Iowa's Constitution and Same-Sex Marriage Supreme Court Decision

[jeffmonc2]

Complete garbage. They legislated from the bench. That is not "progress" it is an erosion of democracy. There is NO basis in the constitution for giving special rights to homosexuals. It's NOT a civil right to be a weirdo and push around churches. Plus what they did override a ballot measure AND reverse it - is just beyond contempt.

[xexixk]

@jeffmonc2 Of course it legislation from the bench since it's a decision you don't agree with. The courts have the power to judge if a ballot measure, law, etc. infringes on the rights of any other segment of society (imagine if whites in the south voted regarding ending segregation and they voted to keep segregation, and then it went to the courts, you think the courts would have let that stand?)

[xexixk]

@jeffmonc2 And of course it's a "special right" since it doesn't affect your life and particularly because it applies to some group you dislike. As for churches, when's a church been pushed around? BTW this isn't a theocracy either. Nothing in the constitution says you can't be a "weirdo" just as it protects your right to be an ignorant unhappy and bitter person.

[xexixk]

@jeffmonc2 Oh a couple of other points. This was the Iowa State Supreme court. The constitution they refer to is the Iowa State Consitution, not the federal constitution. I doubt the Iowa constitution forbids people from being "weirdos" either. Second, this is a constitutional republic - you vote for legislatures, they make decisions, you don't like them then vote them out. The courts decide the constitutionality of things. Not everyone gets everything their way, that's life.

[jeffmonc2]

@xexixk How old is this? We did voe them out. Loser. Look at reality or face the consequences weirdo.

[xexixk]

@jeffmonc2 You are the loser who needs to look at reality. You may have voted some out (I'm aware of that) but you still haven't gotten what you wanted. You are the weirdo. Only a weirdo who has some fears and/or insecurities about himself or herself is obsessed with how others live their lives.

[incamelot1]

@xexixk

Why the %@!# does little jeffy and esj give a shit if 2 women or 2 men love each other and want to marry? Do states give a shit about opposite sex marriage, maybe they should!

More than half of all opposite sex marriages fail maybe they should only have " civil unions"?

[xexixk]

@incamelot1 Anyone who is obsessed with what consenting adults do or do not do in their bedrooms like jeff and esj likely have some very serious insecurity issues that they should be seeing a psychologist about rather than projecting their self fears and self hatred onto others.

[incamelot1]

@xexixk

For a group of people (Republicans) who claim to hate government interference in... t h e i r... private lives, it seems when it comes to any other group but themselves, they think it's just fine to dictate what everyone should do ...a n d ...that something should agree with their religious beliefs and ideologies.

I know all R's do not subscribe to that view of homosexuality, it's just the religious right. I have Republican family members who feel gay marriage should be legal.

[xexixk]

@incamelot1 I love it whenever some rundie right winger is caught up in some gay sex scandal. Jeffy will likely end up like Ted Haggard or George Rekers.

[incamelot1]

@xexixk

PRINCETON, NJ -- In Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. The increase since last year came exclusively among political independents and Democrats. Republicans' views did not change.

This tells you something about Republicans. They deny reality. Have you read any of the data on how being Republican is related to being a child molestors?

[xexixk]

@jeffmonc2 /watch?v=AEuDDvqYbVw Nice video that probably explains your issues.

[ToxicOdiousOne]

The State should simply privatize all marriages and not recognize any marriages that does not run afoul of the 14th amendment. Divorce would be obsolete too.

Who cares about females? Irrelevant!

Fuck social justice. Social justice is not the role of the Constitution.

Ahead of the curve progressivist agenda. How terrible people oppose social justice. Whatever.Atheists object to homosexuality too.

Reach a consensus? No queer marriage.

[AceofDimonds0]

your saying progressivism is wrong?

you dont like progressivim? freeing slaves, blacks being able to vote, women voting. it was all progressivism.

[ToxicOdiousOne]

Obviously.

"Progress" for who? "Progress" towards what? Is it "progress" towards a UN government?

The legal invention of the "minority" was communist. When we started having protected classes of citizens and stopped treating everybody equally I oppose civil rights as a communist subversion of capitalism. Capitalism is a merit system. Affirmative action and "discrimination" are communist concepts of class warfare.

[AceofDimonds0]

progress for equal rights for all, progress toward what is a little difficault no one knows what the future holds.

but people are not equal, women get paid less than their male counterparts, african americans are still having trouble getting jobs because of the color of their skin, muslims are hated as a group, and gays dont have the right (in some states) to get married.

so ya in a capitalist society everyones equal?

[ToxicOdiousOne]

Life isn't fair get used to it.

Women are not affected by the economic crisis and men are.

No blacks have no difficult getting jobs. Employers decide on merit not, race, gender, or any other irrelevant factors. If you have a problem with a white male being most qualified it is you who are the racist.

Muslims just require a background check for terrorism.

So what? Marriage is not a legitimate government function anyway. The State not recognizing any marriages is also equality too.

[AceofDimonds0]

yes but it should be

why do muslims require a backgroud check for terrorism? remember there have also been american home-grown terrorists.

yes but the fact that iowa has to "legalize" gay marriage gives me the assumption that its not practiced anywhere else.

[ToxicOdiousOne]

It's arrogance. Iowa has never set the moral example for the country. Ahead of its time applies to science and inventions never morality. How can it be ahead of its time promoting immorality as moral? Woe to those who would call evil good.

As it should be states and not the federal government regulate marriage. You can't say that any state is behind the times that's just pure arrogance. You have no moral high ground.

[AceofDimonds0]

if you hate someone so much that you take away there ability to be happily married im pretty sure your the ones with the screwed up morals

[ToxicOdiousOne]

Why should we bail another failing institution? Let marriage fail. No marriages would be equality.

[esj8341]

@AceofDimonds0

Ace,

I am not necessarily opposed to same sex marriage. However in terms of American law your belief that homosexual right to marriage has been "taken away" is not correct.

Homosexuals did not have the right to marry in Iowa.

[AceofDiamonds0]

@esj8341

semantics.

by  taking away the homosexuals right to marry, means homosexuals cannot marry who they want.

by denying homosexuals the right to marry the same effect happens.

it doesnt matter what words you use to describe it, it is still not letting people be happily married.

[esj8341]

@AceofDiamonds0

Legal precedent in our legal system is at the center of how law is made. I am sorry but your confusing taking away a right that never existed with a right that is being asserted that runs counter to standing precedent is not merely a matter of semantics.

Do you also advocate polygamous marriage? And if not why?

[AceofDiamonds0]

@esj8341

fine ill conceded that they are diffrent. and if i had to choose it would be (in your words) asserting a law that counter to standing precedent.

however, gay marriage does not run counter to "regular" marriage it runs parallel. counter would mean it goes agianst heterosexual marriage, which is not the case.

[esj8341]

@AceofDiamonds0

The current federal statutory definition of marriage explicitly excludes same sex marriage.

The word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. 28 USC 1738(C). 

Asserting a right to same sex marriage, runs not parallel, but counter to this definition.

[AceofDiamonds0]

@esj8341

asserting same sex marriage would not change the definition of marriage. it would just add in the fact that two people of the same gender would be able to get married. meaning that if gay marriage is legal it would also still be legal for heterosexuals to get married. thats what i ment by parallel, both can be in place at the same time.

[esj8341]

@AceofDiamonds0

Your belief that the Defense of Marriage Act's, 28 USC 1738(C). definition supports same sex marriage is diametrically opposed to the truth. Nobody on either side of the same sex marriage has taken your "parallel" notion.

For legislative intent regarding DOMA, please Google "Doma Damages Same Sex Families and Their Children."

[AceofDiamonds0]

@esj8341

having marriage be defined as one man and one woman gives the premise to exclude same sex marriage. there in-lies the problem.

to include homosexual marriage would not "take away" any rights that would allow straight people to get married, causing no conflict between the two forms of marriage.

i do not need the Defense of Marriage Act to justifiy or prove my reasoning for supporting same sex marriage. i believe in what i think is right and thats all there is to it.

[esj8341]

@AceofDiamonds0

Ace, for all I care, you can believe you're Elvis but it does not change the fact that the federal definition of marriage explicitly states that marriage is between a man and a woman in order to exclude same sex marriages.

[AceofDiamonds0]

@esj8341

and theres the problem. because this country, im told, is based on equality. by not letting gays get married its like people think straight relationships are better than homosexual ones (maybe in some peoples opinions, but that doesnt necessarily make it true).

i am not a lawyer but ask any third grader and they will tell you which definition of marriage has more equality.

and over the years we have seen that definitions of words can be changed.

[esj8341]

@AceofDiamonds0

Before you change the subject to third grader's concept of constitutionality could you please tell me whether you still believe that the federal definition of marriage allows same sex marriages?

[xexixk]

@esj8341 DOMA allows states not to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states and denies recognition at the federal level, but allows each state to make their own decision regarding same sex marriage

[esj8341]

@xexixk

What do you mean DOMA denies recognition at the federal level?

[xexixk]

@esj8341 2/2 Hence the reason a straight person can marry a foreign national and that foreign national gets residency and eventually citizenship via marriage, not true of a gay person who wishes to marry a foreign national even in a state were same sex marriage is legal, because the federal government has supremacy in issues of immigration. Though the current administration has said they will no longer defend DOMA in federal court challenges.

[xexixk]

@esj8341 Have you read DOMA? It basically allows each state to decide the issue for themselves and allows states wiithout same sex marriage to refuse to recognize same marriages performed in those states where it is legal, it also allows the federal government to not recognize those marriages. **1/1 CONT**

[esj8341]

@xexixk

I don't know how to make the question easier so I am going to be blunt.

1) DOMA set out that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman; and

2) DOMA was enacted to waive states which define marriage as being between a man and a woman from having to give full faith and credit to states which allow homosexuals to marry.

The DOMA does not give states the right to decide "the issue" for themselves. The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution does.

[xexixk]

@esj834 Your point? I addressed number 1 (the fed gov. not recognizing those marriages, they defined as between a man and a woman so no federal recognition), as for 2 I said it allowed states to not recognize those marriages performed in other states, and for 3 DOMA was the compromise legislation between those who wanted a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman and those who didn't, that's what I mean, is that it didn't restrict states from deciding themselves

[esj8341]

@xexixk

Re: "DOMA allows each state to make their own decision regarding same sex marriage."

Friend, DOMA does not allow states to recognize same sex marriages, the Constitution does. Hope that helps because I can't make it any simpler.

[xexixk]

@esj8341 Jesus Christ. I just explained what I meant in my last comment - that DOMA didn't restrict that right of a state to recognize it. I didn't say that DOMA gave them the right. I said it did not restrict that right. Read it as "DOMA didn't restrict indvidual state's rights" It's not possible to fully explain anything in these limited character comments, sometimes you have to read between the lines, there's no point to your pedantic parsing of words in a youtube comment.

[esj8341]

@xexixk

Re: Pedantic parsing

The 1938 Traffic Act doesn't restrict the right of a state to recognize same sex marriages either. Nor does any provision appearing in Hammurabi's Code.  Nor do the Cider House Rules.

Is there anything else you feel compelled to share with me that doesn't restrict a state's right to define marriage?

[xexixk]

@esj8341 What the hell is your issue? Since everything has to be put litterally for you: "DOMA does not infringe on the 10th amendment so states are free to decide the issue of same sex marriage as they were before." Is that better? Clear enough? I never said DOMA GAVE states the right, that's your reading b/c you apparently are lacking in understanding any nuance and can't get any meaning out of anything besides the literal words.

[esj8341]

@xexixk

Correct. You never said "DOMA GAVE." I never said you did.

However, you did argue, Doma ALLOWS states to make their own decisions regarding same sex marriage. [Caps added]

At best, your statement is meaningless. At worst, it exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of US government.

[xexixk]

@esj8341 And at best you can't read between the lines, only understand the literal dictionary definitions of words and have no ability to understand nuance. All things that are needed when leaving comments that are limited in the number of characters yo can use. Not enough space to lay it all out specific word by specific word. I know and knew full well the issue of the 10th amend - by saying doma allowed that means that it didn't infringe on the 10th amend.

[esj8341]

@xexixk

Re: "I know and knew full well the issue of the 10th amend - by saying doma allowed that means that it didn't infringe on the 10th amend."

Of course, you do. You know and knew everything.

You simply disguised your nuanced understanding of DOMA by making a meaningless and/or wrong statement about it.

[xexixk]

@esj8341 What the hell is your issue? Do you have nothing better to do then tear apart the wording people use to express something? If you are incapable of understanding the intended expression of a few written words then that's on you. There is a diference between the words "gave" and "allows" by using the word "allows" it simpley means just that, whatever the condition was before it remained as so after - if i thought otherwise I would have said "gave" which I did not do.

[AceofDiamonds0]

@esj8341

i dont really care, but if i had to choose then yes i would (as long as all members participating are consenting adults)

if your worried about the "sanctity of marriage" then we should outlaw divorce. just because it is a diffrent kind of marriage doesnt inherently make it wrong.

[struveinsky]

Of course, at one point, interracial marriage was considered immoral and evil.

[Mickeytheredone]

Fantastic, I love Iowa.

[Worldofchange]

California should look up to Iowa.

[flpete]

well said world, froggie.

[Froggie2121]

Wonderful Iowa...what a great State!

[difa2ol]

Great discussion.