wins. Even in California. Heh. That's an important if inconvenient, for you, distinction.

:)

Good point.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:37 AM
LOL, I'm defending the constitution even though I don't agree with the result on this one. The same can't be said about you or most others on your side here.

You are not either. Nice try at the spin there Rush Jr. But blaming me for what you are doing isn't going to fly.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 09:37 AM
You're unreal. A Dave Lanesque hatred of religion bends your vision.

No, there's a "yucky" factor too. See Iowanian.

Chief Faithful
04-03-2009, 09:38 AM
Just because black people may view it as hijacking doesn't mean the comparison is any less right. It's simply them keeping their monumental movement intact. I can empathize with that.

However, the underpinnings are the same. And I don't think any gay would say they are trying to take away from their own Civil Right's movement. Rather, they're just trying to get one of their own.

I thought Prometheus said it right in post 53, "Homosexuality is not the same as race and gender. The Supreme Court has, thus far, refused to make that equivocation."

jAZ
04-03-2009, 09:38 AM
Speaking of which, one of my rare FYPs:

Stick to things you don't fail at. But do come back from time to time to say hi!

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 09:39 AM
I thought Prometheus said it right in post 53, "Homosexuality is not the same as race and gender. The Supreme Court has, thus far, refused to make that equivocation."

And as I said, it doesn't make me any less right or the court any less wrong.

patteeu
04-03-2009, 09:40 AM
Um, in a country that is supposed to be free, if that is how people choose to live their life, they should. It is none of your business if that is what they choose to do.

This isn't a question about how people live their lives. Gay people are already free to live as married couples and like-minded people are free to live in group marriages if they want. What they don't get are all the government bestowed benefits of such arrangements. Freedom isn't freedom to get what you want from everyone else (i.e. government), it's freedom to be left alone by government.

Just as we the people are free to legislate special benefits to people who have kids (dependent deductions from the income tax for example) that people who don't have kids don't get, we're also free to legislate special benefits to people who choose a lifestyle we want to favor (e.g. marriages between a man and a woman) as long as it's not arbitrary discrimination, which it isn't.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 09:40 AM
And opinion is the only reason people don't want gays to get married.

Why are you afraid of gay people being married? Are you that ****ing insecure that you feel it would lessen your worth or existence somehow?

Why are you afraid of polygamists marrying multiple wives? Why are you afraid of mature 12-13 yr olds marrying 30 year olds? Why can't a human's love for their dog or cat....or roomate, become "marriage?" Hell, I'd have benefitted financially if the government would have allowed me to "marry" my roomates back in college and early adult life....

:hmmm:

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 09:42 AM
pat - did you have a follow up to my response to your earlier question in post 80 (or thereabouts)

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:43 AM
This isn't a question about how people live their lives. Gay people are already free to live as married couples and like-minded people are free to live in group marriages if they want. What they don't get are all the government bestowed benefits of such arrangements. Freedom isn't freedom to get what you want from everyone else (i.e. government), it's freedom to be left alone by government.

Just as we the people are free to legislate special benefits to people who have kids (dependent deductions from the income tax for example) that people who don't have kids don't get, we're also free to legislate special benefits to people who choose a lifestyle we want to favor (e.g. marriages between a man and a woman) as long as it's not arbitrary discrimination, which it isn't.

Ah, so they pay taxes but should be treated differently. You fuck your own argument everytime you post.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 09:44 AM
And as I said, it doesn't make me any less right or the court any less wrong.

I'll take the current Supreme Court opinion on the matter over yours, thank you. :D

chris
04-03-2009, 09:44 AM
I am torn on the issue. I am for State's Rights. However, the Constitution states "All are equal under the law..."



The Right, who claim to be such strict Constitutionalists, seem to want to piss on the Constitution when this issue comes about.

so where is the line drawn?

having lived in Utah for 10 years, I've personally seen where polygamy abuses women and children. Should a marriage between a man and multiple women, some the age of 14, be allowed?

going to create a new discussion on this topic.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 09:46 AM
so where is the line drawn?

having lived in Utah for 10 years, I've personally seen where polygamy abuses women and children. Should a marriage between a man and multiple women, some the age of 14, be allowed?

going to create a new discussion on this topic.

Polygamy will be a slam dunk if this crap ever survives in the Supreme Court. No way you can logically or rationally make the case against it, if homosexual marriages are sanctioned.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:46 AM
Why are you afraid of polygamists marrying multiple wives? Why are you afraid of mature 12-13 yr olds marrying 30 year olds? Why can't a human's love for their dog or cat....or roomate, become "marriage?" Hell, I'd have benefitted financially if the government would have allowed me to "marry" my roomates back in college and early adult life....

:hmmm:

Why are you making assumptions? Oh, cause you're an ass. My grandmother got married at 15 and had a great marriage.

Keep running to your extremes with the animals. It just reinforces to point that you are just scared and what to shove your way of life down someone else's throat.

And I have said multiple times already, if 3 people want to gt married, that is their business.

Who the fuck are you to tell someone else they have to live their life the way YOU want them too?

1 spouse is a christian based tradition the early church created. In the earliest of Christianity it was common for 1 man to have many wives.

So STFU and worry about yourself and let others live their life they way they wish as long as it does not hurt you.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 09:47 AM
I'll take the current Supreme Court opinion on the matter over yours, thank you. :D

Until they get it right. :p

jAZ
04-03-2009, 09:47 AM
This isn't a question about how people live their lives. Gay people are already free to live as married couples and like-minded people are free to live in group marriages if they want. What they don't get are all the government bestowed benefits of such arrangements. Freedom isn't freedom to get what you want from everyone else (i.e. government), it's freedom to be left alone by government.

Just as we the people are free to legislate special benefits to people who have kids (dependent deductions from the income tax for example) that people who don't have kids don't get, we're also free to legislate special benefits to people who choose a lifestyle we want to favor (e.g. marriages between a man and a woman) as long as it's not arbitrary discrimination, which it isn't.

That's about as honest (if unflattering) an assessment as I have heard anyone make. Throw in an admission of "yucky factor" and "bible driven" and we have the makings of a pretty open dialogue!

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:48 AM
so where is the line drawn?

having lived in Utah for 10 years, I've personally seen where polygamy abuses women and children. Should a marriage between a man and multiple women, some the age of 14, be allowed?

going to create a new discussion on this topic.

Dude, it is their choice. The only argument about underage marriage woul dbe that a minor cannot enter into a legal contract.

Other than that I think most of you are blowing smoke.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 09:48 AM
Polygamy will be a slam dunk if this crap ever survives in the Supreme Court. No way you can logically or rationally make the case against it, if homosexual marriages are sanctioned.

There's really no logical or rational explanation against it as it is. It's 100% arbitrary.

Brock
04-03-2009, 09:49 AM
so where is the line drawn?

having lived in Utah for 10 years, I've personally seen where polygamy abuses women and children. Should a marriage between a man and multiple women, some the age of 14, be allowed?

going to create a new discussion on this topic.

Not underage girls. But if people want to be married to multiple people, why should anyone care?

Amnorix
04-03-2009, 09:50 AM
No, the judicial branch should operate within the framework of where they're supposed to. The judicial branch is the weakest branch, or supposed to be--but today they're the strongest.

Right...since they have no police, no guns, no ability to pay for anything other than what their legislature and the executive gives them, and has the fewest people working for them.

BEHOLD -- THEY ARE MIGHTY!

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:51 AM
Basically it comes down to this. The anti-gay marriage crowd wants to shove their way of life down everyone's throat. And they are so insecure in their own heterosexual lifestyle\marriage that they have to start running to things like people molesting animals in attempts to justify their argument.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 09:51 AM
Why are you making assumptions? Oh, cause you're an ass. My grandmother got married at 15 and had a great marriage.

Keep running to your extremes with the animals. It just reinforces to point that you are just scared and what to shove your way of life down someone else's throat.

And I have said multiple times already, if 3 people want to gt married, that is their business.

Who the **** are you to tell someone else they have to live their life the way YOU want them too?

1 spouse is a christian based tradition the early church created. In the earliest of Christianity it was common for 1 man to have many wives.

So STFU and worry about yourself and let others live their life they way they wish as long as it does not hurt you.

Thanks for clearing that up. If there was any doubt that you're entirely fugged in the head, this clears it up. Thanks for that. FWIW, it doesn't hurt "me"--it diminishes and denigrates society. Way to go!

:thumb:

patteeu
04-03-2009, 09:51 AM
Good question.

If I say yes, the concept's line is as arbitrary as Iowanian's. If I say no, it opens a can of worms that might not be stopped - legally.

My opinion is that if it isn't hurting someone, it should be allowed. Of course, then there's the definition of "hurt".

I recommend that we draw the line at either:

a) protecting certain privileged groups who were clearly in the minds of the people who amended the constitution when the equal protection clause (or any other relevant constitutional provisions) was adopted (e.g. race), and/or

b) prohibiting arbitrary discrimination but allowing the legislature to discriminate against non-privileged groups if there is an arguable purpose that reasonable people could have for such discrimination (even if the judges in question and a substantial group within the population don't find that purpose worthy). For example, in the case of limiting marriage to man+woman, the purpose could be to encourage child bearing and intact families for child rearing even though we can all agree that it's not the most surgical incentive that could be conceived and it may not even be the best or most effective encouragement.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:52 AM
Thanks for clearing that up. If there was any doubt previous to this that your entirely fugged in the head, this clears it up. Thanks for that.

:thumb:

Right, so the facts are obviously not on your side so you choose to attack me personally. I will just take that as confirmation that you are just insecure when it comes to gay people.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 09:54 AM
Not underage girls. But if people want to be married to multiple people, why should anyone care?

Actually the argument that crowd should make is that the government will only aknowledge 1 spouse. But to tell someone they cannot marry multiple people is actually a viotation of their Freedom of Religion. There goes that Constitution getting in the way again.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 09:55 AM
Basically it comes down to this. The anti-gay marriage crowd wants to shove their way of life down everyone's throat...

Wrong. You got it backward. It's the gay rights crowd trying to shove their deviancy down the throat of society, by sanctioning their deviancy and making it more "acceptable" than it is already. Currently, it's clearly tolerated....and "accepted," but no....we now must sanction, celebrate, elevate, and declare it as morally equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

Give us a fuggin' break. :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 09:56 AM
Right, so the facts are obviously not on your side so you choose to attack me personally. I will just take that as confirmation that you are just insecure when it comes to gay people.

Take it however you want; even up the azz if that's your pleasure. Just don't expect the government or society to sanction your fetish, dickbreath.

patteeu
04-03-2009, 09:57 AM
Right, is is not meanigless you just asked me for my opinion.

If 3 people want to get married then let them. That is their choice. That is how they choose to live their life. They are not hurting you. They are not forcing you to do it. They are not infringing upon you in anyway.

Glad to see the Republicrats like you wanting to enforce their way of life on everyone.

And I presume that these 3 people will all get full survivors benefits from SS, and all the other government-provided benefits of marriage and that the government will be forced to re-write all of it's divorce laws to contemplate n-person marriages as well, right?

What about marriages between adults and children. No problem there either, right?

patteeu
04-03-2009, 10:01 AM
You are not either. Nice try at the spin there Rush Jr. But blaming me for what you are doing isn't going to fly.

:spock: I'm in favor of gay marriage. Not just civil unions, but full blown gay marriage. So the difference between us is that I'm defending the constitution despite the fact that I don't agree with what I see as the constitutional result whereas your constitutional understanding (if I can call it that) is perverted by your desired outcome.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 10:01 AM
Wrong. You got it backward. It's the gay rights crowd trying to shove their deviancy down the throat of society, by sanctioning their deviancy and making it more "acceptable" than it is already. Currently, it's clearly tolerated....and "accepted," but no....we now must sanction, celebrate, elevate, and declare it as morally equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

Give us a fuggin' break. :rolleyes:

Right...it is all their fault for wanting to be able to marry the person they love.:rolleyes:

patteeu
04-03-2009, 10:03 AM
pat - did you have a follow up to my response to your earlier question in post 80 (or thereabouts)

Sorry, about the slow response, see post 133.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 10:03 AM
And I presume that these 3 people will all get full survivors benefits from SS, and all the other government-provided benefits of marriage and that the government will be forced to re-write all of it's divorce laws to contemplate n-person marriages as well, right?

What about marriages between adults and children. No problem there either, right?

Why would you presume that? There is nothing to prevent the Gov from saying they will only aknowledge 1 spouse. But to tell people they cannot have multiple spouses bordes if not crosses the like of Freedom of Religion.


And again minors cannot enter into a contract legally. JFC, I have said this shit lik 5 times. You people and your running to extremems is fucking amazing.

Better not create any more cars cause someone might die in a wreck. More risk of that than people being hurt by a married gay couple.

patteeu
04-03-2009, 10:04 AM
Ah, so they pay taxes but should be treated differently. You **** your own argument everytime you post.

My dog wants me to buy him a huge doghouse on credit and claim a mortgage interest deduction on it.

Chief Henry
04-03-2009, 10:05 AM
Wrong. You got it backward. It's the gay rights crowd trying to shove their deviancy down the throat of society, by sanctioning their deviancy and making it more "acceptable" than it is already. Currently, it's clearly tolerated....and "accepted," but no....we now must sanction, celebrate, elevate, and declare it as morally equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

Give us a fuggin' break. :rolleyes:



this

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 10:05 AM
Right...it is all their fault for wanting to be able to marry the person they love.:rolleyes:

They can be with whoever the hell they want, and do whatever the hell they want in the privacy of their homes.

Why are they entitled to the incentives/benefits of marriage....?

As patty said: it's not about equal rights....it's all about special rights. Another bullshit special interest group seeking the teet of Mama Government. Please.

vailpass
04-03-2009, 10:06 AM
A constituional ammendment banning gay marriage voted on by the people will reverse the Iowa judges ruling and this will be a non-issue.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 10:06 AM
Take it however you want; even up the azz if that's your pleasure. Just don't expect the government or society to sanction your fetish, dickbreath.

Ah, more with the name calling. I cannot help it if you are a homophobe. I am secure enough in my heterosexuality and my marriage to my wife that 2 gay people being married would not effect us 1 iota.


Obviously you feel threatened. Perhaps if you call me more names you will feel more secure?

patteeu
04-03-2009, 10:06 AM
That's about as honest (if unflattering) an assessment as I have heard anyone make. Throw in an admission of "yucky factor" and "bible driven" and we have the makings of a pretty open dialogue!

Why would I? I'm not a believer and I'm as pro-gay as you can get without being willing to trash the constitution.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 10:07 AM
A constituional ammendment banning gay marriage voted on by the people will reverse the Iowa judges ruling and this will be a non-issue.

Except Bush tried to go that route and even in the Repub controlled Congress it would not fly. The majority of Americans do not want the Constitution fucked with.


Perhaps you all missed that.

Brock
04-03-2009, 10:08 AM
Except Bush tried to go that route and even in the Repub controlled Congress it would not fly. The majority of Americans do not want the Constitution ****ed with.


Perhaps you all missed that.

The state constitution, not the federal one.

patteeu
04-03-2009, 10:09 AM
Dude, it is their choice. The only argument about underage marriage woul dbe that a minor cannot enter into a legal contract.

Other than that I think most of you are blowing smoke.

This is a circular argument. Clearly such a prohibition should be unconstitutional discrimination against young people in the petegz28 school of constitutional jurisprudence.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 10:11 AM
so where is the line drawn?

having lived in Utah for 10 years, I've personally seen where polygamy abuses women and children. Should a marriage between a man and multiple women, some the age of 14, be allowed?

going to create a new discussion on this topic.
Spousal abuse and child abuse happens with or without polygamy. And polygamy happens with or without a civil union.

This makes no sense.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 10:12 AM
Why would I? I'm not a believer and I'm as pro-gay as you can get without being willing to trash the constitution.

It's the other way around. In Iowa, they are preparing to trash the constitution in order to ban gay marriage.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 10:12 AM
Ah, more with the name calling. I cannot help it if you are a homophobe. I am secure enough in my heterosexuality and my marriage to my wife that 2 gay people being married would not effect us 1 iota.


Obviously you feel threatened. Perhaps if you call me more names you will feel more secure?


Yeah, I fear for my life every day. Oh, no....that bull dyke/limp wrist really "scares" me. Oh me, oh my!

You sensitivity to lockerroom banter is a pretty good indicator you likely got your scrawny ass kicked around locker rooms of the past though. Heh.

Probably a target of the ole Ben Gay in his jock ritual.....heh.

LMAO

jAZ
04-03-2009, 10:13 AM
A constituional ammendment banning gay marriage voted on by the people will reverse the Iowa judges ruling and this will be a non-issue.

Yep.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 10:14 AM
I recommend that we draw the line at either:

a) protecting certain privileged groups who were clearly in the minds of the people who amended the constitution when the equal protection clause (or any other relevant constitutional provisions) was adopted (e.g. race), and/or

b) prohibiting arbitrary discrimination but allowing the legislature to discriminate against non-privileged groups if there is an arguable purpose that reasonable people could have for such discrimination (even if the judges in question and a substantial group within the population don't find that purpose worthy). For example, in the case of limiting marriage to man+woman, the purpose could be to encourage child bearing and intact families for child rearing even though we can all agree that it's not the most surgical incentive that could be conceived and it may not even be the best or most effective encouragement.

My best attempts to cut the wordiness is thus:

a) rule of the majority
b) rather than rule of the majority, it should be benefits to the majority's view.

They both seem equally as arbitrary.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 10:15 AM
Yeah, I fear for my life every day. Oh, no....that bull dyke/limp wrist really "scares" me. Oh me, oh my!

You sensitivity to lockerroom banter is a pretty good indicator you likely got your scrawny ass kicked around locker rooms of the past though. Heh.

Probably a target of the ole Ben Gay in his jock ritual.....heh.

LMAO

You are such an insecure person, Kotter. I sense some deepseede issues with you. Did you get bullied in the locker room? Did the guys make fun of your tiny weenie?

Or are you just mad cause I am man enough to be secure in my relationship with my wife and my heterosexuality that gay people being married don't threaten me?

I think it is more than obvious who got their ass kicked around in the locker room there, sweetie.

patteeu
04-03-2009, 10:15 AM
Why would you presume that? There is nothing to prevent the Gov from saying they will only aknowledge 1 spouse. But to tell people they cannot have multiple spouses bordes if not crosses the like of Freedom of Religion.


And again minors cannot enter into a contract legally. JFC, I have said this shit lik 5 times. You people and your running to extremems is ****ing amazing.

Better not create any more cars cause someone might die in a wreck. More risk of that than people being hurt by a married gay couple.

Your arguments are unprincipled. You've already taken the position that the constitution prohibits the kinds of discrimination that you're now attempting to apply.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 10:16 AM
This is a circular argument. Clearly such a prohibition should be unconstitutional discrimination against young people in the petegz28 school of constitutional jurisprudence.

K, keep spinning your bullshit, Rush.

oldandslow
04-03-2009, 10:17 AM
Why are you afraid of polygamists marrying multiple wives? Why are you afraid of mature 12-13 yr olds marrying 30 year olds? Why can't a human's love for their dog or cat....or roomate, become "marriage?" Hell, I'd have benefitted financially if the government would have allowed me to "marry" my roomates back in college and early adult life....

:hmmm:

Some difference here on two of your analogies...it's about consent. Children aren't mature enough to consent - dogs can't consent.

You do have an argument with Polygamy, but there are plenty of people (religious and otherwise) who see no problem with it.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 10:17 AM
Your arguments are unprincipled. You've already taken the position that the constitution prohibits the kinds of discrimination that you're now attempting to apply.

Right now I am unpricipled. Got it.

patteeu
04-03-2009, 10:20 AM
It's the other way around. In Iowa, they are preparing to trash the constitution in order to ban gay marriage.

It's a topsy turvey world in which amending a constitution is trashing it while changing it's meaning by judicial fiat is not.

patteeu
04-03-2009, 10:21 AM
My best attempts to cut the wordiness is thus:

a) rule of the majority
b) rather than rule of the majority, it should be benefits to the majority's view.

They both seem equally as arbitrary.

I don't understand your post.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 10:22 AM
It's a topsy turvey world in which amending a constitution is trashing it while changing it's meaning by judicial fiat is not.

You really do hate the constitution, don't you?

petegz28
04-03-2009, 10:23 AM
You really do hate the constitution, don't you?

He is having a hard time putting his best Rush Limbaugh spin job on all of this.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 10:24 AM
I don't understand your post.

Sorry, I almost deleted it.

What I was trying to do is cut through the cruft. To me, your alternatives just seem like it boils down to a majority rule/preference or a benefit based on a majority rule/preference. They seem as arbitrary as anything else that's been suggested.

Point A seems - in my understanding - to be arguing that we protect the majority of people's views on marriage, civil rights, etc. Point B seems - in my understanding - to be arguing that we simply allow everything but we provide benefits based on what the majority of the population deems "correct, worthy, etc". An example conflict in this scenario is a gay couple adopting. Does that count as a tax break like it would if a heterosexual couple gave birth to a kid?

patteeu
04-03-2009, 10:25 AM
Some difference here on two of your analogies...it's about consent. Children aren't mature enough to consent - dogs can't consent.

You do have an argument with Polygamy, but there are plenty of people (religious and otherwise) who see no problem with it.

The bolded part is an opinion. Another opinion that one might hold is that society is benefited in the long run if children are born to and raised by pairs of people consisting of one man and one woman. In pursuit of that public good, one might want to extend special benefits to people who are willing to live their lives according to that arrangement (regardless of their sexual preferences, btw).

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 10:28 AM
Some difference here on two of your analogies...it's about consent. Children aren't mature enough to consent - dogs can't consent.

You do have an argument with Polygamy, but there are plenty of people (religious and otherwise) who see no problem with it.

We are each entitled to our opinion. Here's to hoping that the people of Iowa overcome this judicial activism the same way they did in California.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 10:29 AM
We are each entitled to our opinion. Here's to hoping that the people of Iowa overcome this judicial activism the same way they did in California.

Can you please explain why ruling a law unconstitutional is "judicial activism" when it's their job?

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 10:30 AM
You really do hate the constitution, don't you?

You really do hate the Supreme Court for refusing to grant homosexuality the same legal status as gender and race, don't you?

petegz28
04-03-2009, 10:30 AM
Can you please explain why ruling a law unconstitutional is "judicial activism" when it's their job?

Cause he is scared of gay people.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 10:31 AM
He is having a hard time putting his best Rush Limbaugh spin job on all of this.

The entire Iowa Supreme Court agrees it's unconstitutional = "changing it's meaning by judicial fiat" because as my 2 year old say "I don't like that!"

vailpass
04-03-2009, 10:31 AM
Cause he is scared of gay people.

It's this type of canned thinking that causes the gay agenda to be defeated time and again.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 10:32 AM
Can you please explain why ruling a law unconstitutional is "judicial activism" when it's their job?

Because they are TRYING to equate homosexuality with gender and race, relative to equal protection provisions. The Supreme Court has refused to do so, thus far. That makes it an activist decision--contradicting legislation and the prevailing court precedents.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 10:32 AM
It's this type of canned thinking that causes the gay agenda to be defeated time and again.

People are scared of gays. They are so insecure in their own heterosexuality they feel threatened by those who are "different".

jAZ
04-03-2009, 10:33 AM
You really do hate the Supreme Court for refusing to grant homosexuality the same legal status as gender and race, don't you?

That's reality. That's how the process works. I don't make endlessly dishonest claims of "judicial activism" when I don't get my way.

I disagree, look for ways to fix the problem.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 10:33 AM
Cause he is scared of gay people.

You are confusing gay people with stupid people.

Stupid people, like you, scare me; gay people do not. Though I still think you are likely both--and living a lie, IYKWIM. NTTAWWT.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 10:34 AM
You really do hate the Supreme Court for refusing to grant homosexuality the same legal status as gender and race, don't you?

You realize the SC has been wrong before. They didn't view blacks and whites as equal until the 1960s.

If I'm not mistaken, the travesty ruling was Plessy vs Ferguson.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 10:35 AM
Because they are TRYING to equate homosexuality with gender and race, relative to equal protection provisions. The Supreme Court has refused to do so, thus far. That makes it an activist decision--contradicting legislation and the prevailing court precedents.

It seems that by this logic, abortion will never be overturned. Ever. Period. Case closed.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 10:35 AM
That's reality. That's how the process works. I don't make endlessly dishonest claims of "judicial activism" when I don't get my way.

I disagree, look for ways to fix the problem.

Like I said....

