A Brief Note on Iowa

Old_Crow

Publish the home address of the judges as well as the names and photos of their family members. That way, when you meet them around town, the public can give them some feedback.

How about bus tours to their homes..

SecularRepublican

IMO…

SecularRepublican

IMO…

harrykeeler

Is there any legislative or judicial process that you consider to be a valid implementation of gay marriage? Around the country, we’ve seen gay marriage bans implemented by state legislatures and then overturned as unconstitutional by courts, and opponents of gay marriage cry foul. On the other hand, we’ve seen state legislatures passing gay marriage rights and having the law vetoed by governors (California, soon to be Vermont and New Hampshire).

Is there any process that you feel must be respected?

http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

If same sex marriage is enacted by proper legislative mechanisms, then so be it, though I would personally be opposed to it.

aarongardner

In reality this is not a matter of equal protection at all….both heterosexuals and homosexuals were allowed to get married….it just had to be to the opposite sex.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The law was applied equally…what the court essentially did was re-write the law. That is not their job.

If all of you social liberals are so confidant that you have the advantage on this issue with the public than why can’t you bring it to the public instead of usurping the Constitution via activist Judges?

homosexuality is not a race, gender or religion, it is nothing more than a sexual persuasion. PERIOD. There is nothing in the Constitution which would constitute the equal protection clause being applied to Homosexuals.

In fact, if I were to use the courts interpretation of the equal protection clause, then all laws allowing aborting would be Unconstitutional. Unborn babies are a group and they are deprived of life without due proccess of law.

Tell you what, I will make a deal….I will give you gay marriage based upon equal protection clause if you give me an abortion ban based upon the same.

Sound good?

aarongardner

Reaganite82

it’s a bad argument to say that just b/c it was legislatively enacted, it’s beyond judges’ authority to rule unconst’l. see, e.g., DC gun ban.

that this is iowa and the decision was unanimous makes me think the law was poorly written. i don’t know the makeup of the ct, but there has to have been at least one conservative who didn’t agree with gay marriage but still signed on to this ruling with a reason other than personal policy preferences.

Skanderbeg

Erick, just a FYI tip-off from the regurgitated talking points that you got hit with above.

The latest stunt in this space is a newly-invented claim that if a state legislature passes this kind of crud, it’s somehow wrong for the governor to exercise his executive discretion of a veto.

Why that “logic” suddenly applies to only this one issue is left unsaid. (It’s pretty obvious why of course….)

aarongardner

That guy wrote some crazy stuff…

Every resident of “Idiot’s Valley” is mentally retarded and packs a gun.

icbm

Why do we submit without even a whimper?

Iowans, call your state reps and senators and demand impeachment.

icbm

Why do we submit without even a whimper?

Iowans, call your state reps and senators and demand impeachment.

aarongardner

His universe is full of the grotesque, the deformed and the rotten, but is not less amply stocked with the wildly hilarious. His targets — the military, the state, capitalism, racism — and his special interests — the occult, Eastern philosophy, science fiction — make him specially relevant to the nightmarish Sixties and Seventies which have forgotten him, while his meticulous crafted and joyously zany stories render him at the same time delightfully irrelevant to the mess and horror of the real world.

icbm

it wasn’t just about striking down a law.

it was about judicially creating a new law, despite not having the authority, to force the state of iowa to have homosexual marriage. Similar to thousands of previous decisions by liberal judges who decide they are entitled by their own sense of justice to act as legislator, executive, and judge.

From the AP:

DES MOINES, Iowa ? Iowa’s Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state ? and the first in the nation’s heartland ? to allow same-sex couples to wed.

In its decision, the high court upheld a lower court’s ruling that found a state law restricting marriage to between a man and woman violated Iowa’s constitution.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage

SecularRepublican

I think it’s pretty silly to argue that gay people had the same rights as heterosexual people as far as marriage was concerned. Gay Iowans couldn’t marry the person they wanted. Period. Providing them with the same rights as heterosexuals is nothing more than providing them with equal rights. I have no problem with the court’s ruling. Somehow I think you’d feel differently (or at least I hope you would) if the law said that persons of different races couldn’t marry. In my opinion, that’s just as ridiculous as prohibiting same-sex marriage. My opinion is also grounded in the belief that sexual orientation is not a choice. I know you don’t agree, but I wanted to respond with my point of view.

harrykeeler

I never said that a governor cannot exercise his veto power. He can. And courts can rule laws to be unconstitutional. Is there a flaw in this system?

AKSteveB

and more than Roe V. Wade was a way to get abortion rights. The answer to your question is I’d accept a legislative process and/or a constitutional amendment. Doing this via the courts is a violation of the idea of a Constitutional Republic, and it also will never allow any consensus on the issue.

harrykeeler

or google me and find that it was a real person? I’m the latter: I pulled the name from thin air, then googled to find that it was a real person. Haven’t read his stuff.

http://hammerofreality.blogspot.com NickLevi86

This was based on the state, not U.S. constitution. h/t Ace: <a href=”http://minx.cc/?post=285383″ Article I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution:

All laws of a general nature shall have a
uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or
class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall
not equally belong to all citizens.

The real question then becomes, how can any right completely belong to all citizens? Married people, Gay or Straight, are obvioulsy put in a “different class” than the rest of us and accorded certain priveliges and immunities. Then, is the *entire concept* of marriage unconstitutioonal in Iowa?

Your honor, I smirk in your general direction and rest my case.

http://hammerofreality.blogspot.com NickLevi86

This was based on the state, not U.S. constitution. h/t Ace: <a href=”http://minx.cc/?post=285383″ Article I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution:

All laws of a general nature shall have a
uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or
class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall
not equally belong to all citizens.

The real question then becomes, how can any right completely belong to all citizens? Married people, Gay or Straight, are obvioulsy put in a “different class” than the rest of us and accorded certain priveliges and immunities. Then, is the *entire concept* of marriage unconstitutioonal in Iowa?

Your honor, I smirk in your general direction and rest my case.

aarongardner

First…

I think it?s pretty silly to argue that gay people had the same rights as heterosexual people as far as marriage was concerned. Gay Iowans couldn?t marry the person they wanted. Period.

Sorry but you are wrong…homosexuals and heterosexuals were treated equally under the law…both could marry members of the opposite sex, their sexual persuasion is besides the point. Tow straight men cannot get married either…are we discriminating against them?

Second…

Somehow I think you?d feel differently (or at least I hope you would) if the law said that persons of different races couldn?t marry. In my opinion, that?s just as ridiculous as prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Again…homosexuality is not a race, gender or religion, to conflate the two is positively silly.

Third…

My opinion is also grounded in the belief that sexual orientation is not a choice. I know you don?t agree, but I wanted to respond with my point of view.

You don’t know what I believe actually….I believe that it is possible that it is sometimes a choice and sometimes just how someone is born…but that doesn’t mean I have to condone the action. I also believe that many serial killers were born with the desire to kill…something wrong in their brains…but I am not ready to legalize murder to make sure they are happy.

http://hammerofreality.blogspot.com NickLevi86

@#$% html.

http://minx.cc/?post=285383

evanm

Somehow I think you?d feel differently (or at least I hope you would) if the law said that persons of different races couldn?t marry.

I actually support the government staying out of marriage altogether, but your comment points out exactly why this opinion was wrong: The equal protection clause of the Iowa constitution forbids discrimination based on race. It does not forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The issue involved in this case was not about what rights homosexuals should have, but about what they do have under Iowa law. Whether you like it or not, Iowa law says that persons of the same sex can’t marry, and that statute doesn’t violate any provision of the Iowa Constitution. If you want gay marriage for Iowas, pass a statute, like everybody else. If you think homosexuality should be a protected class, pass a constitutional amendment, like everybody else.

aarongardner

but I don’t believe you…I think you are probably nothing more that a troll….basically because you called all of us hypocrites in your first post.

evanm

Then I read the opinion.

I’ve pretty much decided that the entire court was legislating.

aarongardner

evanm

The text sounds broader, but if you read the opinion you’ll see that the Iowa SC has basically adopted US 14th amendment jurisprudence for equal protection, except they get to decide what classes are protected and what level of scrutiny to apply.

The first mistake here subjecting the gay marriage ban to intermediate scrutiny. But it was a fault of logic, now of law (see the discussion pursuant to the second comment; re: Equal Protection). It was out of whack with US and Iowan jurisprudence, based on my understanding.

It’s really pretty simple. If you want to be legally married, pass a law. If you want to prevent the legislature from prohibiting something, pass a constitutional amendment. If you can’t achieve the former, you’re never going to achieve the latter. Which, actually, pretty much explains this decision.

harrykeeler

but even if I were a Harry Keeler fan, or knew of him, and chose his name to post — how would that indicate that I’m a troll?

Secondly, I didn’t call anyone a hypocrite. I think my initial comment asked a perfectly valid question, and was worded respectfully.

evanm

Summary of Ruling
Opinion

Fair warning: PDFs.

skorrent1

Iowan siblings or parent/child could not “marry the person they wanted” either. Is that a deprivation of “equal rights?”

Over the course of centuries, the federal government has enacted more than 1300 laws and regulations on the institution of “marriage” defined as a relation of one man and one woman. There are likely an equal number of Iowa state legislative acts. For a court to determine that each and every one of those pieces of legislation applies to a “gay” relationship, without review, is a monstrous usurpation of the legislative function. The proper attitude for anyone with a conservative inclination is to bring up each legislative act for review to see if it equitably should apply to a “gay” relationship. Some laws, for example medical information restrictions, might be modified. Others, like those pertaining to biological progeny, make no sense.

aarongardner

First the author who shares your name made his targets ? the military, the state, capitalism and racism …sounds like a lefty to me.

And you at least implied hypocrisy on the part of republicans with this statement..

we?ve seen gay marriage bans implemented by state legislatures and then overturned as unconstitutional by courts, and opponents of gay marriage cry foul. On the other hand, we?ve seen state legislatures passing gay marriage rights and having the law vetoed by governors

Don’t get cute….just admit it….you are a troll.

http://hammerofreality.blogspot.com NickLevi86

Still, I see where they’re coming from. “Equal protection” in any document is a ridiculously vague sentiment, and easy to bend to whatever will you happen to favor. Personally, since there seems no longer to be a unified tradition, I think we shouldn’t bother with laws propping up those traditions.

This is the kind of thing for an amendment anynow, Not only is that then permanently enshrined, no muck about legislator clauses can get in the way, and it’s completely F(r)ederalist!

evanm

The framers of the Iowa Constitution knew, as did the drafters of the United States Constitution, that ?times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,? and as our constitution ?endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom? and equality. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578?79, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2484, 156 L. Ed. 2d 508, 526 (2003) (acknowledging intent of framers of Federal Constitution that Constitution endure and be interpreted by future generations) . . .

itrytobenice

I apologize in advance to any quality square head reading this blog.

Hubby used to travel extensively in the middle of the US and determined that folks north of Missouri were square heads. One time, he took me with him to WI and lo and behold: square heads. All over the place. And apparently, this fact was well known and accepted by the other guys in his line of work as well.

And BTW, going south it was the opposite experience. From AR on south, they became more and more gracious and generous. I don’t know if it is contagious or if birds of a feather flock together, but there do seem to be personalities of areas of the US.

Just in case any of you wanted travel advice.

evanm

But even if it’s ripe for an amendment, the court just put the burden on opponents to have to pass the amendment, as opposed to the proponents, who lacked the right in the first place.

Again: You want a right, pass an amendment.

Here’s the court on the US/IA equal protection distinction:

[Footnote] 6 Plaintiffs? challenge to Iowa Code section 595.2 is based on the equal protection guarantee in the Iowa Constitution and does not implicate federal constitutional protections.

Generally, we view the federal and state equal protection clauses as ?identical in scope, import, and purpose.? Callender, 591 N.W.2d at 187. At the same time, we have jealously guarded our right to ?employ a different analytical framework? under the state equal protection clause as well as to independently apply the federally formulated principles. Racing Ass?n of Cent. Iowa v. Fitzgerald, 675 N.W.2d 1, 4?7 (Iowa 2004). Here again, we find federal precedent instructive in interpreting the Iowa Constitution, but we refuse to follow it blindly.

evanm

I may end up in Iowa in the not-so-distant future.

I don’t want a square head. Is it acquired or genetic?

evanm

He can’t be a troll… I mean, he’s been here a whole month!

[/sarcasm]

evanm

And that’s exactly the track the court should have gone: Under rational basis review, the legislature can make any manner of regulations it wants so long as they have some conceivable “rational basis.” Instead, the court applied a higher, “intermediate” level of scrutiny, based on the fact that persons who wish to marry the same sex are similarly situated to those who wish to marry others of the opposite sex. As discussed about, this is illogical.

The court even suggested that the legislature may have had a rational basis for passing the act, but that it didn’t matter due to the application of intermediate scrutiny:

On the other hand, we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies.26

Bolding mine.

And, from the footnote…

26 The research appears to strongly support the conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else. In any event, we do not address whether there is a rational basis for the marriage statute, as the sexual-orientation classification made by the statute is subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny.

harrykeeler

but I’m not a troll. On the specific targets:

I support the military and believe that we must engage militant Islam with force. I’m frankly amazed that my left-leaning cohort does not see the need to fight them, given their views on society.

I believe that capitalism is the best economic system we have, although I feel that institutions that are handed people’s money (banks, investment houses, insurance firms) with a lure of future returns should he heavily regulated.

I deplore racism – who doesn’t?

I also think that we have a good legal system – the best in the world. US legal doctrine has been a model for democracy and the rule of law for centuries now, and is far and away the most heavily cited foreign source of law in other countries. This is why I disagree when people question one of our most important tools for checks and balances (the judicial invalidating of laws as unconstitutional) just because they don’t like the result.

http://hammerofreality.blogspot.com NickLevi86

This action is to clarify and restrict action. To define something more narrowly than some commonly hold it to be. Even in the reversal of conservative fortunes, there is no *loss* of rights here.

But I agree with Erick, now that I see these parts of the rulling you’ve highlighted. The judges are definitely picking and choosing. I find ironic the statement “we refuse to follow [Federal Precedent] blindly,” since justice is supposed to be, you know……blind…

oy vey.

evanm

I don’t follow your first paragraph, but I think I see the point you’re trying to make. I should have said that the proponents ‘sought’ the ‘constitutionally-protected’ right to marry the same sex. You are correct that this action was to restrict the scope of legislative authority.

aarongardner

It is not that we disagree with the result Harry, that is not the point. What we disagree with is Judges who go outside of their role and into the role of the Legislature. We disagree with Judges who blatantly misinterpret the Constitution to fit their pet causes, as you are doing.

On Capitalism….well China is a capitalist nation but I don’t want to live there. The key is Free Market Capitalism. Sorry but no other form of capitalism comports with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. A Free Market is needed to ensure the individual freedom sought and constructed by our Founding Fathers.

Racism….yes everyone deplores Racism…it just seems that your side is much more comfortable with their Racists. The company you keep.

As far as you being a troll…well lets take another look at that…you have been here a month and you have never posted on a single subject until today…you failed to put any information about yourself in your profile. You never came out and said you were a Democrat even though you are. You imply hypocrisy on your first ever post. You use all the same talking point that have been discredited on this site time and again in conversations with others of your ilk.

But yeah…sure…you’re not a troll…you a beautiful unique individual….same as the rest of them!!

WylieJon

…that gay cousins can now marry?

With the broad interpretation of “equal protection” that the Iowa supreme court used here, how can restricting marriage based on familial relationships be banned?

The slope is long and slippery…

gazill

by Schwarzenegger because after the state had voted in one of the propositions against gay marriage (a 61-38 decision), a San Francisco councilman, Mark Leno, presented his legislation legalizing gay marriage, essentially saying to the majority of Californians that their vote did not matter. This time it passed (if I recall correctly, he had tried to pass this a few times before, unsuccessfully). Arnold vetoed it stating that the people of California had just voted on this issue, and he heard their voices. Of course, that veto lead to the gay exceptionalists using the court to get what they wanted (an overturn decided by just 4 people) , which then lead to another vote, an amendment to the California Constitution, which too passed, and of course the gay exceptionalists are fighting this, again in the courts. It appears to me the residents of California have used the mechanism defined by the constitution, and the minority will not accept it.

itrytobenice

But I’d aim farther south just in case. I mean, srsly, what would you do if you got home to a big family reunion and everyone said to you, “What in the world has come over you? Are you turning into a square head or something?”

Lawsy, lawsy. It might be too late by then.

itrytobenice

Or even me and my mom. If you can’t restrict marriage by gender, how can you justify restricting it by romantic love? If something ever happened to our husbands, I could stay home and raise our kids and she could share her good benefits with me.

Or if I married my mom, I could get survivor benefits from her pension.

The worms are coming out of the can.

evanm

Don’t you know that logic of this sort automatically brands you as a bigot?

You just called all homosexuals incestuous.

Again, [/sarcasm]

evanm

And if homosexuals are a protected class because of a history of discrimination, imagine how protected incest and beastiality should be?

Those practices have been discriminated against far more vigorously and overtly than homosexuality.

aarongardner

Sorry, but my wife has a long neck.

* This in no way should be seen as me condoning the disgusting act of bestiality…I was merely employing the absurd to show another absurdity.

harrykeeler

As for whether I’m a troll, Wikipedia says:

*******
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
********

Come on, I might be a bit of a contrarian in this neighborhood, but I’m not a troll.

harrykeeler

Do you think the Gov. of VT should veto the bill just passed by both houses based solely on his objection to its contents (as he himself has said)? (Same for New Hampshire)

aarongardner

A person who quotes what the definition of a troll is when argue about whether he is a troll, while at the same time arguing about the Constitution without ever bother to quote, or God forbid understand what that document is saying, while also starting off with an implied accusation of some for of hypocrisy.

Anyone who only posts on the subject of gay marriage and nothing else, who also happens to just pop up on the day of a ruling being announced on that subject is certainly highly suspect. And with the addition of your coincidental name and arguments that are weak even to most libertarians, I think I made the right call.

The truth shall set you free Harry…embrace it.

aarongardner

And the reason why is because I live here in Vermont. Also all of the right that the State of Vermont can give to Homosexuals have already been given via the civil union laws here, which are very very generous.

It is a pointless bill other than the fact that they are changing the definition of a word to make a very small, even amongst other minorities, minority *happy*.

evanm

A person who quotes what the definition of a troll is when argue about whether he is a troll, while at the same time arguing about the Constitution without ever bother to quote…

aarongardner

This guy is really bad at this….another reason that leads me to believe that he is a troll….no way he could be a libertarian.

http://hammerofreality.blogspot.com NickLevi86

regardless of my un-clarified pronouns! Sorry!

gazill

and what I read in the Governor’s press release, yes I think he should veto it. The reason is that this represents a minority trying to change a definition of a word to suit their desires, in general against the wishes of a majority, and all rights are provided for. Basically, everyone has the same rights as everyone else, marriage to an agreeable, single member of the opposite sex over a certain age (I am assuming), and I see this as just trying to get what they want by changing the meaning of the word marriage.

harrykeeler

as someone who asks difficult questions. And, no, a troll is not someone who defends himself against the accusation of being a troll by defining a troll. It was a clever riposte, I’ll give you that.

Also, you’ve done a good job of turning the discussion away from the initial question I posed, and that was is there any legislative mechanism by which you will accept gay marriage?

And while I’ve got your attention, do you think the Governors of Vermont and New Hampshire should veto legislation already passed allowing gay marriage? You should be willling to answer this question if you want to claim to have a robust position on gay marriage.

And dodging my questions while once again insisting that I’m just a troll will, at this point, start to look a bit weak.

harrykeeler

you answered it below

harrykeeler

you accept that the governor can veto legislation that has been passed by a wide majority in both houses as an appropriate component of our legislative process, but you don’t accept the supreme court of a state determining a law to be unconstitutional.

Sorry, does my pointing this out make me a troll?

aarongardner

I have already laid out the position in the thread that is below….as have many others…go read the rest of the thread you clown.

harrykeeler

I misread the news, only one house has passed so far, the other (the senate) is expected to.

aarongardner

Go read the thread above. I don’t really feel that you rate me re-iterating it for you.

harrykeeler

It was passed by the legislators.

Don’t you get it? You’re looking like someone who only respects our full legislative process when the results suit you. We have legislators. We have governors. We have courts. They all play a part in the balance of power. But when a state supreme court determines a law to be unconstitutional (which is their JOB), you claim that they have stepped outside their bounds.

Let me ask you this: California now has a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Imagine that the legislature simply goes ahead and passes a law that all county clerks must allow gay couples to marry. Do you think the California State Supreme Court will have the right to declare that law unconstitutional and void it?

aarongardner

another sign of trolldom.

harrykeeler

It was nice chatting with you.

aarongardner

Go upthread and read why *this* court decision was made incorrectly. No one is arguing wheter or not the Judicary has the duty to declare unconstitutional laws as such…we are saying that the basis for calling this law unconstitutional was not formed based on constitutional law.

You are one dense troll.

harrykeeler

and no, there’s nothing incorrect about the decision, you just disagree with it. People disagree with court decisions all the time, but that is not a cause to declare the decision to be invalid in some way. Was the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in 2004 also invalid? The California Supreme Court decision in 2008 also invalid?

Hmm, it seems that any time a court decides that a law barring gays from marrying is unconstitutional, the court is making a mistake and stepping outside of their bounds.

We have a good legal system. We should respect it, even if it produces results we don’t like.

aarongardner

harrykeeler

dead Constitution?

Slightly_Askew

Thesaurus:

dead, adjective:

6. Completely such, without qualification or exception: absolute, all-out, arrant, complete, consummate, crashing, damned, downright, flat, out-and-out, outright, perfect, plain, pure, sheer 2, thorough, thoroughgoing, total, unbounded, unequivocal, unlimited, unmitigated, unqualified, unrelieved, unreserved, utter

aarongardner

http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

Every single federal elected official swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. When you, the hypothetical federal elected official, follow the Constitution you can do it either of two ways.

1. Follow the principles and words of the Constitution as they were originally intended.

2. Make it up as you go along. Here lie penumbras and emanations. BTW, by “lie” I do not mean assume a restful posture.

I choose 1. We know what Obama the “Constitutional Lawyer” chooses. What do you choose?

tcgeol

The governor’s signature is an essential part of legislation. It is part of the necessary procedures involved in law. He has the express constitutionally-provided power to approve or veto any bill.

The courts are usurping the place of the legislature by overturning laws based only on their (judges) ideology. They are not specifically given this power by any state constitution that I am aware of.

There is no comparison between these two and to argue otherwise is idiocy.

tcgeol

That is great.

Martin Knight

papalee

is the principle of “government by the consent of the governed.” The run to the courts after the people themselves have made it entirely clear that they don’t and won’t accept the idea “marriage” between two persons of the same gender.

What the troll misses is that the Constitution of the United States does not give the Supreme Court of the US the power to invalidate the laws passed by Congress. It is one they, the court, assumed for itself and which we have failed to revolt against.

gazill

the voters overwhelmingly sided against gay marriage, as is the process in this state. After the election, the Mayor simply went ahead and allowed gay marriage. The courts overturned the ban. Why? It was “against the California Consititution.” What did Californians do? Voted to amend the constitution. We will see how the courts rule on the “constitutionality” of the constitution amendment. As to your question “California now has a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Imagine that the legislature simply goes ahead and passes a law that all county clerks must allow gay couples to marry. Do you think the California State Supreme Court will have the right to declare that law unconstitutional and void it?” If that happened, I would expect the governor to veto it, and if not then yes, as it actually is against the constitution, what else could they do?

As far as respecting legislation that only suits me, this state is chock full of legislation that does not suit me. Some I understand, and some are simply legislators drunk with power who are not held accountable in this state and pass laws that suit their whims, not the people they represent.

Menlo

The problem is that some people in the government (law enforcement I suppose) are CHOOSING to obey the opinion rather than laughing at it. I fail to see how reasonable and intelligent people (or even just literate people) take it seriously. Thus, I have to assume those who do are just lying so they can get their way, much as our federal courts have done for decades. That is why I have the same sentiment for numerous federal court rulings (and several other state ones) made under the guise of “judicial review.”

modgopgal

As I have posted before and made very clear, I am a moderate Republican who supports gay marriage. And as I noted previously, I attended a lovely gay wedding in Massachusetts. Perhaps it is a generational thing. I just turned 24 and gay marriage is not really much of an issue for my friends and me. We’ve grown up around openly gay people, watched television shows with gay characters, and had openly gay teachers (well, I didn’t because I went to Catholic school but many of my friends did).

One of the main reasons I support gay marriage is because gay people in some states are denied important legal protections that heterosexual married people enjoy (e.g. the right to visit a loved one in the hospital, filing joint tax returns, child custody protections, health care provided through state government jobs, and transfer of property to name a few). Civil unions in some states don’t protect those rights for gay people. We can certainly debate the use of the term “marriage”, but shouldn’t gay people at least have the right to see their loved one at the hospital or not face the threat of a family member who does not approve of a gay relationship filing for custody of a gay couple’s child (as happened in Virginia)?

AKSteveB

to gay marriage, and if it reaches the point where a voting majority wishes to legalize it, then so be it (I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it). You guys had better realize though that a court that can invent a “progressive” law out of thin air, can also do the same with a conservative one. We have three branches of government for a reason. Also, at least be aware that “gay marriage” is something that simply has never existed before, even in societies where homosexuality was accepted. The fact that people are uncomfortable with it or oppose it does not make them bigots.

modgopgal

I forgot to mention another reason I support gay marriage. A US citizen, who happens to be gay, can not act as a sponsor of his/her lover from another country. If a heterosexual US citizen wants to be with his/her loved one who is from another country they can get married, making sponsoring the immigrant relatively easy. A gay couple has no such option of sponsorship.

modgopgal

were bigots and certainly don’t believe that to the be the case. My parents, both Republican, oppose gay marriage. I would never call them bigots. But, again, I do think it is a generational thing.

I’m curious what you think of the legal issues I raised in my post. We can agree to disagree on the definition of marriage but do you believe gays should enjoy the same legal protections as heterosexuals when it comes to hospital visitation, child custody, legitimacy of wills, state health insurance benefits if their partner is a state employee, transfer of private property or joint ownership of property?

Alitheia

“You guys had better realize though that a court that can invent a ?progressive? law out of thin air, can also do the same with a conservative one.”

AKSteveB

of the state insurance benefits. Everything else is a matter of contract law and family law. The issues of a sexual relationship are immaterial to those.

As for the state insurance benefits, I’d leave that on the same path as the marriage issue. It is up to the citizens of the state what benefits they wish to provide on the state level. One way they might be able to work around it, is to also take the sexual relationship variable out of it, and provide benefits to any one person in addition to the employee.

modgopgal

and thank you for being considerate. I’m always a bit hesitant to post here because, as a social moderate Republican, I don’t share some of the views many seem to have at Redstate.

I raised the immigration/spousal sponsorship issue in another post because I have a gay friend in the US who married his partner who is Canadian. He moved to Canada to be with his partner and since Canada recognizes gay marriage his partner could serve as a spousal sponsor. But Nebraska, where my friend is from, didn’t recognize that marriage of course and my friend was not permitted to act as a spousal sponsor. Which meant that his Canadian partner would have a much longer time and more legal hoops to jump through to be approved by US Immigration.

AKSteveB

I would venture, if you polled “progressives” even 20 years ago, 90 plus pct wouldn’t even understand the question because it would seem so out there. I’m socially libertarian for the most part, but often find it very hard to believe that we have wisdom that millenia of past Western Civilization did not. Understand that we’ve all been manipulated towards having a radically different set of social mores in a milisecond as history goes, then one has to decide whether that is for good, evil, or a mixture.

modgopgal

sponsorship issue. How does a gay American sponsor his lover from another country if the US doesn’t recognize gay marriage? In Canada a gay person can sponsor his lover to whom he is married and the government recognizes it as equal to a heterosexual marriage. In the US gay people can not serve as sponsors so their partner has a much more difficult time immigrating to the states.

Again, we can debate the definition of marriage. But I would hope most conservatives who advocate personal liberties and less government control would at least support equal protections for gays and lesbians. Shouldn’t a gay person be able to sponsor his lover to help facilitate the immigration process just as heterosexuals can?

AKSteveB

I think it is a separate issue than marriage per se. We allow other types of family sponsorship as well.

tcgeol

Why should the U.S. do so? What would be the benefit to us? They are no different than any other friends except for the sexual relationship. On the other hand, you say that you based your acceptance and approval of homosexual marriage off of popular culture. There are legitimate reasons to support or oppose anything, but pop cultural opinion isn’t really one of them.

I would like to hear your legal argument, though, explaining how you can justify the action of the Iowa court. You listed reasons why you believe that homosexual marriage should be granted, but you provided no Constitutional justification (federal or state) for overruling the direct will of the people by an unaccountable court. Your opinions, although interesting and important as discussion, don’t really make any difference before the law. Could you please explain your stance from a legal and Constitutional perspective? This ruling appears to be purely the judges’ opinion that they have elevated above a constitutionally legitimate measure, and I can see no acceptable reason for that action.

AKSteveB

I don’t believe it says anything about “coyote dates”

modgopgal

marriage was based on pop culture. If you read my post again, I said that many people of my generation of grown up in a society where gay people are largely accepted. That goes beyond pop culture. My parents, devote Italian Catholics, said they didn’t even really know any gay people when they were young. They suspected some of their friends might be but it wasn’t ever discussed. And if a person was found to be gay, at least in their neighborhood, they would have been ostracized. Thankfully, that is not really the case any more. Gay people have become part of the average, everyday fabric of today’s society. Some may not like that but my generation has grown up with a very different perspective about gays and lesbians. We have dear friends who are openly gay, teachers who are gay, coaches who are gay. The gay issue isn’t really an issue for many young people. So it goes well beyond pop culture. Acceptance of gays and lesbians is part of American culture now and will continue to be so. One day, whether folks like it or not, gay marriage will be legal across the US, gays will serve in the military, and you know what, America will survive, straight marriages will not be undermined, and life will go on.

As for the legal argument, well, I’m not a legal scholar. But I think a cogent argument can be made that gay couples should be legally protected so they can visit their partners in the hospital, so that their children can not be taken away by a family member who doesn’t approve of their “lifestyle,” so they can enjoy the same tax benefits heterosexual married couples do, and so they can jointly own private property.

Does the Constitution specifically address mixed race marriages? Didn’t courts overrule state bans on mixed race marriages? How is gay marriage any different?

modgopgal

equivalent. Homosexuality is a sexual relationship between two consenting adults. Bestiality, of course, involves a human and a non-consenting animal who has no control of the situation. I would respectfully say, AKSteve, that equating the two diminishes your otherwise cogent arguments against gay marriage.

AKSteveB

If anything, it is funny that the AK legislature, which has managed to do pretty much nothing all session, is taking time over this. You also might want to ask someone what a coyote date is

tcgeol

although that does play a big part the issue.

