[excon]

Hello:

Wow. What happened to those right wingers in Iowa?? The unanimous ruling on Friday makes Iowa the first Midwestern state where same-sex marriage will be legal.

Iowa says YES, and California says NO?? Dude! Something weird is going on here.

Ok, nothing weird is going on. The Iowa Supreme Court stated the obvious, and they stated it UNANIMOUSLY. “If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded.”

Hmmmm. I wonder where I've heard THAT argument before??

excon

[J_9]

IOWA??

Now that's what I call the Twilight Zone!

[excon]

Hello again:

I just noticed the category of my question. Sorry. I didn't intend this question to be a "religious discussion", but rather under "current events"...

I'd much rather discuss the LEGAL implications of the decision and not the religious ones. I KNOW what you guys think.

My bad.

excon

[J_9]

Moved!

[excon]

Hello, J:

Thanks. But, that doesn't mean I won't argue with you Christians if you insist.

excon

[J_9]

LOL, I don't want to argue. I just find it funny that IOWA did this and not California!

[twinkiedooter]

Okay. So everybody knows what IOWA means? It means Idiots Out Wandering Around. Pretty much makes sense to me that they'd approve it as all the gay folks will want to move there when they leave good old California. Hey, they're not as dumb as they'd like us to think they are. Pretty clever, those dumb folks in Iowa if you ask me. Pretty darn clever.

[tomder55]

Ex Iowa has had a Democrat Governor for over a decade.This is the State that gave us Sen. Tom Harkin. Not sure how many "right wingers" are there .

What is there to wonder about ?Again,the people of Iowa made their wishes known and the unelected oligarchs struck it down.

The people of Iowa I'm sure will do the necessary steps to reinforce their will by passing a State Constitutional Amendment . (although their amending process is lengthy )

[excon]

The people of Iowa I'm sure will do the necessary steps to reinforce their will by passing a State Constitutional Amendment . (although their amending process is lengthy )

Hello again, tom:

It's my view that, as popular as it might be to do so, the people cannot remove a groups Constitutional rights through the legislative process. This was affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court.

It's also my view that, as much as the majority wish to do so, the people cannot remove the Constitutional rights of the minority by amending their Constitution. This, I believe, will be affirmed by the California Supreme Court.

It DOES remain to be seen, however, what kind of country we live in. One that memorializes discrimination in its Constitution, or one that represents freedom and justice for all.

excon

[tomder55]

The way I see it ;this whole issue ,although traditionally a State's rights issue will have to be decided at the Federal level with a Constitutional amendment one way or the other .

The courts as ususal have polorized the issue.

[tomder55]

You should read the convoluted logic by the Iowa Supreme Court.

http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supr...03/07-1499.pdf

Love this gem in the ruling : the legal requirement of equal protection of the laws "can only be defined by the standards of each generation."

The point in time when the standard of equal protection finally takes a new form is a product of the conviction of one, or many, individuals that a particular grouping results in inequality and the ability of the judicial system to perform its constitutional role free from the influences that tend to make society's understanding of equal protection resistant to change.

Do you believe these so called rights are universal or apply to the standard of the age ,when judges decide the time is right ?Why not just shut down the legislative branches of the States and have the courts make the laws also ?

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

Like global warming, I don't care of the logic is right, as long as the decision is.

excon

[ETWolverine]

It wasn't the People of Iowa that made this decision. It was the COURTS of Iowa.

Another case of Judicial Fiat. Abrogating the will of the PEOPLE in favor of the politics of a few UNELECTED officials in black robes.

I'm not surprised the court made this decision. That doesn't make it correct.

Elliot

[tomder55]

You did not answer the question. If you think that rights are universal and ageless as you often argue ,then you have to reject their contention that they "can only be defined by the standards of each generation."

Would you think that if the issue was slavery ?

[excon]

Another case of Judicial Fiat. Abrogating the will of the PEOPLE in favor of the politics of a few UNELECTED officials in black robes.

Hello again, El:

The will of the people cannot overturn the Constitutional rights of American citizens. It has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with the law. Would you be saying the same thing about the court if they were upholding the Second Amendment?? No, you wouldn't.

Nope. Got to stay consistent with the Constitution, El. If you don't support ALL the amendments, the one you DO support may be next...

excon

[ETWolverine]

As I have said before, there is no constitutional right for men to marry men or women to marry women. Never has been, never will be.

[excon]

As I have said before, there is no constitutional right for men to marry men or women to marry women. Never has been, never will be.

Hello again, El:

As long as marriage is a civil contract, with civil rights attached, ANY citizen may enter into it. To deny ANY citizen access to those rights, is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

I know you don't want to believe it.. It's OK with me.

excon

[kp2171]

*sigh*

don't know where to begin. Where the sarcasm starts or the bashing begins.

iowan here. Idiot out wandering... ah hell, not like I haven't heard it before.

preceding the vilsak/culver years (current/former gov) we had 30 years of (R) leadership with branstad and ray, and ray is still a beloved public figure. The conservative rural areas and more liberal cities (tho' I refuse to call our cities liberal) make for a balance.

for every wacky harkin... and he IS... we have a grassley, senior senator, ranking member and former chair of the finance com.

personally... this decision came as a shock to me. I'm as shocked as others who state "iowa and not cali???" one morning it was on the front page as a decision to be rendered and the next day *poof* it was done.

don't know.

we lose all our young talent to other states. Maybe this'll lead to a reverse to the "brain drain"... gay couples and callous-handed farmers sharing waffle houses and hayrack rides. Let me go find my overalls. Oh wait. I don't gots me none.

wow.. I'm such a reject. Neither hick nor gay in Iowa. {cries self to sleep}

=P

[tomder55]

As long as marriage is a civil contract, with civil rights attached, ANY citizen may enter into it. To deny ANY citizen access to those rights, is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

There are plenty of restrictions on who can be married ;even heterosexual ones... age ,family ,numbers of people in a marriage ;restrictions for marriage to the handicapped the list goes on and on. A man cannot have a concubine ,a commune cannot wed .

[twinkiedooter]

KP, I really didn't mean to be mean to you. I was just being funny (or trying to be). If anything Iowa can be really progressive in a lot of things that an onlooker would not even imagine. Been to Iowa and through it many times and I've always liked the good folks out there as they were sensible and down to earth types.

I do find it remarkable that Iowa did decide to do this though...

Just as long as the marriage is not to several men or several women... but just to one man or one woman is okay.