Because they are TRYING to equate homosexuality with gender and race, relative to equal protection provisions. The Supreme Court has refused to do so, thus far. That makes it an activist decision--contradicting legislation and the prevailing court precedents.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 10:36 AM
It seems that by this logic, abortion will never be overturned. Ever. Period. Case closed.

Pretty much, since we now have 36 years of pro-abortion rulings. Yep.

|Zach|
04-03-2009, 10:37 AM
gay people do not.

Nobody believes this.

It is no big deal...just own it. None of us are perfect. I often don't spell the word "convenient" right when I type it and you have an overwhelming fear of gay people.

patteeu
04-03-2009, 10:37 AM
Sorry, I almost deleted it.

What I was trying to do is cut through the cruft. To me, your alternatives just seem like it boils down to a majority rule/preference or a benefit based on a majority rule/preference. They seem as arbitrary as anything else that's been suggested.

Point A seems - in my understanding - to be arguing that we protect the majority of people's views on marriage, civil rights, etc. Point B seems - in my understanding - to be arguing that we simply allow everything but we provide benefits based on what the majority of the population deems "correct, worthy, etc". An example conflict in this scenario is a gay couple adopting. Does that count as a tax break like it would if a heterosexual couple gave birth to a kid?

My post was probably unclear and my use of the word "either" was misleading. It was actually a two pronged concept rather than either/or options.

Under my concept, majority rule is followed as long as the majority isn't discriminating on a completely arbitrary basis and as long as they aren't violating a constitutional principle (as it was intended by those who ratified it).

What would count as arbitrary discrimination? Something where there was no arguable link between the characteristic on which the discrimination was based and the public policy goal behind the discrimination. If the goal was public safety, there would be no basis (that I can think of) for banning blondes from being hired as the person who scans luggage at the airport, for example. OTOH, it would be permissible to ban blind people from being hired for that job because they wouldn't be able to see the screen of the scanner in order to do the job.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 10:37 AM
Pretty much, since we now have 36 years of pro-abortion rulings. Yep.

Right, but in addition to that, it seems that if a lower court ruled in favor of banning abortion, you would view this as "judicial activism", correct?

Iowanian
04-03-2009, 10:39 AM
You are the epitome of a homophobe

You're the poster child of a "Doooosher"

oldandslow
04-03-2009, 10:39 AM
The bolded part is an opinion. Another opinion that one might hold is that society is benefited in the long run if children are born to and raised by pairs of people consisting of one man and one woman. In pursuit of that public good, one might want to extend special benefits to people who are willing to live their lives according to that arrangement (regardless of their sexual preferences, btw).

It's not an opinion...Dogs can't verbally consent. Period.

Children cannot either - they simply aren't mature enough.

I don't know why folks have to go to such slippery slope fallacies to make a point. Most of us could use a brush up course in rhetoric and logic.

You against gay marriage. Tell me why. Bestiality isn't part of the disscussion.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 10:39 AM
You realize the SC has been wrong before. They didn't view blacks and whites as equal until the 1960s.

If I'm not mistaken, the travesty ruling was Plessy vs Ferguson.

They've been right much more than they've been wrong historically. The Plessy decision is, I agree, one of the few in which they've been wrong....and, yes, it took an activist Court to "fix" that. It's one of a handful of similar situations you can hang your hat on. This isn't the same. Not even close. Behavior and lifestyles are subject to legal distinctions; clear cut genetics is not. That's why the gay rights lobby works so hard to brainwash us on the genetic angle.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 10:40 AM
My post was probably unclear and my use of the word "either" was misleading. It was actually a two pronged concept rather than either/or options.

Under my concept, majority rule is followed as long as the majority isn't discriminating on a completely arbitrary basis and as long as they aren't violating a constitutional principle (as it was intended by those who ratified it).

What would count as arbitrary discrimination? Something where there was no arguable link between the characteristic on which the discrimination was based and the public policy goal behind the discrimination. If the goal was public safety, there would be no basis (that I can think of) for banning blondes from being hired as the person who scans luggage at the airport, for example. OTOH, it would be permissible to ban blind people from being hired for that job because they wouldn't be able to see the screen of the scanner in order to do the job.

My problem with your concept still stands. The people ratifying the constitution didn't say either way. Moreover, wouldn't they be considered part of a "majority rule" which would, in itself, be arbitrary? (ie just because majority of people want it?

As for the arbitrary discrimination part, I agreed with the whole paragraph and the examples. I cannot, however, find an applicable or equivalent example for this gay marriage situation. Do you have one?

htismaqe
04-03-2009, 10:41 AM
Looks like the bait and switch worked.

While gays and straights are fighting over the hot-button "red herring" the powers-that-be continue their assault on the 1st amendment.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 10:42 AM
...

Children cannot either - they simply aren't mature enough




You forgot to include, IMHO....Terry. :)

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 10:42 AM
They've been right much more than they've been wrong historically. The Plessy decision is, I agree, one of the few in which they've been wrong....and, yes, it took an activist Court to "fix" that. It's one of a handful of similar situations you can hang your hat on. This isn't the same. Not even close. Behavior and lifestyles are subject to legal distinctions; clear cut genetics is not. That's why the gay rights work so hard to brainwash us on the genetic angle.

So, if it is proved being gay is genetic, you will be fine with an instant turn around on the decisions?

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 10:43 AM
Looks like the bait and switch worked.

While gays and straights are fighting over the hot-button "red herring" the powers-that-be continue their assault on the 1st amendment.

I haven't lost sight of the 1st Amendment assault.

vailpass
04-03-2009, 10:43 AM
People are scared of gays. They are so insecure in their own heterosexuality they feel threatened by those who are "different".

More canned thinking.

"If you disagree with my position you must be irrational, ignorant and bigoted."

Nice gateway for a reasoned dialogue.

Amnorix
04-03-2009, 10:44 AM
The whole "what's next, children" argument is pathetic because on that exact same basis you could argue that heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to get married.

The entire argument doesn't work.

htismaqe
04-03-2009, 10:45 AM
I haven't lost sight of the 1st Amendment assault.

Well, get ready, because the churches are the next bastion of this crusade.

The state government is going to force gay marriage on the churches, and the masses are going to rally against the churches in the name of "tolerance" and "inclusion", not realizing that, once again, they're whittling away at the 1st Amendment.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 10:46 AM
Like I said....

It's a ruling based on the Iowa Constitution.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 10:48 AM
The whole "what's next, children" argument is pathetic because on that exact same basis you could argue that heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to get married.

The entire argument doesn't work.

You crushed that one.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 11:10 AM
It's a ruling based on the Iowa Constitution.

If it's it's left to the state's prerogative, that's true. The whole Full Faith and Credit argumentation will put it into the federal courts eventually though.

:)

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 11:12 AM
The whole "what's next, children" argument is pathetic because on that exact same basis you could argue that heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to get married.

The entire argument doesn't work.

NAMBLA will think it does. And Barney Frank will likely be among those, offering his support.

:)

patteeu
04-03-2009, 11:15 AM
It's not an opinion...Dogs can't verbally consent. Period.

Children cannot either - they simply aren't mature enough.

I don't know why folks have to go to such slippery slope fallacies to make a point. Most of us could use a brush up course in rhetoric and logic.

You against gay marriage. Tell me why. Bestiality isn't part of the disscussion.

They're opinions, even if they're opinions that are shared by a vast majority.

Let's start with the stipulation that some form of consent is required to begin with (which is really just another opinion, but we've got to start somewhere) in order to avoid doing some kind of harm.

I can tell the difference between a dog that consents to the idea of being fed a treat and a dog that doesn't really want to come inside the house when I call her. Dogs are capable of some form of consent even if they can't verbalize it. My dog may not be able to marry me and enjoy the government-provided benefits of marriage, but she's stuck with me anyway and she seems to be OK with our arrangement.

More clearly, some 14 year olds are more mature than some 21 year olds and have a better ability to think through their decisions and understand the ramifications. We draw a bright line because it's simple not because it represents actual maturity and an actual ability to consent.

I'm not against gay marriage. I think there are ways to distinguish group marriage, marriage between adults and children, and (especially) marriage between humans and nonhumans from gay marriage, but I think you can distinguish gay marriage from traditional marriage too. Most of the people who argue in favor of judicially created gay marriage base their arguments on the false idea that there are no distinctions. Bringing up these other potential forms of non-traditional marriage is intended to shine light on that fallacy.

Ultra Peanut
04-03-2009, 11:15 AM
golldurn ackivist judges

jAZ
04-03-2009, 11:15 AM
If it's it's left to the state's prerogative, that's true. The whole Full Faith and Credit argumentation will put it into the federal courts eventually though.

:)

And if any of these judges are appointed to the supreme court, their job will be different.

Ultra Peanut
04-03-2009, 11:16 AM
We are each entitled to our opinion. Here's to hoping that the people of Iowa overcome this judicial activism the same way they did in California.

SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

ACTIVISMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMM GOOD

vailpass
04-03-2009, 11:17 AM
SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

ACTIVISMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMM GOOD

Oh boy you knew it was going to show up sooner or later.

Ultra Peanut
04-03-2009, 11:19 AM
Oh boy you knew it was going to show up sooner or later.It was pretty amusing to see you call the residents of a certain area hillbillies in another thread.

patteeu
04-03-2009, 11:22 AM
My problem with your concept still stands. The people ratifying the constitution didn't say either way. Moreover, wouldn't they be considered part of a "majority rule" which would, in itself, be arbitrary? (ie just because majority of people want it?

When the difference between what modern day activists are trying to say the constitution means and what the people at the point of ratification believed is as great as it is on this subject, it's not hard to sort out their beliefs sufficiently. And no, it's not arbitrary majority rule if it was accomplished according to the constitutional amendment process as it's spelled out in the document itself.

As for the arbitrary discrimination part, I agreed with the whole paragraph and the examples. I cannot, however, find an applicable or equivalent example for this gay marriage situation. Do you have one?

Yes. If the legislative goal of our marriage laws is merely to help people find happiness and companionship, then limiting marriage to a man+woman would be arbitrary. If, instead, the legislative goal of our marriage laws is to favor arrangements that a majority believes will increase the birth rate and create better family environments for raising children, then it is at least arguable that subsidizing man+woman relationships over all others is a valid pursuit of that public goal (even if it may not be the absolute best way to pursue it in your mind or in mine).

patteeu
04-03-2009, 11:24 AM
The whole "what's next, children" argument is pathetic because on that exact same basis you could argue that heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to get married.

The entire argument doesn't work.

This is exactly correct. The argument fails from the very beginning when people try to use it to say that if any marriage is endorsed by government, the constitution requires that gay marriage be endorsed too.

vailpass
04-03-2009, 11:24 AM
It was pretty amusing to see you call the residents of a certain area hillbillies in another thread.

Nothing wrong with a hillbilly...

"a Hill-Billie is a free and untrammeled white citizen of Alabama, who lives in the hills, has no means to speak of, dresses as he can, talks as he pleases, drinks whiskey when he gets it, and fires off his revolver as the fancy takes him."

1900 New York Journal

jAZ
04-03-2009, 11:28 AM
Nothing wrong with a hillbilly...

"a Hill-Billie is a free and untrammeled white citizen of Alabama, who lives in the hills, has no means to speak of, dresses as he can, talks as he pleases, drinks whiskey when he gets it, and fires off his revolver as the fancy takes him."

1900 New York Journal
ROFL @ the spin.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 11:33 AM
When the difference between what modern day activists are trying to say the constitution means and what the people at the point of ratification believed is as great as it is on this subject, it's not hard to sort out their beliefs sufficiently. And no, it's not arbitrary majority rule if it was accomplished according to the constitutional amendment process as it's spelled out in the document itself.

I think I may have been misinterpreting you all along. Are you referring to an amendment passed now or the actual ratification of the constitution? In the former, I'd agree with you because the intent is clear and written in the amendment. In the latter, gay marriage was not an issue and therefore not clear with respect to their intentions.



Yes. If the legislative goal of our marriage laws is merely to help people find happiness and companionship, then limiting marriage to a man+woman would be arbitrary. If, instead, the legislative goal of our marriage laws is to favor arrangements that a majority believes will increase the birth rate and create better family environments for raising children, then it is at least arguable that subsidizing man+woman relationships over all others is a valid pursuit of that public goal (even if it may not be the absolute best way to pursue it in your mind or in mine).

