• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

Isn't the idea of "same sex marriage" a contradiction in terms? Our entire collective historical, cultural, and legal concept of marriage is that of an opposite sex union. A man and woman are transformed into husband and wife. The language of marriage speaks of the male female sexual relationship. They consumate the relationship, engage in marital relations, beget children, etc. Even those couples who cannot nor choose not to consumate thier relationship, or have children, can still accept each other as husband and wife. How in that sense can a same sex couple marry?
 
What? Are you saying that the constitution even mentions heterosexuality?

The tradition argument is meaningless. America has hundreds of cultures within its own borders now, all with different traditions. There are already thousands of churches that can and do marry gay people, the only difference is whether or not the state chooses to acknowledge that marriage with the social benefits. The marriage itself already exists.

If my tax dollars are dolling out benefits to married people (which I already think is wrong, for the record), then I want guarantees that the alotted benefits are given out in a non-discriminatory fashion. If straight people are getting my tax dollars, then I want the gays to get them too. None of this elitist, traditional, la-dee-da hoopla about the constitution which has no basis.



The existence of a tradition and the existence of rights are two different things. I'm talking about the law. You are talking about some fantastical interpretation of who has the "right" to marry according to tradition. Anyone can get married right now... gay people can and do get married regardless if they receive benefits or not. The only thing this debate is central to is which married people get access to the social benefits of government. For that, you must defer to state constitutions, none of which mention that marriage is between a man and a woman.

That is, until state legislations created a new right for heterosexuals that didn't exist before.



It's not judical activism to acknowledge a negative... in this case, that the Iowa state constitution makes no mention of which sexual orientation has the explicit right to marry. That amendment must be added, thereby creating a new right or a positive affirmation. That is judical activism.
  1. Please list which cultures which promote homosexual marriages.
  2. Please list these thousands of churches that perform homosexual marriages.
  3. Ah, so we finally get to the crux of the issue....BENEFITS. This isn't at all about gays wanting to form families like straight people. It's about taxes and benefits.
FINALLY THE LEFT ADMITS WHAT WE ALWAYS REALLY KNEW.
 
Last edited:
[*]Please list which cultures which promote homosexual marriages.

No. But I will say that I am Canadian, and I support same sex marriage. As does my Federal government. Britain allows same sex marriage, as does France. There's three cultures right there.

[*]Please list these thousands of churches that perform homosexual marriages.

This is an unreasonable request... but there are plenty of universal churches that can and do.

[*]Ah, so we finally get to the crux of the issue....BENEFITS. This isn't at all about gays wanting to form families like straight people. It's about taxes and benefits.

The benefits allow gay families to become stronger by receiving state support. Either everyone gets it, or no one gets it, that is my view.

FINALLY THE LEFT ADMITS WHAT WE ALWAYS REALLY KNEW.

That anti-gay marriage activists are actively trying to create a new discriminatory right for themselves in law that never existed before? Yep, that's exactly what the left is telling you.

P.S. I am not a liberal, so kindly STFU.
 
There should be no such thing as state-recognized (including federally recognized) marriage. There should be no legal institution for 'marriage' in the first place.
 
There should be no such thing as state-recognized (including federally recognized) marriage. There should be no legal institution for 'marriage' in the first place.

Hmmm you sound like someone who may actually have the right idea!

I agree 100%
 
There should be no such thing as state-recognized (including federally recognized) marriage. There should be no legal institution for 'marriage' in the first place.

I agree, but as long as it does exist and it's defined as being between two people, then it must be equal and include same sex couples, of whom it has been scientifically proven are equally as capable of having stable, loving families that contribute to society.
 
Britain allows same sex marriage, as does
That was simply done by the very unpopular New Labour with little popular input and I think it is only civil unions. It does not represent a traditional acceptance of gay marriage in our heritage and culture, more like an example of New Labour PC thuggery(I'm talking about the random introduction rather than the issue itself.).

Also the UK's current laws are hardly a massive part of American cultural and legal tradition.
That anti-gay marriage activists are actively trying to create a new discriminatory right for themselves in law that never existed before? Yep, that's exactly what the left is telling you.
This makes no sense, you have not explained what you mean, you simply stopped replying to my rebuttals. In the US marriage has always been interpreted, legally and in the prevailing and most other cultures and traditions, as between a man and a women as it has in Iowa, there is nothing new about that. The law doesn't have to expressly say it, the tradition, precedent and original meaning already capture the view that when a US law talks about marriage, except perhaps a couple in recent years, they mean between a man and a women. My point is not that it should necessarily stay like this, simply that if it is changed it should not be changed by the abitrary power of judges reinterpreting what marriage or equal protection means in constitutions and laws from what they originally and traditionally mean, which undermines the rule of law and turns written constitutions into guidelines, but changed by legslatures with popular support.

If you're talking about amendments that is something different but let's not forget it is only due to the arbitrary power of liberal judicial activism that these amendements are being turned to.
 
That was simply done by the very unpopular New Labour with little popular input and I think it is only civil unions. It does not represent a traditional acceptance of gay marriage in our heritage and culture, more like an example of New Labour PC thuggery(I'm talking about the random introduction rather than the issue itself.).

I'm not really interested in your explanation of perceived flaws in the UK legal system. Gay marriage is legal in Britain and many enjoy the rights therein, so my point stands.

Also the UK's current laws are hardly a massive part of American cultural and legal tradition.

I wasn't talking about laws, I was talking about culture. Are you denying that part of British culture now includes gay marriage? Note, in my question I am not talking about TRADITIONAL culture, I am talking about CULTURE. The wording is minor but the difference is large.

America's neighbour to the North allows gay marriage across the board. In Canada's three largest cities, it is socially acceptable. Many Canadians have dual citizenship with the U.S. So yes, there are cultures present in the U.S. that accept gay marriage. Next...

This makes no sense, you have not explained what you mean, you simply stopped replying to my rebuttals.

Your rebuttals are the same arguments I've heard time and time again by the discriminatory right, and frankly they are not worth my time replying to.

In the US marriage has always been interpreted, legally and in the prevailing and most other cultures and traditions, as between a man and a women as it has in Iowa, there is nothing new about that.

This is patently false. If it has always been legally interpreted as being between a man and a woman (note: I said LEGALLY, not according to tradition or what you think is "right" or "wrong"), then the language indicating this would have been present long before the political battle. In fact, this language was never included, most likely because no one ever dreamed of buggers as having rights in the modern era, let alone being able to marry. We're talking about an era when gays were arrested and even executed.

The law doesn't have to expressly say it, the tradition, precedent and original meaning already capture the view that when a US law talks about marriage, except perhaps a couple in recent years, they mean between a man and a women.

Even if I am to accept what you are saying about the past, that doesn't provide precedent for why the right should be denied now. You are referring to an era where gays were executed or lobotomized for being who they were. A lot has changed since then and the law has evolved to reflect that. What you are suggesting is that the law should not be allowed to evolve if it violates tradition, and that is simply not the way things work.

The rights of heterosexuals to marry each other are not violated by granting this right to homosexuals. We're talking about state benefits, not morality. As I said earlier, gays can and do get married, but they don't receive licenses which entitle them to benefits which can aid their families in the fashion that heterosexual couples do. Marriage belongs to the churches, not the state. The state is simply the licensing body, in which case the law must be deferred to, NOT tradition.

My point is not that it should necessarily stay like this, simply that if it is changed it should not be changed by the abitrary power of judges reinterpreting what marriage or equal protection means in constitutions and laws from what they originally and traditionally mean, which undermines the rule of law and turns written constitutions into guidelines, but changed by legslatures with popular support.

A constitution is a living document whose application evolves with time. It is the foundation of the state that must always be referred to. If judges are doing their job, they will always look at the language of the constitution to see if their decisions are violating its ethics. In the case of gay marriage, there is nothing mentioned about it... so they must defer to the equal protection clause. This is a modern application of an old value, and judges doing so are still following the law.

What you are suggesting is that they ignore the constitution because, in your opinion, it was made long ago and its authors did not consider homosexuality or same sex marriage, thus it is irrelevant. Well, no... that is not how it works. It is still the guiding legal charter of states and the nation, so modern issues still have to be made to fit that charter. The majority of state constitutions only defined marriage as between two people, and that is how the judges must interpret it if they are doing their jobs correctly.

It would be activism to ignore such an absence and insert a subjective value instead. After hearing many of the same, tired, predictable arguments of those on the right, I have been lead to believe that many, including yourself, do not actually know what the word "activism" means.

"Activism", in this case, is a ruling you disagree with. That is all.

If you're talking about amendments that is something different but let's not forget it is only due to the arbitrary power of liberal judicial activism that these amendements are being turned to.

You can keep calling it judical activism but it doesn't make it true. It's not activism for them to follow the wording of the constitutions. It's activism to add an amendment defining the genders of marriage, as that is actively creating a new right that never existed before. Perhaps tradition upholds this value, but speaking from a legal standpoint, that discriminatory right did not exist until the amendments were made.

The judges fulfilled their duty according to the wording and law of the constitution (note that tradition has no bearing on the wording of the law). It is up to the public engaging in popular activism to vote for an amendment if they disagree.

The Iowa Court ruling was Constitutional and fair.
 
What is so magical about the number two, as it pertains to marriage? It seems the same sex argument boils down to that number. "As long as its two loving people". What is special about two men or two women? With a man and a woman, the old adage that two go to bed but three get up hold true, barring physical obstacles to the contrary.
 
I agree, but as long as it does exist and it's defined as being between two people, then it must be equal and include same sex couples, of whom it has been scientifically proven are equally as capable of having stable, loving families that contribute to society.

Sure I do agree with that, but when you think about it, if you are against the war in Iraq, is there any point in wasting time argueing "well if we ARE going to be in Iraq then..." when you should simply be argueing that we shouldn't be in Iraq?
 
Sure I do agree with that, but when you think about it, if you are against the war in Iraq, is there any point in wasting time argueing "well if we ARE going to be in Iraq then..." when you should simply be argueing that we shouldn't be in Iraq?

What?

.........
 
I'm not really interested in your explanation of perceived flaws in the UK legal system. Gay marriage is legal in Britain and many enjoy the rights therein, so my point stands.
Not really, not only does it confuse recent law with culture but it has little to do with the US.

I wasn't talking about laws, I was talking about culture. Are you denying that part of British culture now includes gay marriage? Note, in my question I am not talking about TRADITIONAL culture, I am talking about CULTURE. The wording is minor but the difference is large.
I'm denying that it is partm of our culture certainly, at the moment it is a very recent legal change. Culture is an historical thing, it is not simply what the current gov't decides.

America's neighbour to the North allows gay marriage across the board. In Canada's three largest cities, it is socially acceptable. Many Canadians have dual citizenship with the U.S. So yes, there are cultures present in the U.S. that accept gay marriage. Next...
And this has to do with US tradition and precedent how?

Your rebuttals are the same arguments I've heard time and time again by the discriminatory right, and frankly they are not worth my time replying to.
Ie you cannot debunk them. I'm not against gay marriage per se.

This goes far beyond gay marriage, it is about danger of arbitrary power and the rule of law and I'm disappointed you won't engage on the subject Orius and are becoming hostile. I take you to be a quite good poster.

This is patently false. If it has always been legally interpreted as being between a man and a woman (note: I said LEGALLY, not according to tradition or what you think is "right" or "wrong"), then the language indicating this would have been present long before the political battle.
It didn't have to be. This is what tradition, precedent and the original meaning took it to mean. If this is ignored then itm undermines the rule of law and turns written constitutions into mere guidelines.
In fact, this language was never included, most likely because no one ever dreamed of buggers as having rights in the modern era, let alone being able to marry. We're talking about an era when gays were arrested and even executed.
Yoiu admit my point here.



Even if I am to accept what you are saying about the past, that doesn't provide precedent for why the right should be denied now. You are referring to an era where gays were executed or lobotomized for being who they were. A lot has changed since then and the law has evolved to reflect that. What you are suggesting is that the law should not be allowed to evolve if it violates tradition, and that is simply not the way things work.
I'm not arguing they should be denied these rights, simply that they should be denied these rights if they come via the arbitrary power of judicial activism. I'm certainly arguing that the law should not evolve by judicial activism. It is for the legsilature to make law.
The rights of heterosexuals to marry each other are not violated by granting this right to homosexuals. We're talking about state benefits, not morality. As I said earlier, gays can and do get married, but they don't receive licenses which entitle them to benefits which can aid their families in the fashion that heterosexual couples do. Marriage belongs to the churches, not the state. The state is simply the licensing body, in which case the law must be deferred to, NOT tradition.
And tradition, precdent and original meaning give law its meaning and interpretation and stop them being interpreted according to arbitrary whim of judiciary.


A constitution is a living document whose application evolves with time.
Nope, to mean anything it must be interpreted strictly and originally by the judicary otherwise it is mere guidelines/


It is the foundation of the state that must always be referred to. If judges are doing their job, they will always look at the language of the constitution to see if their decisions are violating its ethics.
If they are doing their job they will look to see if they are vilating its very wording based upon original meaning and precedent/tradition.


In the case of gay marriage, there is nothing mentioned about it... so they must defer to the equal protection clause. This is a modern application of an old value, and judges doing so are still following the law.
Neither gay marriage nor equal protection originally or traditionally have been defined legally to include a right to gay marriage. If you start allowing such abitrary redefinitions you completely undermine the the constitution and rule of law. A right will only be safe until some judge can reinterpret part of the constitution to take it away.

What you are suggesting is that they ignore the constitution because, in your opinion, it was made long ago and its authors did not consider homosexuality or same sex marriage, thus it is irrelevant. Well, no... that is not how it works. It is still the guiding legal charter of states and the nation, so modern issues still have to be made to fit that charter. The majority of state constitutions only defined marriage as between two people, and that is how the judges must interpret it if they are doing their jobs correctly.
No my argument is they should uphold the rule of law, the constitution and the separation of powers. They should rule on marriage and equal protection as they were originally intended and have always been interpreted and leave making laws to the legislature.

It would be activism to ignore such an absence and insert a subjective value instead. After hearing many of the same, tired, predictable arguments of those on the right, I have been lead to believe that many, including yourself, do not actually know what the word "activism" means.

"Activism", in this case, is a ruling you disagree with. That is all.
You're making no sensre at all. You're argument seems to be that because gay marriage wasn't mentioned then we can redefine marriage and equal protection to allow it. This is activism.

A constitution and laws are made of written words. The rule of law consists of these ruling through the judiciary. For this to happen they must keep the meaning constant otherwise it is just the arbitrary power of the judiciary ruling along some broad outlines. So phrases and meanings need to be interpeted according to their original meaning and precdent/tradition by the judiciary otherwise it is activism as it is in this case. It is for the legislature to decide whether this meaning needs to be overturned, it is its role to legsilate and it is the one accountable to the people.



You can keep calling it judical activism but it doesn't make it true. It's not activism for them to follow the wording of the constitutions.
Again you make no sense, that is exactly what I'm arguing for. I however recognise that that for the constitution and rule of law to mean anything then meanings of words and phrases needs to stay the same, as far as the judicary is concerned, unless the legsilature. Words and phrases can have various interpreations, what you are basically saying is that the courts can apply any interpretation that has any credible link to the words of the constitution of law. I reject this for being activism; it grants legislative and arbitrary power to the judiciary.
It's activism to add an amendment defining the genders of marriage, as that is actively creating a new right that never existed before.
You're confusing things, you're talking about the legislature, that.now, that is a whole different sphere.
The judges fulfilled their duty according to the wording and law of the constitution (note that tradition has no bearing on the wording of the law).
Of course tradition, precdent and original meaning have bearing on the law and constitutions. Many phrases and words can be interpreted in several ways, it could even go to absurd lengths like defining the right to bear arms as the right to wear sleeveless shirts but not to own guns, without tradition and originality then it really does make the constitution and law guidelines and allow the judiciary to make law and social policy.

The Iowa Court ruling was Constitutional and fair.
It was judicial activism underming the written constitution and rule of law.
 
Last edited:
What?

.........

I'am saying, if you believe there should be no legal institution of marriage at all, then that's what you should be argueing, not a hypothetical that's compromising your ideal to begin with.
 
I agree, but as long as it does exist and it's defined as being between two people, then it must be equal and include same sex couples,
Why?

Genralised calls for equality are rarely useful particularly when they take on specifics without relinquishing any of their abstract nature.
of whom it has been scientifically proven are equally as capable of having stable, loving families that contribute to society.
Me and CC had this discussion. Not omly is the evidence about a very narrow level, ie not about society as whole, but it is certainly very limited and disputed. Personally I think gay marriage is probably a good thing, better to have homosexuals in what is probably a more stable, long term foundation for relationships, but I don't think subscribe to this sort of wild laudation.
 
Not really, not only does it confuse recent law with culture but it has little to do with the US.

I'm denying that it is partm of our culture certainly, at the moment it is a very recent legal change. Culture is an historical thing, it is not simply what the current gov't decides.

Gay relationships are part of your culture, as are gay families. It is only recently that these minorities have been seeking legal acknowledgement, hence the gay rights movement. However, until the 70's, the medical community would not back this up. Now there is plenty of research which shows that gays are normal people, and their families are also normal. ("Normal" meaning capable of fruitful stability.) There is no reason to deny them this right at this point.

Ie you cannot debunk them. I'm not against gay marriage per se.

No... I am tired of explaining to people how the law works versus their idea of how tradition works. Most people cannot even make this separation, and you are one of them. I will state the facts and if you don't understand them, then I'm not going to take the time to educate another person.

It didn't have to be. This is what tradition, precedent and the original meaning took it to mean. If this is ignored then itm undermines the rule of law and turns written constitutions into mere guidelines.

The constitution doesn't tell governments or judges what they can do, but what they can't do. It is a document of affirmations. There is nothing in the documents that affirm marriage is between a man and a woman. That is how law works. Say it with me now: this is the wording of the law.

Yoiu admit my point here.

I admit that the language of the time probably didn't consider gays, but I don't admit that this is a reason to deny gays the right to marry now.

I'm not arguing they should be denied these rights, simply that they should be denied these rights if they come via the arbitrary power of judicial activism. I'm certainly arguing that the law should not evolve by judicial activism. It is for the legsilature to make law.
And tradition, precdent and original meaning give law its meaning and interpretation and stop them being interpreted according to arbitrary whim of judiciary.

The values of tradition, while important, are subjective. Whose tradition are you referring to? Additionally... whether or not the judges are being activists is irrelevant. There are two other branches that can weigh in on this matter. They either do, or they don't. If they don't, then you'll have to accept the ruling and move on.

Nope, to mean anything it must be interpreted strictly and originally by the judicary otherwise it is mere guidelines/

This is impossible, unless you can resurrect the authors and have them sit on a permanent court. They are the only ones who can tell you its original intent. Until then, the body of the law is interpretive which is why we have judges and juries in the first place.

If they are doing their job they will look to see if they are vilating its very wording based upon original meaning and precedent/tradition.

The wording takes on new meaning given the context of law. This is why there are judges and supreme courts in the first place. They have to weigh modern needs with constitutional law and see if the modern needs conflict with the wording of existing law. Evidently, the Iowa judges felt that no such conflict existed, and rightfully so.

Neither gay marriage nor equal protection originally or traditionally have been defined legally to include a right to gay marriage. If you start allowing such abitrary redefinitions you completely undermine the the constitution and rule of law. A right will only be safe until some judge can reinterpret part of the constitution to take it away.

No right is being taken away in this case. Heterosexual marriage still remains.

No my argument is they should uphold the rule of law, the constitution and the separation of powers. They should rule on marriage and equal protection as they were originally intended and have always been interpreted and leave making laws to the legislature.

The judges don't rule based on a history book or some obscure term such as "as they were originally intended"... they look at the WORDING of the law. Say it with me now: the WORDING. They can't presume or insert traditional values where none exist in the wording. This is what the law means. If they ignore the wording, then they are truly activists because they are ignoring the law itself. This is what you seem to not understand at all.

The separation of powers has not in any way been violated. The Supreme Court ruled, now the legislative body can rule if it decides, and so can the public if enough people petition for a referendum.

You're making no sensre at all. You're argument seems to be that because gay marriage wasn't mentioned then we can redefine marriage and equal protection to allow it. This is activism.

The idea of gay marriage never even existed when the document was made, but the terms of the document were written to try and encompass the future creation of rights. This same interpretation is why blacks were able to be freed and the women's suffrage movement was successful. The document was applied to situations outside of the scope of its original creation. That is precisely what the judges are supposed to do.

The judges HAD to operate within the framework of the document, and when it comes to rights, equal protection must be applied. It is rather simple:

- Marriage is between two people
- Gender of marriage is not defined in the constitution
- There is an equal protection clause
- Therefore all proposed marriages with two people are constitutional

If you don't understand that, then I can't help you. The judges were right, correct, and fair. If the people of Iowa have a problem, they can petition for a referendum to add a new discriminatory right to the constitution given heterosexuals the only marriage rights.

A constitution and laws are made of written words. The rule of law consists of these ruling through the judiciary. For this to happen they must keep the meaning constant otherwise it is just the arbitrary power of the judiciary ruling along some broad outlines. So phrases and meanings need to be interpeted according to their original meaning and precdent/tradition by the judiciary otherwise it is activism as it is in this case. It is for the legislature to decide whether this meaning needs to be overturned, it is its role to legsilate and it is the one accountable to the people.

It's entertaining to see you struggle to define judical activism, but I won't feed this fire.

They interpreted the letter of the constitution according to the simple formula I stated above. If you can't accept that, then oh well.

Again you make no sense, that is exactly what I'm arguing for. I however recognise that that for the constitution and rule of law to mean anything then meanings of words and phrases needs to stay the same, as far as the judicary is concerned, unless the legsilature. Words and phrases can have various interpreations, what you are basically saying is that the courts can apply any interpretation that has any credible link to the words of the constitution of law. I reject this for being activism; it grants legislative and arbitrary power to the judiciary.

The wording will always be interpreted differently according to the times, but luckily the creators worded it in such a way that stray interpretation is highly restricted. Equal protection means equal protection, you can't spin it to mean something else.

The judiciary does not have legislative power, they have judical power. They form the law and it remains law unless the legislative branch or the public steps in. What they did was legal and fair.

You're confusing things, you're talking about the legislature, that.now, that is a whole different sphere.
Of course tradition, precdent and original meaning have bearing on the law and constitutions. Many phrases and words can be interpreted in several ways, it could even go to absurd lengths like defining the right to bear arms as the right to wear sleeveless shirts but not to own guns, without tradition and originality then it really does make the constitution and law guidelines and allow the judiciary to make law and social policy.

The legislature can debate the moral ethics of this law if they so choose, but the judiciary has no such luxury. They can look at the morals but ultimately the judiciary is bound by the wording of the constitution. It is the legislature, voted in by their constituents, who are bound to their audience. The judges are not appointed by the public, so they are not bound by what "tradition" means to the public... their job is to look at the letter of the law and make sure it is being followed.

Now, I will only say this one more time: what the judiciary did was fair in accordance with the constitution. If there are moral reservations over "tradition" being violated, then it is the job of the legislature or a public referendum to change things. The legislature represents the public as they were appointed by the public. The judges were appointed by the State to assess the merits of cases according to legal and constitutional criteria.

It was judicial activism underming the written constitution and rule of law.

Please cite which laws were undermined according to Iowa's State Constitution. Do this in your next post.
 
Last edited:
Gay relationships are part of your culture, as are gay families. It is only recently that these minorities have been seeking legal acknowledgement, hence the gay rights movement. However, until the 70's, the medical community would not back this up. Now there is plenty of research which shows that gays are normal people, and their families are also normal. ("Normal" meaning capable of fruitful stability.) There is no reason to deny them this right at this point.
We'rte talking about gay mrriage. The fact New labour very recently allowed civil unions does not mean it is our culture.

No... I am tired of explaining to people how the law works versus their idea of how tradition works. Most people cannot even make this separation, and you are one of them. I will state the facts and if you don't understand them, then I'm not going to take the time to educate another person.
You have not attempted to "educate" me or debunk what I'm saying. I'm not saying tradition and law are same thing, simply that law like most things in gov't requires the use of some convetions including how the words are intepreted..


The constitution doesn't tell governments or judges what they can do, but what they can't do. It is a document of affirmations. There is nothing in the documents that affirm marriage is between a man and a woman. That is how law works. Say it with me now: this is the wording of the law.
The constitutions limit the gov'ts power to the power they grant or did originally and need to for them to have any real meaning beyond guidelines. Even Alexander Hamilton argued against the bill of rights because he didn't think things like fredom of speech needed protecting because the constitution did not grant the feds the power with which to take free speech away.

Sure you could interpret a constitution in other ways but it looses much of its pont and power then. But that is a different argument anyway.


I admit that the language of the time probably didn't consider gays, but I don't admit that this is a reason to deny gays the right to marry now.
We aren't talking about that. We are talking means not ends, I wish liberals could remember to separate the two.


The values of tradition, while important, are subjective. Whose tradition are you referring to?
not really and you mean social. There are concrete ways in which these traditions manifest themselves such as how words are interpreted.

Additionally... whether or not the judges are being activists is irrelevant. There are two other branches that can weigh in on this matter. They either do, or they don't. If they don't, then you'll have to accept the ruling and move on.
Nope, if the branches are allowed to take over the roles of over branches it is detrimental to the rule of law and separation of powers even if other branches allow it/do little, or can do little, to fight it. America and other nations are awash with judicial activism and arbitrary power because of that reasoning.



This is impossible, unless you can resurrect the authors and have them sit on a permanent court. They are the only ones who can tell you its original intent. Until then, the body of the law is interpretive which is why we have judges and juries in the first place.
Umm we can go on what they say they meant and what precedent and tradition tells us.


The wording takes on new meaning given the context of law. This is why there are judges and supreme courts in the first place. They have to weigh modern needs with constitutional law and see if the modern needs conflict with the wording of existing law. .
Ie they have to decide whether liberal social policy conflicts with the rule of law and if it does then the rule of law should be abandoned.

The judges don't rule based on a history book or some obscure term such as "as they were originally intended"... they look at the WORDING of the law. Say it with me now: the WORDING.
Again you're not getting this. Phrases and words have different interpretations and even change meanings. If we want the rule of law, if we want the laws to stay the same for everyone and not to be changed by the judicary whenever they feel like it, including at the behest of the executive, then we certainly need to retain the original or traditional meaning of terms and phrases until such time as the legislature decides a change is needed.


They can't presume or insert traditional values where none exist in the wording.
Whois saying this? I'm simply saying wording usually needs interpreting and the original and traditional interpretation must hold for constitutions, the rule of law and the speration of powers not to suffer greatly.


The separation of powers has not in any way been violated. The Supreme Court ruled, now the legislative body can rule if it decides, and so can the public if enough people petition for a referendum.
The supreme court embarked on judicial activism, it went beyond its alloted branch and made law, that is the sphere of legsilature.



The idea of gay marriage never even existed when the document was made,
So when marriage was talked about in it, if it is, then it meant between a man and woman. For a judge to change this is for them to remake the law or constitution.


This same interpretation is why blacks were able to be freed and the women's suffrage movement was successful. The document was applied to situations outside of the scope of its original creation. That is precisely what the judges are supposed to do.
Woman's suffrage came through an amendment I believe.




It's entertaining to see you struggle to define judical activism, but I won't feed this fire.

They interpreted the letter of the constitution according to the simple formula I stated above. If you can't accept that, then oh well.
You mean how they bloody well like. Well hello tyranny and arbitrary power, you know there is nothing saying this must be used for only liberal social causes if it had slipped your mind.

Bottom line:Words and phrases can have many interpretations, if the original/traditional one is not retained by the judiciary, unless the legsilature changes it, then every time they change it they are effectively changing the constitution. This is what you don't seem to understand or at least ignore because your liberal agenda. This goes erodes the rule of law which is reliant of laws being interpreted consistently and arbitrarily, it undermines the constitution turning it into guidelines for any judge to try and fit their agenda into and undermines the seperation of powers by giving the judiciary legsilative powers.

But most importantluy it increases the risk of executive tryanny because the executive has a lot of power over the judiciary and if they work in concert using this form of arbitrary power the risk of them underming the entire framework of a free constitution greatly increases
The wording will always be interpreted differently according to the times,
Then each time that is done the constitution is rewritten in that area. You are admitting my point.
Equal protection means equal protection, you can't spin it to mean something else.
Equality is often vague. An equal right to own property could be interpreted as anyone can equally own property if they buy it according to laws equal for all individuals or it can be interpreted as saying all people should own an equal amount of property.
The judiciary does not have legislative power, they have judical power. They form the law
:lol:

Seriously did you not proof-read what you wrote. You say don't have legsilative power and then say they form the law.

The legislature can debate the moral ethics of this law if they so choose, but the judiciary has no such luxury. They can look at the morals but ultimately the judiciary is bound by the wording of the constitution.
I agree, though that wording must be interpreted the same unless the legsilature intervenes or the constitution is remade by the judiciary.
It is the legislature, voted in by their constituents, who are bound to their audience. The judges are not appointed by the public, so they are not bound by what "tradition" means to the public... their job is to look at the letter of the law and make sure it is being followed.
I agree, tradition and precedent are vital in this.

Now, I will only say this one more time: what the judiciary did was fair in accordance with the constitution.
And I'll say it was unconstitutional and an example of the arbitrary power of judicial activism.

If there are moral reservations over "tradition" being violated, then it is the job of the legislature or a public referendum to change things.
You confusing the role I give to tradition here. It is simply to interpret what words and phrases in the law and constitution mean. These must stay constant unless the legsilature wants to change them.


Please cite which laws were undermined according to Iowa's State Constitution. Do this in your next post.
Do you know what the rule of law means?

It undermines the rule of law because it means that they can be aribtrarily redefined. as they have been in this case. The judiciary needs to uphold the constantcy of the law, including the all important interpretation.
 
You have not attempted to "educate" me or debunk what I'm saying. I'm not saying tradition and law are same thing, simply that law like most things in gov't requires the use of some convetions including how the words are intepreted..

The rules are in the laws themselves. There is no law to tell judges how to interpret law. They go to law school and have careers that last decades which gives them the wisdom to interpret the wording. If you don't like the way they do things, then that can't be helped.

We aren't talking about that. We are talking means not ends, I wish liberals could remember to separate the two.

Starting to dish out the partisan remarks are we... I see your true colours are about to show.

not really and you mean social. There are concrete ways in which these traditions manifest themselves such as how words are interpreted.

This sentence is essentially meaningless drivel when it comes to deciding what the bill of rights means. If the words are not there, then there is nothing to manifest.

Nope, if the branches are allowed to take over the roles of over branches it is detrimental to the rule of law and separation of powers even if other branches allow it/do little, or can do little, to fight it. America and other nations are awash with judicial activism and arbitrary power because of that reasoning.

Prove, beyond your specious opinion, that the supreme court of Iowa went beyond its legal capacity in this matter. I'll spare you the time, you can't. It sounds like you simply can't accept that the supreme court has these powers. Good thing you don't live in the U.S. then.

Umm we can go on what they say they meant and what precedent and tradition tells us.

Rinse, lather, repeat.

Ie they have to decide whether liberal social policy conflicts with the rule of law and if it does then the rule of law should be abandoned.

The Constitution cannot be abandoned.

Again you're not getting this. Phrases and words have different interpretations and even change meanings. If we want the rule of law, if we want the laws to stay the same for everyone and not to be changed by the judicary whenever they feel like it, including at the behest of the executive, then we certainly need to retain the original or traditional meaning of terms and phrases until such time as the legislature decides a change is needed.

No, I get it perfectly. What you don't seem to get is that they didn't change the law, they upheld the law. They upheld the fact that two people can get married, period. That is what the Iowa constitution says. Accept it, and move on.

Whois saying this? I'm simply saying wording usually needs interpreting and the original and traditional interpretation must hold for constitutions, the rule of law and the speration of powers not to suffer greatly.

It's not the fault of modern times that the authors of the constitutions didn't forsee gay marriage. The wording of the constitution permits gay couples to get married. Again, I'm sorry you can't accept that according to your traditional values, but it is what it is, unless the legislature or a public referendum overrides it.

The supreme court embarked on judicial activism, it went beyond its alloted branch and made law, that is the sphere of legsilature.

Again, please cite a document which demonstrates the duties of the supreme court and prove that the court went beyond its powers. I would really like to see this claim in writing.

Oh, and the legislature still has the right to intervene, as I've said a million times now. That's why there are three branches of government.

So when marriage was talked about in it, if it is, then it meant between a man and woman. For a judge to change this is for them to remake the law or constitution.

Again, no judge changed the wording of the constitution. This is an error that you continue to make.

In fact, every single state supreme court case in the United States regarding state constitutions and gay marriage has been upheld in this identical regard, unless those cases were pre-empted by public votes to amend the constitutions with heterosexual marriage clauses. You clearly don't understand the way the documents are interpreted.

"Marriage is between two people."

It doesn't take a genius to interpret that. I don't care what your traditional spin on things is... that is the wording and that is how every court, when challenged with gay marriage, has seen it. That's why the religious right has been active in amending state constitutions the nation over, because if they don't then there is no legal wording to support their discrimination.

If the wording is not there, then the law does not exist. Period. You can dance around historical interpretations and traditionalism all you want, but that is not the way the law works. The document must say it or there is no justification to deny it. Period. This is LAW 101.

Woman's suffrage came through an amendment I believe.

Cite this?

You mean how they bloody well like. Well hello tyranny and arbitrary power, you know there is nothing saying this must be used for only liberal social causes if it had slipped your mind.

Now you've truly lost this debate. Your own partisan bias is preventing you from seeing the role that the judges serve as one of the three branches in balancing power.

Bottom line:Words and phrases can have many interpretations, if the original/traditional one is not retained by the judiciary, unless the legsilature changes it, then every time they change it they are effectively changing the constitution.

If I am to assume that your claim that there are "many interpretations" is correct, then why should the judges be obligated to defer to the traditional one? Just because you say so, and if they don't then gosh darn they are activists?

Why is tradition best in this case?

Once again... the constitution was not changed, its wording was simply acknowledged.

This is what you don't seem to understand or at least ignore because your liberal agenda. This goes erodes the rule of law which is reliant of laws being interpreted consistently and arbitrarily, it undermines the constitution turning it into guidelines for any judge to try and fit their agenda into and undermines the seperation of powers by giving the judiciary legsilative powers.

What I read from this is...

Interpreting it "consistently" = interpreting it in a way that supports tradition
Interpreting it inconsistently and tyrannically = "liberal activism" a.k.a something you don't agree with.

Wow.

But most importantluy it increases the risk of executive tryanny because the executive has a lot of power over the judiciary and if they work in concert using this form of arbitrary power the risk of them underming the entire framework of a free constitution greatly increases

This is a lot of bull, considering there is still the legislature and a public referendum as fallbacks. There are so many checks and balances of power in the United States, it's a wonder that anything gets passed in the first place. But because of that, you know that the final decision is usually the most appropriate one for the time.

Then each time that is done the constitution is rewritten in that area.

Please provide evidence that the constitution was "rewritten" in this decision. I don't want to hear you make claims about it being "effectively" rewritten because that is a load of crap. I want to see hard evidence that these judges added amendments.

You are admitting my point.

Non-sense.

Equality is often vague. An equal right to own property could be interpreted as anyone can equally own property if they buy it according to laws equal for all individuals or it can be interpreted as saying all people should own an equal amount of property.
:lol:

We're not talking about property, but marriage. In this case the written law did not specify gender, simply two people... added to this was the equal protection clause. Given that homosexuals are a protected social class in the United States, they are afforded equal protection. This is why the ruling was fair.

Seriously did you not proof-read what you wrote. You say don't have legsilative power and then say they form the law.

What I meant was that the supreme court does not take the place of the legislature if the legislature decides to weigh in on a matter. The way you are talking, you'd swear that the judges are the be all and end all of law. They aren't. They make intermediary rulings on issues and give the other branches of power an opportunity to form a view.

I agree, though that wording must be interpreted the same unless the legsilature intervenes or the constitution is remade by the judiciary.

There is no rule or law which says a constitution must be interpreted according to traditional values. That is your number one flawed assumption in this debate.

I agree, tradition and precedent are vital in this.

Why?

And I'll say it was unconstitutional and an example of the arbitrary power of judicial activism.

Rinse, lather, repeat.

You confusing the role I give to tradition here. It is simply to interpret what words and phrases in the law and constitution mean. These must stay constant unless the legsilature wants to change them.

I trust the ability of experts who have been in law their whole lives to interpret it more than I do your opinion that traditionalism is the be all and end all of what law means.

It undermines the rule of law because it means that they can be aribtrarily redefined.

No, it means the law itself was loosely defined in the first place.

as they have been in this case.

Wrong.

The judiciary needs to uphold the constantcy of the law, including the all important interpretation.

The law, in this case, was upheld consistently. You're just in denial about it. It's becoming quite entertaining, actually.
 
The bottom line seems to me that some people arguing against gay marriage only have the argument - it's been that way for a long time -. Considering that many things have changed that, have been that way for a long time, the argument has no standing. State recognized "marriage" is rather new in the USA by historical standards and things like mandatory blood tests are no longer required which tells you that as society changes so do things like marriage.

Some xians like to claim that they don't follow the OT laws because they are no longer relevant to modern society yet they refuse to apply this same idea to gay marriage.

So without the "tradition" argument, which is not valid, what other argument can you make against gay marriage?
 
The rules are in the laws themselves. There is no law to tell judges how to interpret law. They go to law school and have careers that last decades which gives them the wisdom to interpret the wording. If you don't like the way they do things, then that can't be helped.
Nope there are different thoeires about interpretation. They only safe one is the strict and original method.



Starting to dish out the partisan remarks are we... I see your true colours are about to show.
I'm not the one being needly hostile or the one who trolls and insults in other threads when disagreed with.



This sentence is essentially meaningless drivel when it comes to deciding what the bill of rights means. If the words are not there, then there is nothing to manifest.
Words and phrases needed to be interpreted, you don't seem to understand this. The above passage is not an argument.



Prove, beyond your specious opinion, that the supreme court of Iowa went beyond its legal capacity in this matter. I'll spare you the time, you can't. It sounds like you simply can't accept that the supreme court has these powers. Good thing you don't live in the U.S. then.
What are you talking about? We are talking about what is good not what they will be permitted to do. The very fact they won't be immediately reproached and put in place proves my point and rules out this strange idea that they can do what they like because the other branches can "put it right". I suppose the police can do what they like as the rest of the gov't can "put it right".


Rinse, lather, repeat.
Not an argument angain.




No, I get it perfectly. What you don't seem to get is that they didn't change the law, they upheld the law. They upheld the fact that two people can get married, period. That is what the Iowa constitution says. Accept it, and move on.
Sure they upheld, reinterpratation is the same thing, if the meaning of the words and phrases are changed then it is as good as changing the law.



It's not the fault of modern times that the authors of the constitutions didn't forsee gay marriage. The wording of the constitution permits gay couples to get married. Again, I'm sorry you can't accept that according to your traditional values, but it is what it is, unless the legislature or a public referendum overrides it.
You're not even making sense.

Again, please cite a document which demonstrates the duties of the supreme court and prove that the court went beyond its powers. I would really like to see this claim in writing.
We are talking about good goverance, we are talking about theoiry not specific powers. I know the Soviet judges went beyond what was good goverance, I don't need to cite Soviet documents for that.
Oh, and the legislature still has the right to intervene, as I've said a million times now. That's why there are three branches of government.
That is not always good enough, the US is awash with judicial activism where the legislature can or won't intervene. You argument again is like saying the cops can do what they like because other branches can intervene. What is needed is some kind of better vetting process for activism judges and an internal tribunal to weed it out like the police have.


Again, no judge changed the wording of the constitution. This is an error that you continue to make.
How can you not understand reinterpretation is the same?




If the wording is not there, then the law does not exist. Period. You can dance around historical interpretations and traditionalism all you want, but that is not the way the law works. The document must say it or there is no justification to deny it. Period. This is LAW 101.
You are talking bollocks. All phrases and words have to be interpretated, if they are changed by the judges then it is judicial activism and undermines the constitution and rule of law. You are not actually giving argument against this.



Cite this?
Why? If it didn't I don't care. I'm not a liberal, I don't put ends before means.



Now you've truly lost this debate. Your own partisan bias is preventing you from seeing the role that the judges serve as one of the three branches in balancing power.
They have gone beyond their sphere as Thomas jefferson warned they would.


If I am to assume that your claim that there are "many interpretations" is correct, then why should the judges be obligated to defer to the traditional one?
To keep it constant of course so they don't change the law or constitution which is not their role.


Just because you say so, and if they don't then gosh darn they are activists?
You really don't understand this at all do you.

Why is tradition best in this case?
To keep the original, constant meaning and leave changing the law to the judiciary.





What I read from this is...

Interpreting it "consistently" = interpreting it in a way that supports tradition
Interpreting it inconsistently and tyrannically = "liberal activism" a.k.a something you don't agree with.

Wow.
The mind oif liberalism=scary. How can you not understand that if the judges reinterpret it then it is changing the law or constitutio. I fear for the world with liberals around I really do.


Please provide evidence that the constitution was "rewritten" in this decision.
It was reinterpreted, that is the same thing.






There is no rule or law which says a constitution must be interpreted according to traditional values. That is your number one flawed assumption in this debate.
You don't understand this do you.You do not understand freedom or gov't. We are doomed, we really are.
 
Nope there are different thoeires about interpretation. They only safe one is the strict and original method.



I'm not the one being needly hostile or the one who trolls and insults in other threads when disagreed with.



Words and phrases needed to be interpreted, you don't seem to understand this. The above passage is not an argument.



What are you talking about? We are talking about what is good not what they will be permitted to do. The very fact they won't be immediately reproached and put in place proves my point and rules out this strange idea that they can do what they like because the other branches can "put it right". I suppose the police can do what they like as the rest of the gov't can "put it right".


Not an argument angain.




Sure they upheld, reinterpratation is the same thing, if the meaning of the words and phrases are changed then it is as good as changing the law.




You're not even making sense.

We are talking about good goverance, we are talking about theoiry not specific powers. I know the Soviet judges went beyond what was good goverance, I don't need to cite Soviet documents for that.

That is not always good enough, the US is awash with judicial activism where the legislature can or won't intervene. You argument again is like saying the cops can do what they like because other branches can intervene. What is needed is some kind of better vetting process for activism judges and an internal tribunal to weed it out like the police have.


How can you not understand reinterpretation is the same?




You are talking bollocks. All phrases and words have to be interpretated, if they are changed by the judges then it is judicial activism and undermines the constitution and rule of law. You are not actually giving argument against this.



Why? If it didn't I don't care. I'm not a liberal, I don't put ends before means.



They have gone beyond their sphere as Thomas jefferson warned they would.


To keep it constant of course so they don't change the law or constitution which is not their role.


You really don't understand this at all do you.

To keep the original, constant meaning and leave changing the law to the judiciary.






The mind oif liberalism=scary. How can you not understand that if the judges reinterpret it then it is changing the law or constitutio. I fear for the world with liberals around I really do.


It was reinterpreted, that is the same thing.






You don't understand this do you.You do not understand freedom or gov't. We are doomed, we really are.

You didn't cite anything I asked you to.

Please do some research on the function of the Supreme Court and in the future I will be happy to take up this debate with you again.

Until then, I refuse to run in circles due to your intentional obtuseness.

Later. :2wave:
 
You didn't cite anything I asked you to.

Please do some research on the function of the Supreme Court and in the future I will be happy to take up this debate with you again.

Until then, I refuse to run in circles due to your intentional obtuseness.

Later. :2wave:

So you have no argument?

The citations you want to made little sense, som what is an activist judiciary thinks it is doing a good job, besides being completely irrelevant, I'm not here to jump through hoops I'm afraid. You did not debunk my argument or put forward one of your own really.

The bottomline is that the rule of law and a written constitution requries that the laws not be changed by judiciary and changing the interpretation is doing exactly that. Separation of powers requires not only that the branches balance each other but they have some restriant and try and keep to their set functions. If all branches decided to do what they want and let the others decide what to do about it then chaos would still ensue.

I'm sorry you had to get so hostile and partisan, I'm not even arguing against GM, and pretty much ruin what could have been an interesting debate.
 
You didn't cite anything I asked you to.

Please do some research on the function of the Supreme Court and in the future I will be happy to take up this debate with you again.

The function of the Supreme Court -- or indeed any court -- is not to make policy. That is exclusively the purview of the political branches.

If you aren't aware of that, you have no business challenging anyone to a debate on the matter.

I really don't care how society decides to adjust to play this issue out. I *do* care that the rule of law, the democratic process, and constitutional principles not be turned on end because of it -- and no matter what side of the issue you're on, YOU should, too.

The end does not justify the means.
 
The citations you want to made little sense, som what is an activist judiciary thinks it is doing a good job, besides being completely irrelevant, I'm not here to jump through hoops I'm afraid. You did not debunk my argument or put forward one of your own really.

You made several claims that the constitution was being ignored or rewritten, but provided no evidence when asked. Please do so, or my debate with you will not continue.

I put forward several sound counter arguments, but you simply dismissed them by saying they make "no sense". They make perfect sense if you understand law.

The bottomline is that the rule of law and a written constitution requries that the laws not be changed by judiciary and changing the interpretation is doing exactly that. Separation of powers requires not only that the branches balance each other but they have some restriant and try and keep to their set functions. If all branches decided to do what they want and let the others decide what to do about it then chaos would still ensue.

I won't continue arguing this with you because you have decided not to listen. Please research the function of the courts and then get back to me on your findings.

I'm sorry you had to get so hostile and partisan, I'm not even arguing against GM, and pretty much ruin what could have been an interesting debate.

I never made any partisan remarks, unlike you who labelled me a liberal that wants to alter social policy. You just can't debate the facts without bringing partisan crap into it.

Disagreeing with you does not make me hostile. I'm sorry you lack the intellectual honesty to see that.
 
The function of the Supreme Court -- or indeed any court -- is not to make policy. That is exclusively the purview of the political branches.

The Supreme Court was not making policy. They were upholding the wording of the Constitution which says marriage is between two people. If they were to strike down gay marriage, it would be based on gendered wording that does not exist. The Constitution makes no mention of gender, therefore the law shouldn't either. Either the people or the legislature need to weigh in on the matter now, or the ruling will stand. That is the function of the court.

Why I keep having to remind people of this continues to baffle me.

If you aren't aware of that, you have no business challenging anyone to a debate on the matter.

This has to be some kind of joke.

I really don't care how society decides to adjust to play this issue out. I *do* care that the rule of law, the democratic process, and constitutional principles not be turned on end because of it -- and no matter what side of the issue you're on, YOU should, too.

Opponents of gay marriage continue to kick and scream because the constitution offers them nothing to support their discriminatory campaign against homosexuals. When the judges acknowledge this absence, opponents accuse them of being activists, of rewriting the constitution, or violating the rule of law. These people are not in touch with what the supreme court's job is.

The end does not justify the means.

The law is the means:

1) Equal protection clause
+
2) No mention that marriage must be between heterosexuals only.
+
3) Gays are a protected class in the United States
=
Gays are allowed to marry.

The ruling is pretty self-explanatory for anyone who would care to look at it with a shred of honesty.

That's all I have left to say. Opponents in this thread can continue to mull about their opinions on activist judges. I've said all I need to.

:2wave:
 
You made several claims that the constitution was being ignored or rewritten, but provided no evidence when asked. Please do so, or my debate with you will not continue.

I put forward several sound counter arguments, but you simply dismissed them by saying they make "no sense". They make perfect sense if you understand law.
Not true but what is the point of arguing about this when you won't actually take poart in a constructive discussion.


I won't continue arguing this with you because you have decided not to listen. Please research the function of the courts and then get back to me on your findings.

:rofl

Please research good gov't and the rule of law and get back to me.

I never made any partisan remarks, unlike you who labelled me a liberal that wants to alter social policy. You just can't debate the facts without bringing partisan crap into it.
Umm you did talk about the right and you got hostile, You are a liberal in principles.

Disagreeing with you does not make me hostile. I'm sorry you lack the intellectual honesty to see that.
That is why you insult me and come to other threads to spam and insult me? You have done this before as well.

I don't think you are a bad poster but I wish you'd grow up a bit.

Anyway we are done here, I have proved this action was judicial acitvism and is greatly detrimental, you stopped actually discussing the moment your argument were shoit down.:2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom