How do Iowans feel about gay marriage? (Des Moines, Davenport: appointed, lawyers)

[capitalcityguy]

It pains me to admit it, but I tend to agree with Ronnie on this one.

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by garmanl

With all thats happening in Iowa with people wanting to ban gay marriage in Iowa I want to know how do people in Iowa feel about gay marriage there? I want to know the good and bad. I want the people who are against it to tell me how they feel. I want the people who are for gay marriage to let me know how they feel too. I want to know if its going to be banned in Iowa or not. The people who live there know more then what I do out here in Utah.

I want to be accepted when I move to Davenport. I'm tired of getting called names and getting beat up for me just being a lesbian. I want to get married and not have to worry about my marriage getting voided the next day.

I guess the majority of Iowans do not support it. We tossed out three Supreme Court judges who made gay marriage legal.

I, for one, am against gay marriage. I don't care whether gays have civil unions, adopt, whatever....

I just do not like activist groups changing the laws without the consent of the people. Keep in mind that activist judges ruled slavery legal as well in the past. We should allow the legislative process to make the laws and the judicial branch should interpret them.

Gay marriage will eventually be overturned in Iowa.

[Chicago60614]

^ The thing I'll never understand is why straight people care so much. Two gay guys are living in a house next door to you and they can either be married or not married. I still can't figure out why so many straight people think that's going to have a negative impact on their lives. It's not like the gay people have straights in mind when they're trying to get married. It's about legal issues and being in a commitment. Gay marriage isn't going to magically create more gays or anything.

[mofford]

Well, I think some straight people in Iowa may be concerned about the states reputation. For example, if a single straight guy from San Fransisco travels anywhere and tells people where he is from........you get the picture. Iowa is a low population state and if hoards of gays move here it could leave the whole country with the impression of Iowa being "The Gay State", and gays can be very vocal and attract alot of attention with parades, festivals and all kinds of things that would attract more gays and more national attention.

I would like to see the remaining activist judges removed when they come up for re-election. They had no right to decide this issue for the people of Iowa, I see nothing domocratic about it at all. Any major issue like that should be debated and put up for a public vote.

Some straight people may also be concerned about job benefits, as SS couples might be getting more, straight's might be getting less. The pie doesn't get bigger, it just gets sliced differently. I don't know if thats a real issue or not, just something that crossed my mind. Not sure about the health insurance angle of this, the real costs, or if gays would be getting more benefits being married rather than a civil union.

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by mofford

Well, I think some straight people in Iowa may be concerned about the states reputation. For example, if a single straight guy from San Fransisco travels anywhere and tells people where he is from........you get the picture. Iowa is a low population state and if hoards of gays move here it could leave the whole country with the impression of Iowa being "The Gay State", and gays can be very vocal and attract alot of attention with parades, festivals and all kinds of things that would attract more gays and more national attention.

I would like to see the remaining activist judges removed when they come up for re-election. They had no right to decide this issue for the people of Iowa, I see nothing domocratic about it at all. Any major issue like that should be debated and put up for a public vote.

Some straight people may also be concerned about job benefits, as SS couples might be getting more, straight's might be getting less. The pie doesn't get bigger, it just gets sliced differently. I don't know if thats a real issue or not, just something that crossed my mind. Not sure about the health insurance angle of this, the real costs, or if gays would be getting more benefits being married rather than a civil union.

I agree.

The activist judges had no right to subvert the will of the people. The problem with the Supreme Court nomination system in Iowa is that a judicial panel (which is made up of 11 democrats and one republican) selects the judges. As a result, Iowa has been plagued with leftist judges who do not represent the sentiments of most of the state. This is not a far left state, like California.

It was an outrage when these activist judges felt as though thier will and sentiments outweighed that of the electorate. Fortunately, it was a wake up call. The remaining judges will be impeached or thrown out when they are up for renewal by the state again.

Keep in mind that 'activist judges" in the past reviewed and made slavery legal in the US. It took a Civil War to unravel the ill founded judicial rulings. The people, over the long term, usually get it right.The courts, on the other hand, usually get it wrong.

[Chicago60614]

Did you read the constitution and then the entire rulings? The activist judge thing is pure and simple banter thrown at everyone from right wings who came into the state dumping money in an attempt to get what they want.

The judges followed the law and constitution to a t. If anyone wants to change anything, go after the constitution - not the people who uphold what it contains.

Anyway, not trying to start a fight, it just seems like such a silly thing to waste all this time and money on. I'm guessing it's probably 25% "eww factor" because a lot of straight people don't know many gay people and it's something different, and 75% is age old religion that tries to define everything for everyone.

I see there was a big turnaround in the federal government today. The white house says it will no longer fight any same sex cases in the courts. Previously it had fought against same sex marriage based on the 1994 laws, but now says that the law is discriminatory because it takes away federal rights of same sex couples who are already married. At this point it is a constitutional issue, and not a "simple law" issue as it is taking away rights. The gov. is walking away from cases that are already going on in states like New York and Conn.

I mean jeez, if gay marriage/civil unions have already passed within the past 10 years in places like Canada, Argentina, South Africa, Australia, Germany, France, Spain, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Brazil, Venezuela, Finland, the UK, much of Eastern Europe, Uruguay, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark the Western USA, New Zealand, Iceland and certain areas in Mexico - it's obviously going to progress to be pretty mainstream in the next 10 years. Just save the time and effort and legalize it now - clearly it will be within the next decade or so.

Iowa should be proud that once again, like with slavery, interracial marriage, minorities in upper education and the women's movement - it is going to be seen in history as on the forefront of social progression, and not following up in the rear!!!

[Clark Park]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

I agree.

The activist judges had no right to subvert the will of the people. The problem with the Supreme Court nomination system in Iowa is that a judicial panel (which is made up of 11 democrats and one republican) selects the judges. As a result, Iowa has been plagued with leftist judges who do not represent the sentiments of most of the state. This is not a far left state, like California.

It was an outrage when these activist judges felt as though thier will and sentiments outweighed that of the electorate. Fortunately, it was a wake up call. The remaining judges will be impeached or thrown out when they are up for renewal by the state again.

Keep in mind that 'activist judges" in the past reviewed and made slavery legal in the US. It took a Civil War to unravel the ill founded judicial rulings. The people, over the long term, usually get it right.The courts, on the other hand, usually get it wrong.

I do not agree with those views.

The proper role of the judiciary branch of the government - unlike the legislative and executive branches which are elected - is precisely to protect minorities from "the tyranny of the majority." That is why the judiciary is not elected by popular vote (no one elects a US Supreme Court Judge) and that is why they sometimes rule against popular opinion.

To call judges "activists" is just a meaningless exercise in name-calling; the judges were doing their job. Why not call them the "Socialist Judges" or the "Jewish Judges" or the "Tree-Hugger Judges" or the "Metrosexual Judges." Sheesh. Okay, so you don't agree with their ruling. Am I mistaken, or was the decision a unanimous ruling by the State Supreme Court. Unanimous.

As far as judges usually getting it wrong ... you are very mistaken. You referenced one US Supreme Court decision, the Dred Scott case, which did not "make slavery legal in the US" ... which is way off base. Slavery was already legal in the US, and had been legal for generations. How about these US Supreme Court decisions which met with violent opposition but have withstood the test of time:

• Brown v. The Board Of Education of Topeka (1954)
• Roth v. the United States (1957)
• Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
• Tinker v. Des Moines (1967)
• Roe v. Wade (1973)
• The United States v. Nixon (1974)

Too more cases I would like reference that directly relate to this topic are the US Supreme Court decisions Loving v. Virginia (1967) which overturned laws in many states that criminalized marriage between two people of different races; and Lawrence v. Texas (2003) which ruled that states had no right to criminalize homosexual acts between consenting adults in private.

[El Rhino]

How do I feel about it?


I'm fine with it. I can't say I'm "for it" like it really excites me or "against it" like it bothers me, but if they do, that's fine with me. If I don't like gay marriage, I just won't get a gay marriage - problem solved.



I will be happy when the gay marriage threads here stop though... Man, it's getting old...

[SharpHawkeye]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

I guess the majority of Iowans do not support it. We tossed out three Supreme Court judges who made gay marriage legal.

I, for one, am against gay marriage. I don't care whether gays have civil unions, adopt, whatever....

I just do not like activist groups changing the laws without the consent of the people. Keep in mind that activist judges ruled slavery legal as well in the past. We should allow the legislative process to make the laws and the judicial branch should interpret them.

Gay marriage will eventually be overturned in Iowa.

Isn't that exactly what happened, though? The legislature passed a "Defense of Marriage Act", then the courts interpreted it as unconstitutional.They didn't make new law, they just performed their function--interpreting the law.

I think the real issue here is that you don't agree with their interpretation.

[Stavemaster]

Originally Posted by RonnieJonez

In California, prop 8 was favored by 52%, supporting traditional marriage. So, Iowa now has the same social politics as California...as if it were almost split down the middle by the voting public. I hope you aren't this ignorant.

Like Iowa, the Prop 8 decision was affected by a flood of out of state money from NOM and Mormon groups using scare tactics to whip up Fear Of A Gay Planet among traditionally socially conservative groups (Latinos, churchgoing blacks, Central Valley rednecks, etc). Without massive campaigning from out of state, Prop 8 would likely have died at the polls. Likewise, had Vander Plaats not gotten allies from out of state, the retention vote might have gone very differently (then again, it might not have).

Originally Posted by mofford

Well, I think some straight people in Iowa may be concerned about the states reputation. For example, if a single straight guy from San Fransisco travels anywhere and tells people where he is from........you get the picture. Iowa is a low population state and if hoards of gays move here it could leave the whole country with the impression of Iowa being "The Gay State", and gays can be very vocal and attract alot of attention with parades, festivals and all kinds of things that would attract more gays and more national attention.

A. hahahaha yeah right, I'm sure many gay people are dying to trade South Beach for North Liberty, and Lake Okoboji is all set to become the new Fire Island.
B. so what if it happens? My only gripe with it is I'd like to get a place in Des Moines sometime in the next few years and gay populations tend to raise property values.

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

Did you read the constitution and then the entire rulings? The activist judge thing is pure and simple banter thrown at everyone from right wings who came into the state dumping money in an attempt to get what they want.

The judges followed the law and constitution to a t. If anyone wants to change anything, go after the constitution - not the people who uphold what it contains.

They already tried doing that via the proposed constitutional convention that got voted down, so I guess we've got our answer.

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

Iowa should be proud that once again, like with slavery, interracial marriage, minorities in upper education and the women's movement - it is going to be seen in history as on the forefront of social progression, and not following up in the rear!!!

Nicely put