Iowa approves same sex marriage

[Procrustes Stretched]

DES MOINES, Iowa -- The Iowa Supreme Court announced its ruling in a landmark same-sex marriage case Friday morning.
The court's written ruling was to be issued on the Iowa Supreme Court's Web site, but traffic to the site crashed the server and took down the Web site.
The court ruled in favor of six same-sex couples who sought to get marriage licenses, but were denied. The ruling means same-sex couples in Iowa can now get married under state law.


BREAKING NEWS: Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage OK - Des Moines News Story - KCCI Des Moines

It's the end of the world as we know it.

 

[Gunny]

Well here's a question. Term limits were put in place by constitutional amendment against the will of the majority. "We" never voted on it. Should that be overturned?

What term limits were put in place by Constitutional amendment? What evidence supports it was against the will of the majority?

We never vote on everything and never have. That is why it's called a representative republic. The legislators we elect by majority vote are our de facto voices.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 22 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
I don't think the majority would choose to limit their choices for president.

I thought that's what you were referring to. My explanation is the same as my last response to you. When making a "taxation without representation" argument, the fact that comes to light is Congress represents the will of the people. We put them there so they are our voices.

 

[DavidS]

So, Iowa, as in the majority of voters, didn't approve anything. The law was backdoored via the judiciary.

Very democratic.

Yeah, it's a shame about that. Don't you just hate when new laws are passed without people voting for it?

Matter of fact, yeah, I do. But get your facts straight.

I have no problem with judicial review. I have a problem with it being misused.

You do? You hate it when laws are deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

And how was it misused in this decision?

 

[RodISHI]

And, for those coming to Iowa to get their new gay marraige license get them in Decatur county. It's just right off the north edge of Missouri. It's is the poorest county in the state. They can use the revenue. Thanks!!!

LOL ... is it like Springfield?

Nah, Springfield is a metroplois. Heck the county seat does not even have a laundry mat.

The wise the local officials here decided to tax the shit out of the guy because they think can. The guy that owned the laundry mat closed it.

So, one laundry mat in the entire county. I went there yesterday. I'm sure it is the official laudry mat of hell. Twenty washers. Four worked the other ones just took my money and my soap

 

[Gunny]

The problem with this is if the courts had followed "majority rules", we might stil have slavery and/or segregation.

Illogical supposition. We no longer have either legal slavery or segregation due to the will of the people.

Which people? Not the majority. The majority of people did NOT want slavery to end, nor did they want segregation to end. And the will of the people? The people never voted on one civil rights law. So who voted for this again?

You are incorrect. The majority of slaveowners didn't want slavery to end. People who didn't own slaves didn't give a shit.

You're making the same argument Elvis is. Congress represents the will of the people. That's why it is called a representative republic. We put them in office by majority vote to represent our interests.

So yes, we DID vote on it, whether you agreed with your representative's vote or not.

 

[KittenKoder]

And, for those coming to Iowa to get their new gay marraige license get them in Decatur county. It's just right off the north edge of Missouri. It's is the poorest county in the state. They can use the revenue. Thanks!!!

LOL ... is it like Springfield?

Nah, Springfield is a metroplois. Heck the county seat does not even have a laundry mat.

The wise the local officials here decided to tax the shit out of the guy because they think can. The guy that owned the laundry mat closed it.

So, one laundry mat in the entire county. I went there yesterday. I'm sure it is the official laudry mat of hell. Twenty washers. Four worked the other ones just took my money and my soap

It's a Simpsons joke ...

 

[DavidS]

So, back to the original question.

Is it correct to assume that those in favor of the courts overturning the will of the people is: 1) fine; and 2) that is so because all members of the US judiciary are the higher beings amongst us (there is no other way of looking at it), capable of an ancient level of logical neutrally, and of being uninfluenced by ideological prejudice or any other factors which may be swirling around in our society at any given time.

If so, are you serious?

The will of the people is irrelevant because it doesn't effect them. I have no right to tell you that you can't get married. Why do you have to say that my brother, who is gay, can't? What's it to ya'? If he wants to get married and it makes him happy and he can pay the marriage license fee, how does it effect your life? Does it impair your ability to work? To live? To earn money? To practice your religion?

No. It doesn't.

All men are created equal and are entitled the same rights as everyone else.

 

[DavidS]

Illogical supposition. We no longer have either legal slavery or segregation due to the will of the people.

But that wasn't the case at the time. They were passed against the will of the majority.

Were they? Ideally, Congress represents the will of the majority. It represents the people.

I don't believe any of those laws were passed against the will of the majority. They were passed against the will of a vocal minority.

Actually, this was the North dictating what the South can and cannot do.

Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

• The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
• The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
• The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

[edit] By party

The original House version:[9]

• Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
• Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[9]

• Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
• Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

• Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
• Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

[edit] By party and region

Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
• Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DavidS]

Cecilie, I don't think of posting in a thread like this as responding to an individual as much as responding to the subject at hand. I've read all of your posts on this subject and if you notice, I haven't bothered to respond to one of them, so don't sweat wanting to talk to me. Just post a legitimate reason or don't. Can you demonstrate the harm?

What you fail to grasp is that the activists who crusaded across the country "in defense of marriage" are the ones who brought this issue "in your face" to begin with. Gay people didn't "drag themselves into the public arena", they are equal citizens of this country who are part of the public arena just like anybody else seeking public policy to protect their interests. The establishment of DOMA forced them to respond in kind, state by state.

BTW, talk about funny, you see marriage as a set of recognized restrictions?

The legal issues of marriage involve rights and privileges, the rest of your rants are nothing more than your emotional response to something that you find personally offensive. You have that right Cecilie, good for you, rant away.

Actually, marriage is a right, not a privilege.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival

What's your point?

That marriage is a right for ALL Americans.

 

[DavidS]

Can anyone tell me how this is a GOOD MOVE for the country? How will allowing gays to marry be good for the USA? I suppose the sect of Mormons who are into polygamy now have a good case to get their views passed as well.. I mean, after all, the definition of marriage is now wide-open, right?

not at all. marriage is a contract between two people. Not between 5 people. And not between two white people.

As far as how this is a GOOD MOVE, it allows lesbians/gays and bisexuals to get married. Is that good for the country? I dunno... I don't really think this effects anyone other than those in the marriage industry and the two people getting married. So, for them it's good. For the rest of us - it's irrelevant.

Marriage a contract between a man and a woman.

No. Marriage is a contract between two people. Man and man, woman and woman and man and woman.

 

[DavidS]

Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman.

Um ... then why can't they make another marriage contract that is between two men and one more between two women?

One, that is not what the law states here. The law here states marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. That was voted on by the people of Texas and expresses the will of the majority.

It isn't a matter of "can or can't." I'm sure they are quite capable.

So tell me why you feel that a majority of people should be able to tell a minority of people what they can and cannot do?

 

[GHook93]

Marriage is a right. Not a privilege.

Heterosexual marriage is a right. Homosexual marriage is not a right.

Disallowing any type of marriage violates the 14th amendment.

No, it does not. As I said, homosexuals, like everyone else, can marry members of the opposite gender.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (The Civil Rights Amendment):
"No State shall make or enforce any laws which...deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws."

The Privilege and Immunity Clause the of the 14th Amendment.
"No State shall make or enforce any laws which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States."

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment:
"No State shall make or enforce any laws which...deprive any person of life, liberty or property."
The Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment (from the original Bill of Rights):
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law."

Folks this is not legislating form the bench, rather this upholding the constitution! Not to long ago there were laws on the books that said "Blacks and Whites could not marry" (Lovings). People gave all types of excuse for this, such as, but not limited to, for the protection of the interracial children, who will be outsiders to both groups. But the constitution specifically states that the law can not be unequally applied to groups. Denying gays the right to marry directly violates the 14th amendment (and to a lesser degree the 5th amendment)!

Look I am sure is some areas there could be popular support by the local voters to would deny a white Christian or Jewish women from marrying a Muslim Man. All excuse could be tossed around, such as to protect the women from being subject to 2nd class citizen status under Allah's religion, but in the end the only motivation for it would be bigotry! The constitution would not allow the law to apply unequally to different groups.

 

[DavidS]

Marriage is a right. Not a privilege.

Heterosexual marriage is a right. Homosexual marriage is not a right.

Which part of the constitution says this?

Disallowing any type of marriage violates the 14th amendment.

No, it does not. As I said, homosexuals, like everyone else, can marry members of the opposite gender.[/quote]

Yes, it does. I'm citing a 50 year old United States Supreme Court case. You are citing.....?

And yes, they can marry anyone else of an opposite gender. But they don't want to. They want to marry someone of the same gender. Why do you oppose this?

 

[Sherry]

There are holy unions, and there are unholy unions. Marriage was conceived as a religious ceremony, and the government agreed to recognize it. Now people are trying to redefine religious doctorine. There are more churches who are now willing to alter traditional practices and embrace gay marriage, but it's still a component of a religious institution.

I agree with those who believe marriage should stay a part of the church, and separate from government. Marriages, and who that constitutes, should be recognized by the individual churches who perform them, and legal unions should be recognized by the government. People should have one or both; whatever makes them happy and/or best serves their individual needs.

Government allowed the church to usurp it's power a long time ago when it acknowledged a religious cermony, and accepted it as bestowing certain privileges to those citizens over others. Now it wants to dictate to the church that it's religious teachings are no longer valid when determining law.

Religious people separate God's law from man's law. Our nation puts man's law first, while having a history of respecting those who follow God's law. I see too much of an attitude of screw religion, and those who choose to follow such archaic rules. They want what they want, and anyone who disagrees should shutup, or be accused of bigotry.

People who preach for tolerance, but aren't willing to demonstrate it from their own side, are hypocrites. That's why I think the best compromise is keeping marriage a religious institute, and civil unions a governement institute. Nobody is excluded, as everyone can participate in both events.

YMMV

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'm happy to see Iowa adhere to the Constitution. Bravo.

 

[Sherry]

So, Iowa, as in the majority of voters, didn't approve anything. The law was backdoored via the judiciary.

Very democratic.

Since when have we been a true democracy anyway?

We are a representative democracy. We are NOT a direct democracy.

We are a republic.

The American form of government. (Video)

 

[RodISHI]

State judges go up for re-election every four years per term(even those at the Supreme court level). If the people in Iowa are not happy with them they do have recourse available to them.

Off topic, but how often do you see state judges replaced? It's a good ol' boy network here.

Judges are only appointed once. Yes that is good ole boy influence. Fact is those appointed judges are up for re-election every four years. That is the way it is in most states.

Idaho 1993 the first time ever a magistrate judge was voted off the bench. The guy was a crackpot and took his information based on his personal precepts. He went after my family and had me arrested on a bogus charge the day after an election where-in all the locals did not make the cut that year and literally every viable voter voted that year. About three and a half years later a man came to me who was a bunissman. He had been in this guys court. He had lost all contact with his children by judicial means. The same judge verbally stated that since the mom was a Catholic and dad was a Mormon dad had no rights. The guy asked if I would tell my story so people would know and understand what this guy was all about.

In my case my teenage son had gotten into some trouble. He owned up to it and was taking his lumps for what he had done. Judgey poo and his court cronies decided to take some action against me based on an outright lie. They claimed I refused to bring son into the probation office. Fact was I was working and my dad was taking him there. The probation people had son do a no show and made an arrest warrant out for me. Mug shots in my pink night clothes can you imagine. (The charges were fully dismissed after costing us thousands) At the same point my bookeeper had worked a deal where she was embezzling $27,000.00. Just so happened her pot head hubby was a golfing buddy with the little prick. No telling what kind of false info the guy was getting there. People will go to extremes you know for a bit of cash if they think they have a shot at it.

Attorneys very seldom will buck a judge, even petty magistrates. Most of them back in that day told me "I have other clients I represent. If I piss him off it will cost my other clients." They did give out bits of advice though.

The magistrate wanted a good friend of mine's position as district judge. So it was all politics and BS. Exactly what are judicial system is not suppose to be.

Anyhow. The entire district came together and voted him off the bench. I invested a bit of time in telling the story to news people. We had a few "Vote No" signs made up and walla. the District recieved a new judge.

Chicago article


Jail for judges...

 

[DiveCon]

not at all. marriage is a contract between two people. Not between 5 people. And not between two white people.

As far as how this is a GOOD MOVE, it allows lesbians/gays and bisexuals to get married. Is that good for the country? I dunno... I don't really think this effects anyone other than those in the marriage industry and the two people getting married. So, for them it's good. For the rest of us - it's irrelevant.

Marriage a contract between a man and a woman.

No. Marriage is a contract between two people. Man and man, woman and woman and man and woman.

they ruled incorrectly by calling it a right
they should have called it a religious ceremony and we wouldnt be having this debate right now

 

[RodISHI]

There are holy unions, and there are unholy unions. Marriage was conceived as a religious ceremony, and the government agreed to recognize it. Now people are trying to redefine religious doctorine. There are more churches who are now willing to alter traditional practices and embrace gay marriage, but it's still a component of a religious institution.

I agree with those who believe marriage should stay a part of the church, and separate from government. Marriages, and who that constitutes, should be recognized by the individual churches who perform them, and legal unions should be recognized by the government. People should have one or both; whatever makes them happy and/or best serves their individual needs.

Government allowed the church to usurp it's power a long time ago when it acknowledged a religious cermony, and accepted it as bestowing certain privileges to those citizens over others. Now it wants to dictate to the church that it's religious teachings are no longer valid when determining law.

Religious people separate God's law from man's law. Our nation puts man's law first, while having a history of respecting those who follow God's law. I see too much of an attitude of screw religion, and those who choose to follow such archaic rules. They want what they want, and anyone who disagrees should shutup, or be accused of bigotry.

People who preach for tolerance, but aren't willing to demonstrate it from their own side, are hypocrites. That's why I think the best compromise is keeping marriage a religious institute, and civil unions a governement institute. Nobody is excluded, as everyone can participate in both events.

YMMV

I think you made some very good points.

Civil union contracts can have it's own set of legal rules.

Marraiges can still be performed by churches.

At the same time I think we should be putting inrestrictions as a right for religions to be exempt from sexual orientation discrimination suits. Gays should have never been allowed to sue the Boy Scouts of America for sexual orientation discrimination for not accepting them as leaders.

 

[52ndStreet]

Marriage is originally defined as a Union between a Man and a Woman. This miscarriage of the the legal
definition of marriage is just another sick example of how White people are trying to legitimize a sexual
perversion,Homosexuality, and force it upon the majority heterosexual population. These activist Judegs
all have an agenda in America.

Can't say I didn't expect this coming from the heartland, but I hear those corn cobb jammers in Iowa,
have a lot of closet homo's on those farms.