Conversely, man+women relationships that don't produce a child are as seemingly worthwhile as a gay marriage - yet they get marriage benefits. What is your counter argument to this seemingly obvious contradiction?

vailpass
04-03-2009, 11:35 AM
ROFL @ the spin.

:D Great quote isn't it?

alnorth
04-03-2009, 11:39 AM
Well, this was certainly a surprise. I'm proud to call myself an Iowan today. Although I'm a Republican and this means nothing to me personally, I've always seen gay marriage as a very clear civil rights issue, every bit as much as racial segregation.

Someday we are going to look back at this era of hysteria, constitutional amendment bans, protests, etc... and laugh.

mlyonsd
04-03-2009, 11:39 AM
This is exactly correct. The argument fails from the very beginning when people try to use it to say that if any marriage is endorsed by government, the constitution requires that gay marriage be endorsed too.

Bam.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 11:45 AM
More canned thinking.

"If you disagree with my position you must be irrational, ignorant and bigoted."

Nice gateway for a reasoned dialogue.

When you provide a rational argument against gay marriage I am more than ready to listen.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 11:48 AM
You are confusing gay people with stupid people.

Stupid people, like you, scare me; gay people do not. Though I still think you are likely both--and living a lie, IYKWIM. NTTAWWT.

Like I said...all you can do is call people names. That pretty much is why your argument is as idiotic as they come and you know it. You hope by casting insults like that you will distract from your being insecure and afraid of gay people.

And I will never be as stupid as you are. So I always have that going for me.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 11:48 AM
And if any of these judges are appointed to the supreme court, their job will be different.

Full Faith and Credit will make this a federal case; and I'll be more interested in whether the Supreme Court will be willing to extend "equal protection" to homosexuals. Guess we will see.

:)

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 11:49 AM
Like I said...all you can do is call people names. That pretty much is why your argument is as idiotic as they come and you know it. You hope by casting insults like that you will distract from your being insecure and afraid of gay people.

And I will never be as stupid as you are. So I always have that going for me.

Keep tellin' yourself that, Skippy: you may even be stupid enough to believe that. :)

jAZ
04-03-2009, 11:52 AM
Full Faith and Credit will make this a federal case; and I'll be more interested in whether the Supreme Court will be willing to extend "equal protection" to homosexuals. Guess we will see.

:)

[/FALSE_JUDICIAL_ACTIVISM_BITCHING]

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 11:58 AM
[/FALSE_JUDICIAL_ACTIVISM_BITCHING]

Pssssstttt...."Full faith and credit" is part of the FEDERAL Constitution, heh.

Maybe you slept through that day in Government class.

;)

Article IV, Section 1. requires states to "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states. It includes "marriage."

Thus, the Supreme Court WILL decide this issue, ultimately.

:)

petegz28
04-03-2009, 12:00 PM
Keep tellin' yourself that, Skippy: you may even be stupid enough to believe that. :)

Skippy? Wow, your just kill me with the lack of originality in your constant stream of insult.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 12:02 PM
Skippy? Wow, your just kill me with the lack of originality in your constant stream of insult.

Skippy is a nice name, IMHO. :shrug:

I only whip out the heavy artillery when it's required.... ;)

petegz28
04-03-2009, 12:04 PM
Skippy is a nice name, IMHO. :shrug:

I only whip out the heavy artillery when it's required.... ;)

Yes, we all know about you whipping your artillery.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 12:11 PM
Pssssstttt...."Full faith and credit" is part of the FEDERAL Constitution, heh.

Maybe you slept through that day in Government class.

;)

Article IV, Section 1. requires states to "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states. It includes "marriage."

Thus, the Supreme Court WILL decide this issue, ultimately.

:)

This non-activism was based on the Iowa Constitution.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 12:23 PM
This non-activism was based on the Iowa Constitution.
Doesn't matter. Full-faith-and-credit MAKES this a federal issue...much to the chagrin of liberals.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 12:28 PM
SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

ACTIVISMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMM GOOD


Full-Faith-and-Credit....Article lV, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution... one makes gay "marriage" a federal issue, whether it's convenient for gay rights folks or not. Get used to it.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 12:36 PM
Doesn't matter. Full-faith-and-credit MAKES this a federal issue...much to the chagrin of liberals.

You are having a different conversation than the rest of us. In the discussion you want to have, you and I agree that this case will be likley reviewed by the USSC.

That has nothing to do with the existing ruling, based on the existing Iowa Constitution. The claims that this ruling today is a case of judicial activism are completely baseless.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 12:43 PM
You are having a different conversation than the rest of us. In the discussion you want to have, you and I agree that this case will be likley reviewed by the USSC.

That has nothing to do with the existing ruling, based on the existing Iowa Constitution. The claims that this ruling today is a case of judicial activism are completely baseless.

The "existing ruling" will eventually be irrelevant....because the issue, as you admit, will be decided in federal courts, not state courts. This is the gay rights activists way of expediting and forcing the issue. That's all.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 12:56 PM
The "existing ruling" will eventually be irrelevant....because the issue, as you admit, will be decided in federal courts, not state courts. This is the gay rights activists way of expediting and forcing the issue. That's all.

It's really strange how you are clinging to your non-sequitor (however accurate it is) to prevent from acknowledging the false nature of the claims of judicial activism in this case.

Bowser
04-03-2009, 01:05 PM
It amuses me to watch people get all fired up over this issue, not wanting to accept the fact that gay marriage will be the norm in this country sooner rather than later, and that it won't negatively affect them one single bit in the long run.

Mecca
04-03-2009, 01:08 PM
It amuses me to watch people get all fired up over this issue, not wanting to accept the fact that gay marriage will be the norm in this country sooner rather than later, and that it won't negatively affect them one single bit in the long run.

There is alot of fear of gay people going on....it's funny cause you know they're people just like anyone else.

Bowser
04-03-2009, 01:15 PM
There is alot of fear of gay people going on....it's funny cause you know they're people just like anyone else.

NO NO NO THEY ARE DEVIANTS WHO CHOOSE TO BE THAT WAY!!

Too bad the internet wasn't around way back when women were given equal rights. Would have loved to look in on some of those conversations.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 01:15 PM
There is alot of fear of gay people going on....it's funny cause you know they're people just like anyone else.

But, but, but... they are God's Gateway People to legalizing child rape, don't you know?!!!!

jAZ
04-03-2009, 01:16 PM
NO NO NO THEY ARE DEVIANTS WHO CHOOSE TO BE THAT WAY!!

Too bad the internet wasn't around way back when women were given equal rights. Would have loved to look in on some of those conversations.

Exact same process, including all of the cries of "judicial activism!!"

Mecca
04-03-2009, 01:19 PM
I just personally find it ridiculous to see people flip out that the gay population be given the same right to do something everyone else can, I thought that you know should just happen.

I wonder if we had the net back years ago we'd see people going nuts about black people being given equal rights or women..

But honestly it shouldn't be surprising we're a country founded on a double standard...we were founded by slave owners who wanted to be free. Who then wrote "all men are created equal" when in reality that meant white men and no one else.

Garcia Bronco
04-03-2009, 01:21 PM
Are you okay with doing away with a legal definition of "marriage" and just calling it civil unions? Leaving marriage to the churches?

I would.

Pitt Gorilla
04-03-2009, 01:21 PM
No, the judicial branch should operate within the framework of where they're supposed to. The judicial branch is the weakest branch, or supposed to be--but today they're the strongest.It seems fairly clear that you don't know what the judicial branch does.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 01:28 PM
It's really strange how you are clinging to your non-sequitor (however accurate it is) to prevent from acknowledging the false nature of the claims of judicial activism in this case.

If I've made judicial activist claim for THIS particular decision....I stand corrected. When I discuss it, I mean generally....especially when federal courts are making these sorts of decisions. You happy?

jAZ
04-03-2009, 01:32 PM
If I've made judicial activist claim for THIS particular decision....I stand corrected. When I discuss it, I mean generally....especially when federal courts are making these sorts of decisions. You happy?

Perfectly happy. Now if you could get your fellow outraged to do similar. :D

htismaqe
04-03-2009, 01:42 PM
I would.

I would too, provided the separation is maintained. Would that be good enough for some, though? Or would it always be "unequal" unless it encompasses EVERYTHING?

Bowser
04-03-2009, 01:49 PM
I would too, provided the separation is maintained. Would that be good enough for some, though? Or would it always be "unequal" unless it encompasses EVERYTHING?

No it wouldn't, because if there is one constant relating to human beings, it's that you can't make us all happy all the time at the same time.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 01:54 PM
No it wouldn't, because if there is one constant relating to human beings, it's that you can't make us all happy all the time at the same time.

Yup, domestic partnerships and civil unions aren't good enough....we must hijack and pervert what should be/should have stayed a religious ceremony. And it's marriage is man and woman crowd that's unreasonable, right?

patteeu
04-03-2009, 02:00 PM
Can you please explain why ruling a law unconstitutional is "judicial activism" when it's their job?

It's only activism when the law is really constitutional.

htismaqe
04-03-2009, 02:01 PM
No it wouldn't, because if there is one constant relating to human beings, it's that you can't make us all happy all the time at the same time.

That was my point.

The "tolerance" crowd doesn't seem to want to relent until everybody agrees with them. Which by definition is intolerance.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 02:01 PM
Yup, domestic partnerships and civil unions aren't good enough....we must hijack and pervert what should be/should have stayed a religious ceremony. And it's marriage is man and woman crowd that's unreasonable, right?

You do realize that early Christianity condoned 1 man with many wives, or do you not?

petegz28
04-03-2009, 02:05 PM
Yup, domestic partnerships and civil unions aren't good enough....we must hijack and pervert what should be/should have stayed a religious ceremony. And it's marriage is man and woman crowd that's unreasonable, right?



Just so you are clear since your rant on gay marriage seeps acrosss into Polygamy...
This is just from the Old Testament but the link goes on to discuss it in the New Testament as well...



Let us look at some of the verses from the Old Testament that allow polygamy:

In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.

In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.

In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.

In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."

There are a lot more verses from the Old Testament that allow polygamy, but I think that the above are sufficient enough to prove my point.



http://www.quransearch.com/ntpoly.htm

SBK
04-03-2009, 02:08 PM
You do realize that early Christianity condoned 1 man with many wives, or do you not?

Christianity would be post Jesus, which is long after what you're talking about.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 02:09 PM
Christianity would be post Jesus, which is long after what you're talking about.

Um, I said the link also contains proof from the New Testament. READ!

Secondly, does not the Bible Christians read from contain the Old Testament? Is it not of the same God?

petegz28
04-03-2009, 02:10 PM
Christianity would be post Jesus, which is long after what you're talking about.

Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

patteeu
04-03-2009, 02:11 PM
I think I may have been misinterpreting you all along. Are you referring to an amendment passed now or the actual ratification of the constitution? In the former, I'd agree with you because the intent is clear and written in the amendment. In the latter, gay marriage was not an issue and therefore not clear with respect to their intentions.

No, I don't think you misinterpreted me. When I said ratify I was talking about the entire constitution both the original parts and the amended parts (which were, of course, ratified at different times). I don't think it's hard to understand their pov on this. Afterall, homosexuality and gay people living together as partners are not new, but there was no concept of gay marriage endorsed by government at the time. If the people ratifying the relevant portions of the constitution intended for it to cover gay marriage, you'd think that someone would have noticed the complete absence of gay marriage and lifted a finger or two to do something about it.

Conversely, man+women relationships that don't produce a child are as seemingly worthwhile as a gay marriage - yet they get marriage benefits. What is your counter argument to this seemingly obvious contradiction?

Public policy doesn't have to be perfect and it doesn't even have to be demonstrably the best of the options available. The legislature is where we sort these things out and if, in their opinion, marriage laws serve the public interest in supporting child-producing families even though not every marriage results in a child-producing family, it's not a judge's place to substitute his own opinion on the matter. The legislature might choose to endorse all man+woman marriages as a simple, less costly, less intrusive approximation rather than trying to sort out which man+woman families will produce children and which will not. They do this all the time. For example, the standard deduction provision of the income tax is available to people who have deductions which could otherwise be itemized and those who don't.

htismaqe
04-03-2009, 02:11 PM
Secondly, does not the Bible Christians read from contain the Old Testament? Is it not of the same God?

The Old Testament is a prologue. The guiding principles of the New Testament supercede the Old Testament. The Old Testament is there for background information only.

Very few people, especially a good majority of Christians, understand that.