54% of Iowans Vote to Oust "Gay Marriage" Judges

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Of course it impacts other people.

How? Please enumerate how allowing gays to marry impacts people (non-gay people that is, it obviously impacts gay people). Specifically, enumerate how it negatively impacts or harms people. Perhaps you could tell us how it will harm you or someone you know.

It redefines not only the marriages homosexuals have, but also the one heterosexuals have.

So where do gays and their supporters get the right to impose a redefinition of the legal, social and religious bonds others have?

Where did Christians get the right to impose a redefinition of the legal, social, and religious bonds others have when they outlawed gay marriages - which had be legal and celebrated for centuries - upon taking power in the Roman Empire?

Where do modern day American anti-gays get the right to craft a set of legal rights within the law under the heading of civil marriage and then (in violation of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution) reserve them as special rights for heterosexual couples denied to homosexual couples?

And we're only talking about civil marriages here. Nobody is looking to redefine what any particular religious group considers a marriage. And as to social bonds, who the hell cares? What business is it of yours what kind of private associations I make - how I define and redefine them - in my personal, social life?

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by monkeywrenching

if the law was voted upon in that state by the voters, then it is constitutional. gay marriage has not been ruled unconstitutional by the scotus as of yet, just by some states. until you get an admenment or have a ruling by the scotus, then tough. dont like it, then move to another state.

LOL. So if a state voted to re-enslave black people, that vote would somehow render slavery once again constitutional? Such a vote serves to void the 13th Amendment in that state?

[Gibbous Moon]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

LOL. So if a state voted to re-enslave black people, that vote would somehow render slavery once again constitutional? Such a vote serves to void the 13th Amendment in that state?

And that law wasn't voted on by the people anyway -- though you're right, it certainly is a baseless idea that anything passed by referendum automatically meets Constitutional muster. The state in question is Iowa, and the law that has been overturned there was passed by the Iowa legislature. (again, not that this detail matters)

Not a surprisingly thought, though. There's this weird and completely incoherent notion out there that I've heard before which claims that if the people vote directly on an issue, it cannot be overturned by a court due to being unconstitutional. Very weird.

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by Gibbous Moon

And that law wasn't voted on by the people anyway -- though you're right, it certainly is a baseless idea that anything passed by referendum automatically meets Constitutional muster. The state in question is Iowa, and the law that has been overturned there was passed by the Iowa legislature. (again, not that this detail matters)

Not a surprisingly thought, though. There's this weird and completely incoherent notion out there that I've heard before which claims that if the people vote directly on an issue, it cannot be overturned by a court due to being unconstitutional. Very weird.

Well of course, if it is overturned, we just here whining about liberal judicial activists trying to legislate from the bench, and reject the will of the people.
They still haven't a clue that we are not a direct democracy, and when judges do that it's called a Common law legal system, which is what we're based on.

It's so hard to have intelligent discussions with people who don't even know the basics of how our government works. I'm no longer surprised over the statistics that 70% of Americans can't even name the 3 branches of government or at least 3 members of the Supreme Court.

Americans as a population are quite poorly educated.

[Gibbous Moon]

...the California Supreme Court will issue a ruling tomorrow on the standing of appellants in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (the Proposition 8 case):
Prop 8 Trial Tracker » BREAKING: CA Supreme Court to issue opinion on Prop 8/standing tomorrow

If the CSC had ruled that the appellants have no standing, the case would be over. Same-sex marriage would be legal in California, but the no further appeals would be possible.

As it stands now, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will probably hear the appeal. They will probably uphold the District Court decision, with a ruling coming sometime in 2013 or early 2014. Such a ruling would strike down all laws prohibiting same-sex marriage in the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit; ie, not just California, but also Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. However, such a ruling would almost certainly be stayed pending review by the United States Supreme Court, which almost certainly would grant cert and hear the case.

The timetable for a ruling by the USSC would be sometime between last 2014 and 2015.