Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
Although I AM curious as to how Mr. King here finds the decision unconstitutional... If it's not specifically written in the Constitution, it is left in the hands of the State (ultimately the people, but you get what I'm saying). The idea of marriage isn't spelled out in the Constitution, so one would come to the conclusion that it is a matter left to the State... Therefore, the ruling is COMPLETELY constitutional, and I commend their courts on their logic.

" Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) blasted the decision and vowed to effectively overturn it. "This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends," he said in a statement."



PS... What does he know anyway... He's just a writer. :p
 
Might be a pattern here.
In the 3 states allowing gay marriage, it has been decided by the State Governments.
All 29 States that bar gay marriage, it has been decided by the voters.

Should be satisfied if you believe the Government knows better than the governed what should or shouldn't allowed.

To me it seems like democracy is taking a beating in the "enlightened" states.

Legislatures and the people used to make the laws and the courts were there to enforce them. Now the courts are writing the laws.

Hope none of the "enlightened" have a problem with that.

In California, where the voters can still control their destiny, the voters have told the courts to take a hike.
 
And, just like in California, if the people don't like it, they can do something about it.



Chukpike... I wonder... Do you realize that the government is nothing more than people? When you say the word government, do you think about the fact that the government is nothing more than an organized body of people? CLEARLY, the people are still deciding their own destiny.
 
Yes... do remember who elected those judges. They're not appointed like in the federal court.


And keep in mind as well that the Civil Rights Act would have not passed a vote in over half of the US in 1965. But it went through anyway. And I daresay America is better for it.
 
The Other Guy said:
Yes... do remember who elected those judges. They're not appointed like in the federal court.
Click to expand...
I all ready know the answer and you are wrong. All three states Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa appoint their Justices.

You made the statement that that "they're not appointed" so supply your sources. I will make it easy, go to the state websites and read their Constitutions.

For obvious reasons I do not expect a reply.

And, just like in California, if the people don't like it, they can do something about it. Quote Rob Henderson

Not the same. Massachusetts and Iowa have rules requiring the legislature to vote in two consecutive sessions to allow an issue to go to the voters. In California voters can place legal changes directly on a ballot by petition.
 
But are the people of Massachusetts and Iowa being oppressed by their government to the point that they cannot change something they don't like?


They ARE the same, because the people STILL hold the ultimate authority... And they CAN choose their destiny. Contrary to your statement.
 
Rob Henderson said:
But are the people of Massachusetts and Iowa being oppressed by their government to the point that they cannot change something they don't like?
Click to expand...
If they aren't what would be the problem with allowing them to vote on it?

Rob Henderson said:
They ARE the same, because the people STILL hold the ultimate authority... And they CAN choose their destiny. Contrary to your statement.
Click to expand...
Where did you get that? What statement?
Or are you back to your old tricks of flaming and attributing statements to someone who did not make them? Instead of making uninformed statements, why don't you do a little research?
Iowa and Massachusetts do not have the same ability to place measures on a ballot as California, as you stated.
 
Don't think it could happens in the southerner or bible belt states for very long time.
 
It will not happen in TX or AZ - ever. Period.

The precedent is the important part, not the marriage amendment itself. Who cares who wears whose ring? Do whatever you want in your own bedroom.

If we dictate that "marriage" is an ambiguous term open to change through Constitutional amendment without the will of the people backing it, then we open ANY part of the Constitution to the power of politics without a common law vote of the true will of those that elect their leaders. They are the ones that are supposed to be listening to us, not the other way around.

It should be a state issue. One by one, the states should enact a proposition to include or deny the legal rights of same-sex partners. Invoking it and then asking for public opinion is backwards.
 
AZ_Infantry said:
It will not happen in TX or AZ - ever. Period.
Click to expand...
Hope you are right. But with the courts deciding instead of the people, who knows what can happen.

AZ_Infantry said:
The precedent is the important part, not the marriage amendment itself. Who cares who wears whose ring? Do whatever you want in your own bedroom.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. The precedent of the courts changing laws, instead of seeing they are followed is what scares me. Writing laws belongs to the legislature and the people. It is what the separation of powers is about.