Again, you are listing reasons why you think that homosexual marriage should be granted. Visiting a partner in the hospital and owing joint property are matters of law, not marriage. A good lawyer will be of help, here. I see no reason to provide the same tax benefits that heterosexual married couples have, so I’m not overly concerned about that aspect. I don’t know anything about the children as it relates to the family.

None of this has relevance to the issue, though. We aren’t arguing here whether homosexual marriage should exist. The point is, the court overturned a legitimately passed legislative bill because they disagreed with it, not because of any binding state constitutional reason to do so. You said that you agreed with the ruling, so you should have some reason to justify it. Remember, conservatives are fans of the rule of law, not the rule of men (I know you are a moderate, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you really share this with us as well). This was directly the rule of men overturning the rule of law.

tcgeol

Marriage is and always has been between a man and a woman. In cases of mixed races, it was still between a man and a woman. A man of one race could not necessarily marry the woman he chose if she was of different race. Therefore, he or she was being un-constitutionally denied their right to marry the member of the opposite sex that they desired. There are fundamental differences between men and women. There are no fundamental differences between a black man and a white man other than skin pigmentation.

Race is something that you are born with and cannot hide or change. It is displayed in physical splendor. It bears no relation to thoughts, actions, or impulses which can be controlled by the will.

Having said that, a state that chose to ban inter-racial marriages would theoretically be within their power to do so. It is never mentioned in the Constitution and would fall under the 9th Amendment so far as I can see.

tcgeol

AKSteveB

in 1967 overturned all miscegnation (interracial marriage) laws.

tcgeol

What did they base the decision on? I guess I’m asking if it was solid constitutional reasoning or judicial overreach. The court has made so many obviously wrong decisions that I distrust everything.

AKSteveB

Whether it was an overreach depends on whether one accepts the interpretation that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill Of Rights and applys them to the States. The strongest originalists would say that it doesn’t, but it has been settled precedent for a long time. If one accepts that interpretation, then no, it was clearly a valid decision. Here is the summation
————————————————————————————————————–
? Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. ?

? There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

tcgeol

Just from the summation you quote, it sounds like the section barring only whites from inter-racial marriage was a big part of the problem. I can definitely see overruling that.

RedSonja2000

Yes, absolutely. Violence is always the answer when you can’t get your way legally.

RedSonja2000

It’s important to fight hard to keep bigotry and cruelty legal. If you outlaw cruelty then only outlaws will be cruel.

janis

We, however, are not that big on the giant papier-mache heads, so you can keep those.

http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

over Proposition 8?

janis

but never comes back around to answer for them. She’s a waste of time and typing. Doesn’t stop me from replying to her on a slow day though.

Mike gamecock DeVine

is different for us all!

progress

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

But, really, I’m not replying to her but all those who come after she is gone.

janis

You say “tolerant”, I say “waste of time.” Just out of curiosity, do you go over to Huffpo or Kos to argue with them?

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Why, when discussing the recent NY special election, did you go out of your way to dismiss the idea that Obama was being rejected, before the count was even done?

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Not one that changes according to fascist whim.

Maybe you like the idea that the State can declare any part of the Bill of Rights to be ‘antiquated’ and therefore ‘obsolete,’ but some of us actually value civil rights.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

You claim that gay ‘marriage’ isn’t a big deal to you, yet you constantly post about it here.

Frankly, I don’t believe a word you write.

pilgrim

http://race42008.com/2009/04/04/president-obama-threatens-to-have-rich-white-people-lynched/

I don’t think Michael Bindner would last 5 minutes here at RS.

janis

or he would out himself as a total idiot. I’ve got nothing against arguing with someone who has shown some awareness of issues and common sense, but people like RedSonja2000 aren’t stopping by here for a good discussion. She, or it, just lob bombs and leave.

And Neil decided she/it was a waste of time and it got to tossed. There is another one here who bears watching. The one you asked me about a couple of weeks ago? Did he remind me of someone? The longer he stays around here, the more the mask slips. His “solutions” to issues are nonsensical and when asked to fully explain them, he just restates his “solutions.” There’s nothing underneath the pat answers.

pilgrim

.

bs

(S)he was in hibernation for almost 4 years before outing himself as a lefty.

Achance

janis

but it’s too early in the day to go there. I’ll just say that the giant papier-mache head would probably cover a multitude of sins.

http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

You mention all sorts of specific “injustices” that gay people suffer. Almost all of these are issues that are quite solvable by laws without regard to whether or not the relationship is called marriage. Some by contract law, some by amendment of existing law (as in the immigration scenarios you mentioned). None of the example I see here require as a condition of fulfillment the adoption of gay marriage.

And laws and courts do best when they tailor their solution rather than taking sweeping measures, in large part because of the law of unintended consequences. And our legislative process that has been in place for over two hundred years is well equipped to deal with the situations you describe and come up with solutions.

The problem with court-imposed gay marriage is that it short-circuits the public discussion on the matter, and imposes not merely perceived rights but also imposes approval of gay relationship, consigning those who disapprove of gay marriage to calumny as civil rights violators (i.e. racists) and invoking the power to the state to punish their exercising their opinions. Roe v Wade and the subsequent invoke of state power is the best analogy.

Rather than allow a public consensus to develop around the issue of abortion, Roe v Wade has fixed and intensified the fault lines of the abortion debate, and if anything our nation is even more polarized over abortion than it was at the time the decision was made.

Similarly, there are many trends towards greater acceptance of gay relationships, and many are reevaluating their views – especially with regard to civil laws. We are heading towards a new consensus – or at least were until the courts started stepping in and mandating gay marriage – which has then forced opponents to up the ante with constitutional amendments and initiative – and frozen civil discussion by creating divisive electoral battles.

The Iowa decision will simply intensify the polarization, because it has short-circuited that ability of the citizens, through their elected officials, via compromises and negotiation, to mediate the various interests among the populace.

And as Alithelia noted above, the same tactics that are used today to advance a cause you like over majority opposition can equally be used against you in the future – and you will have left yourself not recourse against such tyranny because you let the expedience of today destroy your defenses.

David Hinz

…to which you already know the answer?

Rats, now I am doing it too!

http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

the acting is comparable.

Mike gamecock DeVine

But when they come here for curiosity and for the sake of refuting their arguments for other lurkers, I do like to debate them.

I am a frontpager and one of the 4 original contributing editors at race42012, btw.

Mike gamecock DeVine

That is my main point, not that all should argue with them ad nauseum. I cut them off as non-serious and then IGNORE them. I don’t demand they be balmmed save for profanity or cut and pasting large things over and over for obvious disruption.

Mike gamecock DeVine

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Mike gamecock DeVine

we should watch comments and refute them and when a fool keeps on, say so and then ignore them

quite simple

Vegas_Rick

or shut up. Your one-liners are tiring.

janis

She now is a resident of the Pile.

harrykeeler

“The courts are usurping the place of the legislature by overturning laws based only on their (judges) ideology.”

Any time a court overturns a law anywhere in the country it is based on the judges’ ideology. The ideology is called the Constitution. As always, judges are human, constitutional issues are complex and open to interpretation, and judges will differ on interpretation. There is no way to avoid this. If a judge or a court is not operating in good faith, they can be impeached.

“They are not specifically given this power by any state constitution that I am aware of.”

Iowa state constitution, Article V:

“Jurisdiction of supreme court. SEC. 4. The supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction only in cases in chancery, and shall constitute a court for the correction of errors at law, under such restrictions as the general assembly may, by law, prescribe; and shall have power to issue all writs and process necessary to secure justice to parties, and shall exercise a supervisory and administrative control over all inferior judicial tribunals throughout the state. ”

Note: “corrections of errors at law”

pilgrim

The grass is green, and the original US Constitution is an enduring legal document. The country you describe is not a country I am aware of.

harrykeeler

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.”

“Commentary: The right of the federal courts to handle ?cases arising under this Constitution? is the basis of the Supreme Court?s right to declare laws of Congress unconstitutional. This right of ?judicial review? was established by Chief Justice John Marshall?s historic decision in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803.”

from http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2008/April/20080416203407eaifas0.6335565.html

harrykeeler

Madison vs. Marbury is what you were referring to. But do you really disagree with judicial review? (Remember dems control the congress!)

bs

modgopgal

gay marriage isn’t a big deal to me I mean I don’t see gay marriage as any threat to our society and really don’t understand why people are opposed to granting gays and lesbians the same rights heterosexuals enjoy.

As I have posted before, I do think my difference of opinion with you and many others here over gay marriage may simply be a result of generational differences. I’m guessing I’m younger than most who post at Redstate. And from my personal experience it appears my generation is much more comfortable with gay issues.

On a personal note, the gay marriage issue is something that is close to home for me. One of my dearest friends is gay and he married his partner in Massachusetts. I attended that wedding and thought it was a loving, spiritual ceremony. I post about gay marriage frequently because I am close friends with someone who is living proof that gay marriage can be strong and committed. My friend’s marriage is a model for what a loving, kind, gentle, fun, and devoted relationship can look like. So that is why I post about the issue. It hits home for me.

Pete_in_GA

It is my understanding that Iowa does not have a residency requirement to get a marriage licenses. This means that the dictators of the Iowa Supreme Court just through my Constitutional Rights out the window.

Personally, I do not have a problem with gay marriage, but it should be a decision left up to the people of the many states and not imposed upon the people.

The last time I checked, -Iowa was a solid blue state?I do not see the people rising up and demanding that the Democratically controlled State House put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Nor would the Democrats in the State House be inclined to do so?they do not give a care what the people want.

aarongardner

and if so wouldn’t we also have to allow for all other sorts of polygamy?

At what point do we stop? This is what happens when you designate a sexual persuasion as meeting the criteria for the Equal Protection clause.

papalee

Adams Alien and Sedition Act, they did not go whining to the federal courts, but to the states. Since Madison was one of the chief architects of the Constitution, i believe that he knew just who had the power to interpret the Constitution – and it was not the courts. After all, Madison only was able to get into Congress because he promised Patrick Henry action on a Bill of Rights.

The real question is whether a ruling by the Supreme Court sets precedent and thus makes law. This was how the English Constitution was made, i.e., by the rulings of the courts and this was specifically rejected by the framers. I think that was because such rulings are so difficult to overturn legislatively or constitutionally.. This means that they are the very opposite of government by the consent of the governed – which is why liberals and leftists are so fond of them. Consequently what they give us is government of the government, by the government and for the government with the leftist most position in our society representing always the position of the “government” against the people and the Constitution.

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

A Brief Note on Iowa

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL