54% of Iowans Vote to Oust "Gay Marriage" Judges (NAFTA, attorneys)
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.
You do realize what you offer is a two-way street and those people can kindly ask YOU to leave too? It is a free country after all. In fact, I won't go that far, but I will suggest you get educated. Your use of stereotypes is pretty telling. You don't know much about gay people and it shows.
(Also, do you know of anyone who doesn't 'care so much about being accepted'? America: give us your tired and your poor, but you homos can stay on the boat!)
The majority of people don't want gay people to get married, but guess what!? The majority doesn't get to determine the rights of minorities, it doesn't get to have some and deny others the same. Every Constitutional argument about gay marriage has had the same result...except, of course, those already altered with hatred by the religious right. They talk about gay people being in their face and they, like you above, do everything they can to think of ways to get rid of them: changing Constitutions to exclude them, picketing their funerals, trying to keep sodomy laws on the books, making gay sex illegal in Montana, insisting that they can be changed back to 'normal'...
If you don't like gay people, don't be one.
like I said, Americans dont want gay marriage and that is evident, that is why we dont have it yet, that concern you, not me.
the fact stands, Americans dont want gay marriages, all you girly men and butch girls might want to look into another country if you care so much about being accepted.
"Girly men and butch girls"? You haven't met many gay and lesbian people have you.
As for what Americans want, you apparently don't know much about that either.
"Of particular interest is the Washington Post/ABC poll reported in 2009-APR. They were the first poll that found that more American adults supported same-sex marriage (49%) than opposed it (46%). Also of interest is the NFox News/Opinion Dynamics poll of 2010-AUG. It was the first major poll to show that most American adults support SSM. Asked whether "gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to marry..." the results were 52% in favor, 46% opposed; 2% unsure or no response."
[quote=artsyguy;16513849]Judicial review is supposed to protect the rights of the minority and enforce the constitutional republic which limits full fledged democracy.
Yes, but those who wrote Iowa's Constitution were wise enough to provide a mechanism for correction of judicial activism.
Possibly, but then we're talking about Iowa's Constitution, not any other states. So are we saying we keep firing the Supreme Court until we get the decision we want? Has any Supreme Court said NO to this issue when given the same argument and working with a Constitution that wasn't already altered by the right wing to disallow gay marriage?
When were the rights of the people been taken away and given to this court?
Who cares what "you" and those like "you" like or don't like? I don't "like" a lot of heterosexual marriages (I'm a heterosexual by the way, one that has been married 27+ years) and I'm not out to lambaste people. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get married to someone of the same sex. Problem solved.
What do you want gay people to do? Go back into the closet? Get married to someone of the opposite sex and then live a lie for the next 20-30-40 years and then finally announce to their wife/husband they that they are gay and then have the world crashing down upon the whole family and have the other partner realize that their whole life as a couple was a sham?
I have no idea why gay marriage poses such a threat to people. Seems to me that there's a lot of people who would do well to pay attention to their own marriage and quit worrying about who other people are marrying. Ever hear of the "pluck the wood out of your own eye first"? Too many "Harper Valley PTA" people in this country.
I was hoping that ignorance would die off during my generation. Now I hope that it does in my children's generation.
Gays have turned their noses up at civil unions because they don't give them what they are really seeking which is to force, through the legal definition of marriage, acceptance of gay sex as natural and normal. Any legal arrangements short of the same institution of marriage heterosexuals enter into will not accomplish this.
Our country has had worse times way before gays were parading out of the closet like at a Cher concert. An example of that? Oh, okay. Who remembers the civil war? There weren't any gays at that time. They were in the closet. Yet our country had major social problems. Or remember the depression of 1920 or 1930s? Gays were in the closet back then, too.
Our constitutional form of self-governance is diminished when liberal groups turn to activist courts to effectively overrule the acts of state and federal legislatures and the will of the people. We've seen this very clearly in California as the California Supreme Court defied the expressed will of the citizens by overturning Prop 8.
It clearly shows that liberals DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE and are only concerned with enacting thier agenda, regardless of what the public thinks.
There is no liberty in the minds of liberals, as the thought of imposing thier will on the populace, by whatever means, is perfectly acceptable.
Perhaps this is why liberals are so fond of ruthless dictators like Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Chavez- they are envious of thier ability to crush the will of the people and impose thier personal will.
The will of the people shouldn't infringe on the freedom of expression of the individual. And that includes civil marriage. The gays did not demand that churches marry them (most of the them are agnostic or non-religious anyway). They said the government should allow civil marriages. Big difference. There is a separation of church and state. And marriage is apparently a religious issue with "the people."
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
An interesting point about this thread-
It clearly shows that liberals DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE and are only concerned with enacting thier agenda, regardless of what the public thinks.
There is no liberty in the minds of liberals, as the thought of imposing thier will on the populace, by whatever means, is perfectly acceptable.
Perhaps this is why liberals are so fond of ruthless dictators like Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Chavez- they are envious of thier ability to crush the will of the people and impose thier personal will.
Gays currently have exactly the same rights to marry someone of the opposite sex as does anyone. Those are EQUAL rights. What gays want are special rights, not equal.
Looks like the people of Iowa have spoken. Don't like it, don't live in Iowa.
Normally I would read all the posts before responding to one, but this one makes about the least sense of any that I have read on C-D yet.
It's not a special right. Check it out:
Gays can marry someone of the opposite gender, but why would we want to?
Gays cannot marry someone of the same gender, though we would want to.
Straights can marry someone of the opposite gender, and want to, and do.
Straights cannot marry someone of the opposite gender, but why would they want to?
The inequity should be pretty easy to understand. If marriage equality was allowed, straights could marry someone of the same gender, but why would they want to? Doesn't matter, they don't have to.
Gays and straights would still have equal rights, though, whereas now they do not.
Wow, what a thread this has been. Lots of cluelessness all over. Let's try to clear some things up:
1. This vote is incredibly dangerous to the continued constitutionality of our country. The founding fathers wrote papers outlining the independent judiciary that they were creating, calling it at one point the most important facet of their new democracy. The idea was that judges and justices should never have to be elected or retained by voters. If these judges had to worry about that, then they would be looking out for the will of the voters instead of upholding the Constitution.
The legislature is the branch that pays attention to popular opinion or 'what the people want'. The role of the judiciary is exactly the opposite: uphold the Constitution, often to the chagrin of voters.
2. The judges in question did not legislate from the bench, nor did any judge that extended marriage rights to gays and lesbians. They were brought a case about inequity in the law that was not in accordance with the Constitution, in that there was a governmental institution that was being withheld from a group of people based on an immutable, definable characteristic. They expanded the institution to include this group, but they never wrote a new law or legislated from the bench.
3. Marriage in the US has nothing to do with religion. It is a civil matter, controlled by the state. Churches only perform the ceremony.
If you have a religious ceremony without a marriage license, you are not married in the eyes of the state. As other have pointed out, when you divorce, you go to the state, not the clergy.
Since these judges were ruling on civil marriage and not religious ceremonies, religion does not get a say. Nor does the judiciary have a say in religious ceremonies.
4. The bible does not have legal standing. Arguments made in the Bible and translated over and over do not apply to legal precedent in America.
Many of the "Christians" posting here didn't even know what is written in Leviticus. Most are taking the Bible literally, which is literally a 20th Century concept; never before then had Biblical literalism been the norm. Nearly all ignore the scarcity of mentions of homosexuality in the Bible, the fact that homosexuality then was very different than gay relationships are now, the historical and linguistic context of the passages and the fact that Jesus Christ himself was entirely unconcerned about homosexuality. And I'd be willing to bet that every last one ignores just about everything else that was said in Leviticus, cherry-picking two sentences that serve your cause.
5. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation, nor does procreation have anything to do with marriage.
6. Animals cannot consent to marriage, for good reasons. They would have quite a bit of difficulty signing the marriage license, for one.
7. Children are not harmed by being in a house headed by gays and lesbians. If anything, they are probably more likely to be harmed in a house headed by straights. Gays and lesbians have to jump through hoops to adopt children, who in many cases were unwanted by the straight people who created them. There are many more children in straight families that are unwanted, ignored, abused, etc. The rigors of adoption itself actually tend to protect adopted children from these same things that biological children endure, if for no reason other than the background checks and scrutiny that takes place before, during and after adoption.
8. It is correct that same sex marriage is not mentioned as a right in the Iowa Constitution. It is also unlikely that opposite sex marriage is mentioned there.
9. The campaign against these judges was funded by anti-gay fringe hate groups like the National Organization for Marriage. The judges themselves did not run for re-election, thereby displaying the integrity of the bench by once again ignoring the "voice of the people", which is their job.
10. The only ones trampling the will of the people are those trying to keep same sex marriage illegal, as they are trampling the will of a minority to do as they please in a peaceful manner that has no harmful affect on themselves or society. They are also trampling the will of just about everyone to live in a society based on the US Constitution, which provides an independent judiciary whose job is to ignore the will of the people.
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.
