Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban




 
--
Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
 
April 4th, 2009  
The Other Guy
 
 

Topic: Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban


Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040303761.html

The number of states with legal gay marriage is back up to three. And according to the article, Vermont is well on its way to being the fourth. Thoughts? Will there ever be a nationwide legalization? If so, when?

I'm happy with this advancement. Good for Iowa.
April 4th, 2009  
Rob Henderson
 
 
As usual,the North is much more open-minded and ready to change...
April 4th, 2009  
senojekips
 
 
"Political correctness" strikes again!
--
Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
April 5th, 2009  
Rob Henderson
 
 
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.
April 5th, 2009  
Chukpike
 
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.
April 5th, 2009  
Rob Henderson
 
 
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.
April 5th, 2009  
The Other Guy
 
 
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.
April 5th, 2009  
Chukpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Guy
Yes... do remember who elected those judges. They're not appointed like in the federal court.
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.
April 6th, 2009  
Rob Henderson
 
 
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.
April 6th, 2009  
Chukpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Henderson
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?
If they aren't what would be the problem with allowing them to vote on it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Henderson
They ARE the same, because the people STILL hold the ultimate authority... And they CAN choose their destiny. Contrary to your statement.
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.
 


Similar Topics
California Overturns Gay Marriage
Canada 'can permit gay marriage'
The Supreme Court Goes To War
Iraq Detention Case Heads To High Court
Who Should Bush nominate for Supreme Court?