You are right about, "Do whatever you want in your own bedroom."
But gays want to take it out of the bedroom and have it officially stamped as OK. There is a big difference between tolerance and acceptance.

AZ_Infantry said:
If we dictate that "marriage" is an ambiguous term open to change through Constitutional amendment without the will of the people backing it, then we open ANY part of the Constitution to the power of politics without a common law vote of the true will of those that elect their leaders. They are the ones that are supposed to be listening to us, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
In all the states that have allowed their citizens to vote on the issue none have accepted gay marriage as legal.(29 states currently) Gays have never tried to gain the right to marry through a vote of the people. They actively lobby legislatures and file suits with the various courts to try and overturn the will of the people.
AZ_Infantry said:
It should be a state issue. One by one, the states should enact a proposition to include or deny the legal rights of same-sex partners. Invoking it and then asking for public opinion is backwards.
Click to expand...
It is a state issue and gay rights activist do not want to go to the Federal Supreme Court. As their is nothing there in the US Constitution that makes being gay a "right". The term commonly used to describe gays "sexual preference" should explain why it is not a right. You only need to look up the word preference to see why it is not a right.

Marriage it's self has been determined to be right. All men and women have this right. But like our other rights it is not absolute. You can not marry your sister or brother, you can not marry more than one person at a time. You can not get married until you reach a certain age. All determined by each state. And in the vast majority of states you can not marry a person of the same sex.
The states that allow gay marriage have done so with out a vote of the people. They have taken the right to decide away from the population.
 
Chukpike said:
If they aren't what would be the problem with allowing them to vote on it?
Click to expand...
Then let them. If the people of Iowa or Massachusetts don't like the decision, they can overturn it. No one is saying "you aren't allowed to decide on this issue."

Chukpike said:
Where did you get that? What statement?
Or are you back to your old tricks of flaming and attributing statements to someone who did not make them? Instead of making uninformed statements, why don't you do a little research?
Iowa and Massachusetts do not have the same ability to place measures on a ballot as California, as you stated.
Click to expand...
Haha. Not quite... I got it from here... "In California, where the voters can still control their destiny, the voters have told the courts to take a hike." You said that... Inferring that voters in Iowa and Massachusetts can NOT control their destiny. And that is a false statement. I never said anything about ballots... I said that they can change a law in their state just like Californians can. Regardless of HOW that law is changed, the people still control the government. And instead of attacking me, how about you work a little harder on improving that memory of yours.
 
UGH!!! The disection has begun!

The fact is, the voters will have to raise a stink, then get the issue on the ballot to be voted on.
 
Yes, but the voters can still get the decision changed, can they not? That was my point... Regardless of the means, the end result is STILL THE SAME. Therefore dismantling Chukpike's entire argument about how the people can no longer choose their destiny... Which, in turn, discredits any thoughts that the people of Iowa or Massachusetts don't want gay marriage to be legal.
 
Rob, you're missing a bit of the point.

The larger issue is not whether they CAN get it overturned, but whether they should HAVE to. That is the legal precedent.

Regardless, if a state rules that refusing same-sex couples marriage is unconstitutional, then no - the people cannot have it overturned. Their right to an opinion is superseded by effectual law calling the ban discriminatory. Once ruled unconstitutional, popular vote does nothing. And that is WHY they are doing it this way: to silence the will of their opposition, the 83% of Americans that want the definition of "marriage" to encompass one man and one woman.

This is also why it (marriage by definition) is a state issue and not a typical SCOTUS ruling. If they ruled on this ONE marriage issue, then they are constitutionally binding themselves to hear ANY marriage issue.

Proposition 8 was a clear ruling of the will of the people. While we are a Republic, we are a Democratic one. Meaning, of course, that laws should be enacted only when the people have their say.

That is not occurring in many cases where homosexual lobbyists scream oppression and compare themselves to multi-racial couples. They are skating around the Constitution to get a constitutional ruling.
 
Rob Henderson said:
Yes, but the voters can still get the decision changed, can they not? That was my point... Regardless of the means, the end result is STILL THE SAME. Therefore dismantling Chukpike's entire argument about how the people can no longer choose their destiny... Which, in turn, discredits any thoughts that the people of Iowa or Massachusetts don't want gay marriage to be legal.
Click to expand...

Can they? If they are not given a chance to vote on it I don't think so.
The people of Massachusetts and the people of Iowa have not been given an opportunity to decide.

You refuse to study any issue or research. If you did you would know that in Massachusetts the minority in the legislature tried to get the necessary votes to put a measure on the ballot for people to vote on. It takes two consecutive sessions (2 years) and 2 majority votes by the legislature to place an amendment on the ballot. The first year the majority used tactics to stall the vote. (These tactics were deemed unconstitutional by the Massachusetts Supreme Court) The next year the legislature the ballot issue was voted but not passed.

The bottom line is that the people of the state of Massachusetts have not been given an opportunity to decide.

If the legislature was so sure that gay marriage would be accepted by the voters why did they fight so hard to insure the people could not vote on it?

As far dismantling my statement, that is just you babbling.:roll:
You do like to argue, but have no ability to debate.

As far as letting the people decide, why after two majority votes in California to Ban Gay marriage, is it back in the California Supreme Court?
 
Chukpike said:
Can they? If they are not given a chance to vote on it I don't think so.
The people of Massachusetts and the people of Iowa have not been given an opportunity to decide.

You refuse to study any issue or research. If you did you would know that in Massachusetts the minority in the legislature tried to get the necessary votes to put a measure on the ballot for people to vote on. It takes two consecutive sessions (2 years) and 2 majority votes by the legislature to place an amendment on the ballot. The first year the majority used tactics to stall the vote. (These tactics were deemed unconstitutional by the Massachusetts Supreme Court) The next year the legislature the ballot issue was voted but not passed.

The bottom line is that the people of the state of Massachusetts have not been given an opportunity to decide.

If the legislature was so sure that gay marriage would be accepted by the voters why did they fight so hard to insure the people could not vote on it?

As far dismantling my statement, that is just you babbling.:roll:
You do like to argue, but have no ability to debate.

As far as letting the people decide, why after two majority votes in California to Ban Gay marriage, is it back in the California Supreme Court?
Click to expand...
Can the people of Iowa and Massachusetts get a ruling overturned? YES. Again, regardless of how the end is achieved, they can change the ruling. Throw all process out the window, they CAN get the ruling changed if they want to. Maybe the legislature knew that it was a State right to decide something that affects the state itself (not the people). Homosexual marriage does nothing to harm the people of a state, the only thing it truly affects is the legal status of the couple ( a matter of the state government) therefore, it really ISN'T up to the people to decide on the matter ANYWAY. That's why the Constitution was written in the first place... Because the Founding Fathers knew that not every common man was smart enough to be directly involved on the issues of the government, so they allowed the commoners to elect representatives who "best reflect" the interest of the majority... Therefore, it is STILL the people deciding.
 
Rob Henderson said:
Can the people of Iowa and Massachusetts get a ruling overturned? YES. Again, regardless of how the end is achieved, they can change the ruling. Throw all process out the window, they CAN get the ruling changed if they want to. Maybe the legislature knew that it was a State right to decide something that affects the state itself (not the people). Homosexual marriage does nothing to harm the people of a state, the only thing it truly affects is the legal status of the couple ( a matter of the state government) therefore, it really ISN'T up to the people to decide on the matter ANYWAY. That's why the Constitution was written in the first place... Because the Founding Fathers knew that not every common man was smart enough to be directly involved on the issues of the government, so they allowed the commoners to elect representatives who "best reflect" the interest of the majority... Therefore, it is STILL the people deciding.
Click to expand...

Can they... IF they can get it on a ballot, then yes, they can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top