Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's even more unexpected than this is happening in Iowa, is that for the first time in the USA it was a completely unanimous vote by the Supreme Court to legalzie the marriage.
The opponents immediatlely are trying to get a vote in the House/Senate to outlaw gay marriage, but both said they have no plans to overturn the ruling, and are perfectly fine with the outcome. Even in polls a vast majority of Iowans really aren't concerned about the issue - as it should be.
It's always been a strangely progressive and liberal state for being so rural. It has a "live and let live" kind of attidude.
The Iowa SC ruling essentially makes moot any attempt by wingnuts in the legislature to craft a law against same sex marriage, i.e., that state's highest court has already RULED that same-sex unions are legal. Even if the legislature passes a same sex marriage ban unanimously, the laws are set up so that the majority of the people cannot impose unconstitutional rules on the minority. This is a form of issue that the courts have often dealt with, known as "the tyranny of the majority" and the judicial system is there to prevent that. Case in point was the old "Jim Crow" laws, voted in by a racist white majority many decades ago, but were patently unconstitutional; eventually they all went away after court decisions ruled they were not constitutional. The Iowa ruling is in the same vein, the majority of our nation (heterosexuals) may not deny the minority of our nation (homosexuals) of their right to equal treatment. Period. End of case. Wingnuts shut up, sit down, go home, you may NOT impose your mythology on others. Finis. Game over.
I'm sure the wingnuts will try the legislature now. Gay issues are the bread and butter of their fund raising efforts, there are no more major boogeymen for them to use to scare people out of their money.
Lastly, the "live and let live" aspect mentioned by Chicago60614 is exactly what the honorable GOP of decades past used to adhere to, i.e., the GOP of Barry Goldwater, which sadly is miles from what today's GOP is all about. Iowa must have some pretty cool people.
It's the tighty righties tighty whities getting all bunched up in California!
The experts say that the California Supreme Court will uphold Prop. 8. If that happens, I think California's going to look even more ridiculous now that same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa.
My prediction: If same-sex marriage in California is up for another vote in 2010, it will succeed. I doubt that most Californians want to be seen as "behind" Iowa on this issue.
I've gone to some of the gay news websites and seen a bunch of people in CA complaining about prop 8.
I honestly wouldn't be complaining if I lived in CA. They have domestic partnerships in CA, which is more than what many states offer.
I think in time people in CA will be ready to vote YES for same-sex marriage but I think the gay community has come along way.
The experts say that the California Supreme Court will uphold Prop. 8. If that happens, I think California's going to look even more ridiculous now that same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa.
My prediction: If same-sex marriage in California is up for another vote in 2010, it will succeed. I doubt that most Californians want to be seen as "behind" Iowa on this issue.
It will go to the SCOTUS and then you'll really see good stuff!
The Iowa SC ruling essentially makes moot any attempt by wingnuts in the legislature to craft a law against same sex marriage, i.e., that state's highest court has already RULED that same-sex unions are legal. Even if the legislature passes a same sex marriage ban unanimously, the laws are set up so that the majority of the people cannot impose unconstitutional rules on the minority. This is a form of issue that the courts have often dealt with, known as "the tyranny of the majority" and the judicial system is there to prevent that.
But this is exactly what happened in California. The California Supreme Court said that same-sex marriage should be legal last May, and then during the next 5 months, 18,000 same-sex couples got married. Then Prop. 8 passed and effectively reversed that decision.
Are you saying that the situation in Iowa is different?
But this is exactly what happened in California. The California Supreme Court said that same-sex marriage should be legal last May, and then during the next 5 months, 18,000 same-sex couples got married. Then Prop. 8 passed and effectively reversed that decision.
Are you saying that the situation in Iowa is different?
I have heard that changing the constitution in IA is really hard to do.
I am thinking that what the person meant [not the person you quoted in your person] was that it's really hard to Iowans to pass something like prop 8, which essentially changes the constitution.
::shrugs shoulders::
I hope same-sex marriage in Iowa is not overturned.
But this is exactly what happened in California. The California Supreme Court said that same-sex marriage should be legal last May, and then during the next 5 months, 18,000 same-sex couples got married. Then Prop. 8 passed and effectively reversed that decision.
Are you saying that the situation in Iowa is different?
No. I'm saying that prop 8 in CA is a perfect example of "the tyranny of the majority" and upon review I expect the CA court will set aside prop 8 as unconstitutional. If not, it will go to the SCOTUS, as DomerGirl said, where I expect the case to be tried on equal rights issues, not religious doctrinal issues which have no say in public law (though wingnuts would disagree). Gay marriage is going to happen, wingnuts can fight it if they choose, but they will not prevail.
I say let them marry why not. Though I dont know when marriage became a state right I thought it was a religious concept. You know maybe the gay people should start a gay church and have their own weddings save them alot of trouble. After all freedom of religion is in the constitution.
Only a socialist slave would not know the meaning of marriage.
Gay Marriage = Fish on Bicycles
Contrary to the positions of the partisans, marriage has nothing to do with "Equal rights." The real (and legal) reason for marriage, over history, was and is to endow children with the father's property. Whether a child is a bastard or not, he can always inherit from his mother.
That's ALL marriage was about - joining the property of two families for the benefit of progeny. Which explains "arranged marriages". Wise parents chose the best candidates to procreate grandchildren to endow with their valuable property. Childless marriages were tragic because it made the marriage a nullity.
When two same sex individuals can merge their genes into progeny, we should certainly encourage their marriage for the benefit of their progeny.
But the underlying reason for gay marriage is greed. They want to access the "benefits" granted to married couples under socialism. Without those financial incentives, gay marriage would not be attractive.
Frankly, any gay couple can set up a will to endow the survivor of the union. It doesn't require a marriage, a compact that is a nullity for gays under the common law. See curtesy and dower, in an old legal dictionary, if you're curious for more details.
And, no, a lifelong contract of marriage is not for "love". Two people "in love" don't need a binding legal contract to keep them together for life. The lifelong bonds of matrimony were to keep two people together, who would rather not be, and so preserve the merged family property for the next generation.
No. I'm saying that prop 8 in CA is a perfect example of "the tyranny of the majority" and upon review I expect the CA court will set aside prop 8 as unconstitutional. If not, it will go to the SCOTUS,
Hmm. My understanding is that it won't go to the SCOTUS because Prop. 8 is not being challenged based on any federal laws or the U.S. Constitution. It's purely a California issue. The opponents of Prop. 8 actually did this on purpose. Their fear was that if it did go to the SCOTUS, they would lose, which could then potentially set back the marriage equality issue for decades.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
