• 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

Coolguy said:
You are trying to separate homosexuals from the rest of mankind based solely on their sexual preference and then trying to equate it to race discrimination. And then demanding new and different rights be established based on grounds of sexual preference.

There is no separate but equal doctrine that can be overturned here as in 'Brown'.

People of any sexual preference are allowed, in the U.S., to marry someone of the opposite gender.
This is the 'right' that all have. It is equal in that it applies to all, regardless of race or sexual preference. (Of course with caveats. e.g. Age, relationship etc...)
Homosexuals willingly and freely partake in this 'right'.


The real argument being made is that homosexual couples want the same privileges and amenities that come with state sanctioned marriage.
There is no reason that they shouldn't have these.

They just do not need to usurp and try to redefine the term marriage to fit their purposes.
Click to expand...
This simply highlights the silliness of generalised calls for "equality". Homosexuals have the same rights to marry as heteros, they want the same rights to marry as heteros.:mrgreen:
 
UtahBill said:
A decision made where it should be made, in the courts....
Click to expand...

You mis-spelled "Legislature".

UtahBill said:
putting some issues to a vote is just plain stupid, the Prop. 8 fiasco in California proved that.....
Click to expand...

You are aware that Pro8 did not, in any way, deny homosexuals any civil right, correct?

Under Prop8 gays can share each and every single civil right, without any exception at all whatsoever, with a member of the SAME sex, as their hetero counter parts can.
 
Does anyone have the name of the ruling, or beter yet, a link to it?
 
Wessexman said:
Yep seems like judicial activism to me. All bow to the liberal committee on public safety.
Click to expand...

It is not judicial activism when the judges are following the letter of the law.

Iowa Constitution
Article XII, Section 1:
"This constitution shall be the supreme law of the state, and any law inconsistent therewith, shall be void."

Article I, Section 1:
"All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights--among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

Article I, Section 6:
"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."

Being a legal institution in Iowa, marriage must be applied equally to all of its citizens.

Iowa General Assembly - Iowa Constitution
 
Alex said:
It is not judicial activism when the judges are following the letter of the law.

Iowa Constitution
Article XII, Section 1:
"This constitution shall be the supreme law of the state, and any law inconsistent therewith, shall be void."

Article I, Section 1:
"All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights--among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

Article I, Section 6:
"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."

Being a legal institution in Iowa, marriage must be applied equally to all of its citizens.

Iowa General Assembly - Iowa Constitution
Click to expand...

Exactly it was, they had the equal rights to marry those of the opposite sex. This is how it was interpreted prior to this piece of activism. What has happened is the court has decided to make social policy by reinterpreting what equal means. Classic case of judicial activism even if the equality Article is likely to be relatively recent.

Generalised calls to equality are often quite lacking in meaning and precision as I said above. They had equal rights, they want equal rights. There is no set meaning of equal in this case, but historically it has been interpreted one way and a court has decided to change law and social policy by reinterpreting it. That is activism I'm afraid.

This is separate from whether it is right to allow gay marriage, don't get means and ends mixed up.
 
Last edited:
Alex said:
Being a legal institution in Iowa, marriage must be applied equally to all of its citizens.
Click to expand...

If gays were now brought up to equal, that is if gays now have all the rights heteros had....then why do Iowan heteros now have the NEW ability to marry someone of the same gender when they didn't before?

It is not that gays were given a right heteros had, it's that everyone now has a new civil right.

No new right was established in Brown. No new right was established in Loving.

Therefore, this wasn't ever about equality.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Exactly it was, they had the equal rights to marry those of the opposite sex. This is how it was interpreted prior to this piece of activism. What has happened is the court has decided to make social policy by reinterpreting what equal means. Classic case of judicial activism even if the equality Article is likely to be relatively recent.

Generalised calls to equality are often quite lacking in meaning and precision as I said above. They had equal rights, they want equal rights. There is no set meaning of equal in this case, but historically it has been interpreted one way and a court has decided to change law and social policy by reinterpreting it. That is activism I'm afraid.

This is separate from whether it is right to allow gay marriage, don't get means and ends mixed up.
Click to expand...

From the ruling:
"It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation."

"By purposefully placing civil marriage outside the realistic reach of gay
and lesbian individuals, the ban on same-sex civil marriages differentiates
implicitly on the basis of sexual orientation."

It is not equal to say a person has the right to marry someone of a different gender when that is not their preference, yet another class of people are allowed to marry the person of their choosing. This law, in its essence, is removing the right of gay people to marry all together.

http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/wfData/files/Varnum/07-1499.pdf
 
Alex said:
It is not equal to say a person has the right to marry someone of a different gender when that is not their preference, yet another class of people are allowed to marry the person of their choosing. This law, in its essence, is removing the right of gay people to marry all together.
Click to expand...
Sure it is equal, they have equal rights to marry someone of the opposite sex. It is also equal if they can marry someone of the same sex. Both situations are "equal". Equal is not a simple category in some cases. In Iowa it was historically determined in this case and that has been overturned by a court engaging in judicial activism to set social policy.
 
Wessexman said:
Sure it is equal, they have equal rights to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

That's like saying interacial marriage should have stayed illegal, because blacks had the right to marry their own race, but not another.

Sorry, doesn't cut it.
 
TheNextEra said:
That's like saying interacial marriage should have stayed illegal, because blacks had the right to marry their own race, but not another.

Sorry, doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

No, see here again you show that don't know what you're talking about.

Black were ONLY prohibited from marrying whites.

Blacks could marry Asian, Blacks could marry Spanish, Blacks could marry Native American, etc.

***
You people don't even know wtf you're talking about. All you do is read a headline and fell good about it, but you don't understand. You opinions are not based on fact, but emotion, and therefore do not diserve respect.
 
Jerry said:
No, see here again you show that don't know what you're talking about.

Black were ONLY prohibited from marrying whites.

Blacks could marry Asian, Blacks could marry Spanish, Blacks could marry Native American, etc.
Click to expand...

Men are ONLY prohibited from marrying men. They can marry any other gender they want. So how is that different? :mrgreen:
 
TheNextEra said:
That's like saying interacial marriage should have stayed illegal, because blacks had the right to marry their own race, but not another.

Sorry, doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...
Sorry but that doesn't cut it.
You are comparing apples to oranges.

Race does not equal sexual preference.
 
Alex said:
It is not judicial activism when the judges are following the letter of the law.
Click to expand...
If you read the entire decision, then you know they did not follow the letter of the law, but interpreted it.
 
Jerry said:
You people don't even know wtf you're talking about. All you do is read a headline and fell good about it, but you don't understand. You opinions are not based on fact, but emotion, and therefore do not diserve respect.
Click to expand...

Says the bible thumper, I love it.

You don 't matter Jerry.

Your whole argument is based on emotion. God says no is your forte.
 
Coolguy said:
If you read the entire decision, then you know they did not follow the letter of the law, but interpreted it.
Click to expand...

Wessexman said:
Sure it is equal, they have equal rights to marry someone of the opposite sex. It is also equal if they can marry someone of the same sex. Both situations are "equal". Equal is not a simple category in some cases. In Iowa it was historically determined in this case and that has been overturned by a court engaging in judicial activism to set social policy.
Click to expand...

I did read the entire decision and provided the relevant constitutional provisions to back up the position of the court. The court followed the law of the constitution, therefore, it is not judicial activism. The ruling was based on law.
 
Coolguy said:
Sorry but that doesn't cut it.
You are comparing apples to oranges.

Race does not equal sexual preference.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. Did you choose to be heterosexual or were you just NATURALLY attracted to the opposite sex?
 
Coolguy said:
If you read the entire decision, then you know they did not follow the letter of the law, but interpreted it.
Click to expand...

The Iowa Constitution states:
"Laws uniform. SEC. 6. 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."

That seems pretty straightforward. It doesn't really take a great deal of interpretation in this case.
 
TheNextEra said:
That's like saying interacial marriage should have stayed illegal, because blacks had the right to marry their own race, but not another.

Sorry, doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, it is also like saying the equal right to property doesn't mean everyone has the right to the same amount of property.

The point is that equal is not always a straightforward category. Your point supports and does not take away from mine.
 
Alex said:
I did read the entire decision and provided the relevant constitutional provisions to back up the position of the court. The court followed the law of the constitution, therefore, it is not judicial activism. The ruling was based on law.
Click to expand...

It is completely redefing how the equal protection provision was historically determined, this is the court determining social policy. It is a classic case of judicial activism.
 
Wessexman said:
Perhaps, it is also like saying the equal right to property doesn't mean everyone has the right to the same amount of property.

The point is that equal is not always a straightforward category. Your point supports and does not take away from mine.
Click to expand...

Comparing property rights to people's rights? Sorry you lost this one. Just admit it.
 
TheNextEra said:
Comparing property rights to people's rights? Sorry you lost this one. Just admit it.
Click to expand...

This passage above is not an argument. It is a pretty lame attempt at flaming and baiting.

Anyway I'm not attacking gay marriage, I'm mildy supportive/don't care about that subject. I'm attacking judicial activism; liberal committees on public safety.
 
Wessexman said:
This passage above is not an argument. It is a pretty lame attempt at flaming and baiting.

Anyway I'm not attacking gay marriage, I'm mildy supportive/don't care about that subject. I'm attacking judicial activism; liberal committees on public safety.
Click to expand...

The main arguments from Anti-Gay Marriage proponents are this:


#1: God doesn't want it:

Well many people don't follow that religion. So deal with it. The U.S. is not a theocracy so what "God" says about anything should be a moot point unless some nutball wants the U.S. to be a theocracy.

#2: Gays choose to be gay. This is funny because did you choose to be heterosexual or were you attracted to the opposite sex without choice? Why would someone CHOOSE to be ostracized in society and just choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? The simple reasoning is that they don't choose who they are attracted to.


#3: Think about the children......

Well, again sorry there are plenty of gay parents that have raised children that have been better than children that STRAIGHT people have raised, so the whole gay parents raise gay children is debunked.

Bottom line, is there is no reason for gay marriage to be illegal.
 
TheNextEra said:
The main arguments from Anti-Gay Marriage proponents are this:


#1: God doesn't want it:

Well many people don't follow that religion. So deal with it. The U.S. is not a theocracy so what "God" says about anything should be a moot point unless some nutball wants the U.S. to be a theocracy.

#2: Gays choose to be gay. This is funny because did you choose to be heterosexual or were you attracted to the opposite sex without choice? Why would someone CHOOSE to be ostracized in society and just choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? The simple reasoning is that they don't choose who they are attracted to.


#3: Think about the children......

Well, again sorry there are plenty of gay parents that have raised children that have been better than children that STRAIGHT people have raised, so the whole gay parents raise gay children is debunked.

Bottom line, is there is no reason for gay marriage to be illegal.
Click to expand...
And this has what to do with mny comments? My argument is anti-judicial activism not anti-gay marriage. The actual issue doesn't matter much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom