• 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

The significance of this decision is that this is IOWA...midAmerica....this isn't San Francisco, Los Angeles or New York.
The storm clouds are clearing and this is a battle that will be won in the name of equality which is what America stands for if it stands for anything.

It reminds me of the lyrics from "Kiss of the Spiderwoman" which are think are very fitting here:

Then, one April day we heard it
Thunder rumbling
One man speaking
Thousands singing ..
Someday we'll be free
I promise you, we'll be free
If not tomorrow
Then the day after that
And the candles in our hands
Will illuminate this land
If not tomorrow
Then the day after that
And the world that gives us pain
That fills our lives with fear
On the day after that
Will disappear
And the war we've fought to win
I promise you, we will win
If not tomorrow
Then the day after that
Or the day after that
 
disneydude said:
The significance of this decision is that this is IOWA...midAmerica....this isn't San Francisco, Los Angeles or New York.
The storm clouds are clearing and this is a battle that will be won in the name of equality....
Click to expand...

Gay marriage has nothing to do with equality.

That is a surrogate argument only, the carrier.
 
Jerry said:
Gay marriage has nothing to do with equality.

That is a surrogate argument only, the carrier.
Click to expand...

It has EVERYTHING to do with equality. America has a history of injustice, but ultimately gets it right....slowly but eventually. If not tomorrow....then the day after that.
 
disneydude said:
The significance of this decision is that this is IOWA...midAmerica....this isn't San Francisco, Los Angeles or New York.
The storm clouds are clearing and this is a battle that will be won in the name of equality which is what America stands for if it stands for anything.
Click to expand...
Indeed, a signature victory....

A victory for those who wish to impose their will without regard to the processes of republican democracy.

A victory for those who childishly scream "I want" but remain clueless of the larger context of their demands.

A victory for those who demonize the beliefs and ideals of others.

A distinctly un-American victory. As you love this country, your tears should be regretful and not rejoicing.
 
disneydude said:
It has EVERYTHING to do with equality. America has a history of injustice, but ultimately gets it right....slowly but eventually. If not tomorrow....then the day after that.
Click to expand...
Well, the Iowa court certainly did not get it right this time. Hopefully tomorrow will be a better day for them.
 
celticlord said:
It is an entirely bad thing. Judicial activism is creating law from the bench, not interpreting existing law. Courts are created to interpret the law. Legislatures are created to create the law.

Legislatures are the expression of the will of the people, not courts.

There is no social good derived from courts pre-empting legislatures. None whatsoever. Whenever this happens, it is to society's detriment.
Click to expand...

In case I am not following this correctly, explain how the Marbury v. Madison decision was not a case of judicial activism.
 
celticlord said:
A victory for those who wish to impose their will without regard to the processes of republican democracy.
Click to expand...

From a fan of slavery and interracial marriage.

celticlord said:
A victory for those who childishly scream "I want" but remain clueless of the larger context of their demands.
Click to expand...

Again a fan of interracial marriage and slavery.

celticlord said:
A victory for those who demonize the beliefs and ideals of others.
Click to expand...

Read above.

celticlord said:
A distinctly un-American victory. As you love this country, your tears should be regretful and not rejoicing.
Click to expand...

You're right we should discriminate as much as the majority wants. :doh
 
Jerry said:
Gay marriage has nothing to do with equality.

That is a surrogate argument only, the carrier.
Click to expand...

So you think that not allowing equals equality?
 
"Is there a meaningful resolution to such questions? I certainly hope so. My preferred resolution would be an ending to government regulation of marriage, so that individual views on marriage are never more than a matter of opinion. That is not the state of law today, and the Iowa court's ruling has amplified that situation; it has not reduced it, and it most definitely has not negated it. The Iowa court could not hope to remedy that particular legal defect, for such a remedy is found in the legislative process, not the judicial process."

I agree with your preferred solution because I believe strongly in the separation of church and state. In the church's eyes (because marriage WAS initially a sacrament received through the church) marriage should be between a man and a woman, and I find that to be completely acceptable. What I find to be unacceptable and downright discriminatory is the lack of a suitable alternative for homosexuals. The reason its unjust and discriminatory is because of the social benefits that a homosexual couple has no option of getting. Let a gay couple have rights such as insurance, life and death benefits and take the title off of it completely. Send it through another office and put a different name tag on it, but don't strip a couple of the rights that every other straight couple is entitled to just because of a word.
 
Bodhisattva said:
In case I am not following this correctly, explain how the Marbury v. Madison decision was not a case of judicial activism.
Click to expand...
Simply put, because the decision did not seek to create new legal rights, or to expand definitions of rights. Marshall's opinion was exhaustive and precise in its legal reasoning, restricting the matters strictly to matters of law.

Marshall's opinion was framed around three questions:
  1. Did Marbury have a right to the commission?
  2. Do the laws of the country give Marbury a legal remedy?
  3. Is asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus the correct legal remedy?

Marshall found that Marbury did have such a right, and that the laws of the country gave Marbury a remedy.

HOWEVER

Marbury erred by asking for remedy from the wrong court; more precisely, the law upon which his remedy was founded was wrong. The legislation on which he based his petition to the Supreme Court, Judiciary Act of 1789, was constitutionally flawed in that it expanded the reach of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction as defined in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Click to expand...

Marshall's conclusion was clear: Marbury was within his rights to seek remedy, but the law on which he based his petition was flawed, and thus the court did not have the power to grant the remedy he sought.

Judicial activism occurs when courts define new rights, expand the definition of existing rights, or otherwise create law. This emphatically did not happen in Marbury v Madison
 
disneydude said:
The significance of this decision is that this is IOWA...midAmerica....this isn't San Francisco, Los Angeles or New York.
Click to expand...

From your own link:

The case had been working its way through the courts since 2005, when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples in Iowa.

Once again, a special interest group lurking in the shadows, probing and finding ways to circumvent the laws with judges legislating from the bench.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat, said state lawmakers were unlikely to consider gay marriage legislation in this legislative session, which is expected to end within weeks.

Gronstal also said he's "not inclined" to propose a constitutional amendment during next year's session.

Why not let the people vote? That's the American way.
 
disneydude said:
It has EVERYTHING to do with equality. America has a history of injustice, but ultimately gets it right....slowly but eventually. If not tomorrow....then the day after that.
Click to expand...

Gay-marriage has nothing to do with equality. It never did.
 
Originally Posted by Jerry
Gay marriage has nothing to do with equality.

That is a surrogate argument only, the carrier.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
So you think that not allowing equals equality?
Click to expand...

Jerry said:
Bad grammar, please rephrase your question.
Click to expand...

Denying gay marriage is, "not allowing" gays to marry.
Not allowing them to marry is not equal to those that are allowed to marry.
Since one is being denied equality, being denied gay marriage has everything to do with equality, or lack of.

So, I asked, do you think that "not allowing", equals "equality". I can't see how in the world any person can think that denying rights or anything to a person or group constitutes equality, or making things equal for people or groups. That help?
 
Ooo I gotcha now...

Bodhisattva said:
Denying gay marriage is, "not allowing" gays to marry.
Not allowing them to marry is not equal to those that are allowed to marry.
Since one is being denied equality, being denied gay marriage has everything to do with equality, or lack of.

So, I asked, do you think that "not allowing", equals "equality". I can't see how in the world any person can think that denying rights or anything to a person or group constitutes equality, or making things equal for people or groups. That help?
Click to expand...

The right to marry a person of the same gender does not exist for it to be denied. It is not evident in Loving, Skinner, or any such case law. It is not present in the "history and traditions of the people". It_does_not_exist.

Pro-GM people argue that such a right should exist, but that argument is based on the premis that the right does not exist today.

Iowan heteros have gained a civil right. Heteros would have gained nothing if this were about merely issuing an existing right to an additional group. Something new was created, which means it didn't exist before. Since the right didn't exist, it couldn't have been denied, which means this issue has nothing to do with equality even if you support gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Ooo I gotcha now...



The right to marry a person of the same gender does not exist for it to be denied. It is not evident in Loving, Skinner, or any such case law. It is not present in the "history and traditions of the people". It_does_not_exist.

Pro-GM people argue that such a right should exist, but that argument is based on the premis that the right does not exist today.

Iowan heteros have gained a civil right. Heteros would have gained nothing if this were about merely issuing an existing right to an additional group. Something new was created, which means it didn't exist before. Since the right didn't exist, it couldn't have been denied, which means this issue has nothing to do with equality even if you support gay marriage.
Click to expand...


So then what is the problem with allowing it to exist now?
Allow GM and simply call it "marriage" like heteros get to do...
 
Bodhisattva said:
So then what is the problem with allowing it to exist now?
Allow GM and simply call it "marriage" like heteros get to do...
Click to expand...

My problem was with people claiming that this has anything to do with equality.

For the sake of the argument: Sure, let gays get "married" all they want, but the moment you start pretending that gay marriage has anything to do with righting an injustice you're fool.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
My problem was with people claiming that this has anything to do with equality.
Click to expand...

would you say it pisses you off?
 
GottaHurt said:
From your own link:

The case had been working its way through the courts since 2005, when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples in Iowa.

Once again, a special interest group lurking in the shadows, probing and finding ways to circumvent the laws with judges legislating from the bench.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat, said state lawmakers were unlikely to consider gay marriage legislation in this legislative session, which is expected to end within weeks.

Gronstal also said he's "not inclined" to propose a constitutional amendment during next year's session.

Why not let the people vote? That's the American way.
Click to expand...

Can we all vote on your Constitutional Rights?

That's not the American way. The entire idea behind a Constitution is that there are certain rights/privileges that are so important that they cannot be overcome by the tyranny of the majority.
 
Jerry said:
Gay-marriage has nothing to do with equality. It never did.
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that Jerry. The reality is...it has EVERYTHING to do with equality. That's the point of equal protection:doh
 
celticlord said:
Indeed, a signature victory....

A victory for those who wish to impose their will without regard to the processes of republican democracy.

A victory for those who childishly scream "I want" but remain clueless of the larger context of their demands.

A victory for those who demonize the beliefs and ideals of others.

A distinctly un-American victory. As you love this country, your tears should be regretful and not rejoicing.
Click to expand...

It is a signature victory. When even Mid-America begins to recognize it, the battle is won....if not tomorrow, then the day after that.

Its not about imposing "will" its about recognizing that America stands for equal protection in that same way giving blacks civil rights or women the right to vote was not about imposing "will".

Screaming "I want"....that is those who say "I want to impose my view of marriage on everyone else." Those of us who support gay marriage don't "want" to impose that view on anyone who doesn't believe in it. People who don't support gay marriage are still free to their beliefs, they just won't be able to impose their "wants" on everyone else.

"Demonizing the beliefs and ideals of others"? Pul-lease!
As I said...people are still free to have their beliefs, they just cannot impose their beliefs on everyone else.

If everyone would just adhere to the simple belief that "You right to your beliefs extend until they impinge on anothers"...the world would be a much better place.
 
disneydude said:
Keep telling yourself that Jerry. The reality is...it has EVERYTHING to do with equality. That's the point of equal protection:doh
Click to expand...

That's one way to ignore my argument, sure.

What right were heteros in Iowa being denied?
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Too easy Jerry. Procreation as a reason for the state to have a compelling interest in marriage is negated by the fact that obtaining a marriage license is not contingent on the agreement to have children. If it were, since marriage is a contract, if a couple decided to not procreate, the marriage license would be void. This does not occur. Adoption is also a piece that indicates that child-rearing, not procreation is the component that is being addressed. Child-rearing is one of the reasons the state has a compelling interest in marriage, but not the only one. Health and creating a stable society are also reasons. These things are accomplished by both hetero-sexual and homo-sexual marriages.
Click to expand...
The great French reactionary Bonald deals with this argument in his tract On Divorce where he attacks the revolutionary legislation that allowed divorce(which he later helped to overturn under the restoration.).

He states that marriage is a contract(in terms reminiscent of Burke's ideas on the social contract.)but it is actually a contract with three parties, the spouses and the children who are to spring from it and require the nurture of a stable familial relationship, therefore to dissolve it is according to the will of the two spouses is to rob both society, which requires offspring and stable families, and the children themselves, even if they are not yet born. And even in the case of no children that is no excuse, it devalues the nature of marriage in society for a course which will not necessarily produce children itself(ie a second marriage.).

I'm not sure I agree with him completely on divorce but he makes some interesting points that at least should be aired when people trot out views on marriage as if it is just a contract like any other.

But the main point is that the fact marriage licenses do not contain the agreement to produce children and give them a stable familial setting, does not mean this is not an important role of the congenial family, if not the most important. An institution can have important roles that differ from its usual ideational place in a society, in fact they can be far more important.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
But the main point is that the fact marriage licenses do not contain the agreement to produce children and give them a stable familial setting, does not mean this is not an important role of the congenial family, if not the most important. An institution can have important roles that differ from its usual ideational place in a society, in fact they can be far more important.
Click to expand...

If it is not a contractual meaning to prodcue children than a contract of marriage doesn't matter whether they produce or not.

So why is a gay couple that raises children any less of parents than a hetero couple that raises children.

I've seen gay parents raise children and I've seen hetero parents raise children, both can do the job just fine.
 
Midwest Lib said:
You say that as if it an entirely bad thing.
Click to expand...
At least you're honest and willing to admit that yes this and other similar cases are judicial activism. That is refreshing for a liberal.

It is bad because it is one small, elite body making laws and social policy with little accountability. It is an example of arbitrary power and threatens the rule of law and the separation of powers.

The separation of powers requires each branch to be sovereign in its role but judicial activism allows the the judiciary to become sovereign over all branches in a way(although ultimately and most dangerously of all leaving it open for co-opting by the executive.).

If you despise arbitrary power and despostism then it is a bad thing.
Have good changes brought on in the past not been brought up in a similar way.
Click to expand...
This is a confusion of means and ends that goes right to heart of many of the problems of modern liberalism. The ends may be great but that does not justify any means in bringing them about.

Its, in fact, part of what state and federal SC's do. Whether or not you agree with their "activism" depends solely on whether or not you share the same views to begin with.
Click to expand...
It has never been part of their official role, it is simply a power they have taken onto themselves and makes them so dangerous. Thomas Jefferson and some of the anti-federalists have been shown to be right.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom