rushmc 18
Recommended Posts
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteGetting fired is small potato's compared to the hate crimes they might have been subjected to, given the nature of those opposing them.
Blues,
Dave
Do you realize what you just posted?
And
they judged nothing
They wrote law
THAT is illeagal
With the new gov we may have a person who will order the clerks to stop giving marriage licenses to same sex couples until this mess is cleared up
They didn't write law. They agreed with a lower court's ruling that a particular law was unconstitutional. That is the most important function of a supreme court.
Blues,
Dave
They ordered marriages
There is as of now NO law on iowa books for same sex marriages
They have written law
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteQuoteQuoteGetting fired is small potato's compared to the hate crimes they might have been subjected to, given the nature of those opposing them.
Blues,
Dave
Do you realize what you just posted?
And
they judged nothing
They wrote law
THAT is illeagal
With the new gov we may have a person who will order the clerks to stop giving marriage licenses to same sex couples until this mess is cleared up
They didn't write law. They agreed with a lower court's ruling that a particular law was unconstitutional. That is the most important function of a supreme court.
Blues,
Dave
They ordered marriages
There is as of now NO law on iowa books for same sex marriages
They have written law
They ordered marriages? Please list the people whom they forced to marry.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
davjohns 1
I don't see anything in the article regarding the ultimate argument the Judge's based their decision on. It just says that they held the marriage law violated the state constitution's equal protection provision. I've never seen an equal protection provision that covered sexual preference. If this one does, they were right. If not, they went astray. I haven't looked up the state constitution to see what kind of leeway it gives for interpretation. Anyone looked at this?
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGetting fired is small potato's compared to the hate crimes they might have been subjected to, given the nature of those opposing them.
Blues,
Dave
Do you realize what you just posted?
And
they judged nothing
They wrote law
THAT is illeagal
With the new gov we may have a person who will order the clerks to stop giving marriage licenses to same sex couples until this mess is cleared up
They didn't write law. They agreed with a lower court's ruling that a particular law was unconstitutional. That is the most important function of a supreme court.
Blues,
Dave
They ordered marriages
There is as of now NO law on iowa books for same sex marriages
They have written law
They ordered marriages? Please list the people whom they forced to marry.
Blues,
Dave
Do you really want to take this off subject with such a stupid assertion?
And if you trully did not get the point
The courted ordered the state to allow same sex marriages
That IS writting law
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 18
Here is a start
I will see if I can find the actual rulling and more
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010/Unanimous-ruling-Iowa-marriage-no-longer-limited-to-one-man-one-woman
I will see if I can find the actual rulling and more
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010/Unanimous-ruling-Iowa-marriage-no-longer-limited-to-one-man-one-woman
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
davjohns 1
"difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution"
“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them,” Cady wrote.
Hmmm...I think the Court jumped right in and decided the religious issue for itself. And the quote about 'principals of equal protection embodied in our constitution' tells me that there is nothing stated. They are interpreting some kind of general intent that is in accord with personal opinions.
I think the court opinion is suspect legally even though I support whatever unions individuals prefer.
“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them,” Cady wrote.
Hmmm...I think the Court jumped right in and decided the religious issue for itself. And the quote about 'principals of equal protection embodied in our constitution' tells me that there is nothing stated. They are interpreting some kind of general intent that is in accord with personal opinions.
I think the court opinion is suspect legally even though I support whatever unions individuals prefer.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
rushmc 18
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18470
Maybe you can find it faster in here than I
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Constitution.html
Maybe you can find it faster in here than I
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Constitution.html
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
wmw999 2,149
From looking at just the article in question, it looks as though they agreed with a lower court ruling, and that lower court ruling had already determined that same-gender marriages could take place. One such marriage took place in 2007.
So it sounds like the judiciary in general agreed that the Iowa constitution, in guaranteeing equal protection, should allow same-gender couples the same protection that mixed-gender couples have. That's not all that different from saying that the "separate-but-equal" education afforded to blacks up to the mid-1960's didn't afford equal protection.
Wendy P.
was the basis of the original Polk County ruling. It was affirmed, then stayed until it could be considered by the Iowa Supreme Court, then finally ruled on by the supreme court.QuoteIowa’s ban on same-sex marriages treated gay and lesbian couples unequally under the law.
So it sounds like the judiciary in general agreed that the Iowa constitution, in guaranteeing equal protection, should allow same-gender couples the same protection that mixed-gender couples have. That's not all that different from saying that the "separate-but-equal" education afforded to blacks up to the mid-1960's didn't afford equal protection.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
wmw999 2,149
Interesting. The Iowa constitution calls for both the pursuing and obtaining of happiness 
. That's a tough one to guarantee.
Section 6 sounds like the one that would guarantee equal access:
QuoteAll 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.
Personally, I think it's a good ruling, but I'm not a lawyer, and I do think that consenting adults should be able to marry each other. The state shouldn't recognize religious marriages; it was an arragement of convenience that seems to have backfired bigtime.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGetting fired is small potato's compared to the hate crimes they might have been subjected to, given the nature of those opposing them.
Blues,
Dave
Do you realize what you just posted?
And
they judged nothing
They wrote law
THAT is illeagal
With the new gov we may have a person who will order the clerks to stop giving marriage licenses to same sex couples until this mess is cleared up
They didn't write law. They agreed with a lower court's ruling that a particular law was unconstitutional. That is the most important function of a supreme court.
Blues,
Dave
They ordered marriages
There is as of now NO law on iowa books for same sex marriages
They have written law
They ordered marriages? Please list the people whom they forced to marry.
Blues,
Dave
Do you really want to take this off subject with such a stupid assertion?
And if you trully did not get the point
The courted ordered the state to allow same sex marriages
That IS writting law
You're simply wrong. They agreed with a lower court's ruling that the law prohibiting same sex marriages ran afoul of the equal protections afforded by the state constitution. That is the function of a supreme court. If you think that is writing law, then you should have a problem with every single decision made by any supreme court anywhere on any subject. Do you think the US supreme court was writing law when ruled that segregation violated the principle of equal protection in Brown vs Kansas Board of Education? What about when they found the line item veto act of 1996 or the live poultry code to be unconstitutional? Marbury vs Madison?
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGetting fired is small potato's compared to the hate crimes they might have been subjected to, given the nature of those opposing them.
Blues,
Dave
Do you realize what you just posted?
And
they judged nothing
They wrote law
THAT is illeagal
With the new gov we may have a person who will order the clerks to stop giving marriage licenses to same sex couples until this mess is cleared up
They didn't write law. They agreed with a lower court's ruling that a particular law was unconstitutional. That is the most important function of a supreme court.
Blues,
Dave
They ordered marriages
There is as of now NO law on iowa books for same sex marriages
They have written law
They ordered marriages? Please list the people whom they forced to marry.
Blues,
Dave
Do you really want to take this off subject with such a stupid assertion?
And if you trully did not get the point
The courted ordered the state to allow same sex marriages
That IS writting law
You're simply wrong. They agreed with a lower court's ruling that the law prohibiting same sex marriages ran afoul of the equal protections afforded by the state constitution. That is the function of a supreme court. If you think that is writing law, then you should have a problem with every single decision made by any supreme court anywhere on any subject. Do you think the US supreme court was writing law when ruled that segregation violated the principle of equal protection in Brown vs Kansas Board of Education? What about when they found the line item veto act of 1996 or the live poultry code to be unconstitutional? Marbury vs Madison?
Blues,
Dave
If you can show me in the states laws where same sex marriage is provided for I will agree with you
They can say a law is not constitutional but they can not impart their will on the people
Stopping a law or voiding it is the role of the SC
Not forcing what they think is the fix
They do not have the power
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
It is a good discussion
And again
I am not against same sex couples being recognizes as such under Iowa law
I am against judges inforcing their beliefs from the bench however
Like in CA
The marriage law there is now a constitutional amendment
NO CA supreme court can over turn that (or should not be able to) It is the law that the courts are bound by. They can here interpitational differences and rule on those but, the law IS that states constitution. How can they say it is not constitutional?>
The US supreme court has the power to however (based on what ever arguements are heard)
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites