The W
Views: 98465286
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
27.8.14 1024
The W - Current Events & Politics - One more court calls gay marriage ban unconstitutional
This thread has 6 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.61
Pages: 1
(244 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (12 total)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 15 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.68
In Iowa:

Iowa Court Voids Gay Marriage Ban
By MONICA DAVEY and LIZ ROBBINS

DES MOINES Same-sex couples will be allowed to marry in Iowa by months end, after a ruling on Friday by the Iowa Supreme Court that found unconstitutional a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

The unanimous decision moved the heated battle over same-sex marriage beyond the East and West Coasts to the nations middle. Only Massachusetts and Connecticut now allow same-sex marriages, while California permitted them for about six months before voters approved a ban in November.

We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective, Justice Mark S. Cady wrote for the seven-member court, adding later, We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law.


This one will, according to the story, take at least two years to overturn by introducing discrimination into legislation. The story also makes that possible outcome seem unlikely, though.

Perhaps when a midwestern state like Iowa allows this to happen and doesn't collapse upon itself, the rest of the country can actually start to think about the consequences of its actions.

Also surprising is that the court's ruling was unanimous. Here is the entire opinion of the court.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 4.4.09 1209)
Promote this thread!
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.49
This issue is a real internal conflict for the right. They say we follow the Constitution and gays can't marry and that should be in the law. However, IMO, short of changing the US Constitution, it is discrimination and therefore unconstitutional.



Perception is reality
Cerebus
Knackwurst








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 28 days
Last activity: 1 day
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.48
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    This issue is a real internal conflict for the right. They say we follow the Constitution and gays can't marry and that should be in the law. However, IMO, short of changing the US Constitution, it is discrimination and therefore unconstitutional.


Let's put both of my feet in my mouth here...

Women, Blacks, Foreigners and Religion. Women are discriminated against because they were born as 'not men'. Blacks are discriminated against because they were born 'not pale skined'. Foreigners are discriminated against because they were not 'born here'. Religious people are discriminated against because... well many reasons; the Amish, Ganesh, Catholicism... there's tons of religions out there that are discriminated against for one reason or another and the majority of those boil down to ' you were born into it'.

The majority of the people in the world will not accept that people are 'born gay'. Discriminating against gays isn't necessarily seen as 'discrimination' because of this. They see it as either a 'lifestyle choice' or just 'not normal' and in either case it's seen as helping them do things the right way (IE: Man and Woman, kiss the bride, happily ever after) or the wrong way (IE: No marriage or kids for you).



Forget it Josh... it's Cerebustown.
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.03
    Originally posted by Cerebus
    Women, Blacks, Foreigners and Religion. Women are discriminated against because they were born as 'not men'. Blacks are discriminated against because they were born 'not pale skined'. Foreigners are discriminated against because they were not 'born here'. Religious people are discriminated against because... well many reasons; the Amish, Ganesh, Catholicism... there's tons of religions out there that are discriminated against for one reason or another and the majority of those boil down to ' you were born into it'.

    The majority of the people in the world will not accept that people are 'born gay'. Discriminating against gays isn't necessarily seen as 'discrimination' because of this. They see it as either a 'lifestyle choice' or just 'not normal' and in either case it's seen as helping them do things the right way (IE: Man and Woman, kiss the bride, happily ever after) or the wrong way (IE: No marriage or kids for you).

Well, whether the majority will accept it or not, people *are* born gay. More so, in fact, than they are born a certain religion--they're born *into* the religion, but that's a matter of upbringing, not genetics.

In short, what you're describing isn't a reason; it's a rationalization.

(edited by CRZ on 4.4.09 1533)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 15 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.20
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    This issue is a real internal conflict for the right. They say we follow the Constitution and gays can't marry and that should be in the law. However, IMO, short of changing the US Constitution, it is discrimination and therefore unconstitutional.


I can't get over how amazing the process of denying people basic equal treatment under the law is:

Founding Fathers: Equality for everybody!
The People: Yay!

...

Supreme Court: That means equality for everybody.
The People: Oh wait, we didn't mean equality for them.
Lawmakers: Equality is outlawed for people we don't want to have it.
Supreme Court: No, it means equality for everybody.
The People: Yay!

...

Supreme Court: That means equality for everybody.
The People: Oh wait, we didn't mean equality for them.
Lawmakers: Equality is outlawed for people we don't want to have it.
Supreme Court: No, it means equality for everybody.
The People: Yay!

...

Supreme Court: That means equality for everybody.
The People: Oh wait, we didn't mean equality for them.
Lawmakers: Equality is outlawed for people we don't want to have it.
Supreme Court: ???



... I wonder how it's going to end this time? How can a rational person look at history, look at the bans on gay marriage from state to state and not think it is unconstitutional and doomed to fail? Where is the precedent to actually believe this?

(edited by TheBucsFan on 5.4.09 1047)
TheOldMan
Landjager








Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 57 days
Last activity: 54 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.94
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    ... I wonder how it's going to end this time? How can a rational person look at history, look at the bans on gay marriage from state to state and not think it is unconstitutional and doomed to fail? Where is the precedent to actually believe this?


If pushed all the way through the courts, I'm guessing it ends on whichever side Justice Kennedy comes down on.

But I don't suspect the Supremes want to get anywhere near the issue if it means setting *this particular precedent on a 5-4 decision.



TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 15 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.20
    Originally posted by TheOldMan
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      ... I wonder how it's going to end this time? How can a rational person look at history, look at the bans on gay marriage from state to state and not think it is unconstitutional and doomed to fail? Where is the precedent to actually believe this?


    If pushed all the way through the courts, I'm guessing it ends on whichever side Justice Kennedy comes down on.

    But I don't suspect the Supremes want to get anywhere near the issue if it means setting *this particular precedent on a 5-4 decision.


Any court ruling denying a privilege to gays (or anyone else based on some irrelevant fact about them that effects nobody but themselves) while granting it to everyone else will only be temporary, if it even happens. Plessy vs Ferguson was wrong the first time the courts ruled it, and that's the reason it was later overturned.

And the precedent has already been set. It's called every single civil rights struggle that has already taken place in this country.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 5.4.09 1650)
Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 77 days
Last activity: 6 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.36
    Originally posted by TheOldMan
    If pushed all the way through the courts, I'm guessing it ends on whichever side Justice Kennedy comes down on.
Indeed. As the late Justice Brennan used to instruct his law clerks, the most important rule in constitutional law is the "Rule of Five"; which means, simply put, that with five Supreme Court votes you can do anything.

It's also important to remember that constitutions can be amended, so that which is unconstitutional today may be constitutional tomorrow, and vice versa. For example, slavery in the United Sates was constitutional prior to the passage of the 13th Amendment; federal income tax was unconstitutional prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment. So as long as the possibility exists of a constitutional amendment prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriage garnering enough public support to gain passage, this issue will remain far from settled.




http://www.americasupportsyou.mil


"Share your food with the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless. Give clothes to those who need them, and do not hide from relatives who need your help." - Isaiah 58:7 (New Living Translation)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 15 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.18
    Originally posted by Downtown Bookie
      Originally posted by TheOldMan
      If pushed all the way through the courts, I'm guessing it ends on whichever side Justice Kennedy comes down on.
    Indeed. As the late Justice Brennan used to instruct his law clerks, the most important rule in constitutional law is the "Rule of Five"; which means, simply put, that with five Supreme Court votes you can do anything.

    It's also important to remember that constitutions can be amended, so that which is unconstitutional today may be constitutional tomorrow, and vice versa. For example, slavery in the United Sates was constitutional prior to the passage of the 13th Amendment; federal income tax was unconstitutional prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment. So as long as the possibility exists of a constitutional amendment prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriage garnering enough public support to gain passage, this issue will remain far from settled.



An amendment won't settle it. It didn't settle the prohibition debate. The debate will continue until the side that is right prevails, and in this case it is clear from history that the gay rights advocates are right. There is no basis for the discrimination. There is no critical state interest involved, which is the only thing that the Supreme Court says can even make this kind of discrimination considerable (minus any future amendment, of course).

What benefit is the state getting from heterosexual marriages that it would not get from homosexual marriages? The only thing I see that separates the two that could possibly be of state interest is the potential for childbirth, and even if that's the argument this is still unconstitutional by Supreme Court standards because it singles out gays but not impotent men, post-menopause women, etc.

The debate will continue until the gay rights advocates prevail because the gay community is who is being wronged here. Those supporting these bans ultimately have nothing at stake in this fight except a slight feeling of superiority, and that's not going to be worth fighting over forever.

I think I'll stop posting about this for a few days...

(edited by TheBucsFan on 6.4.09 0234)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.51
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    I think I'll stop posting about this for a few days...
Why did you even START this thread? (Don't answer that.)



Alex
Bratwurst








Since: 24.2.02

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.27
It's more topical than most of the other troll bait in here, at least.

Nate Silver has an interesting piece on this: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html
Joseph Ryder
Head cheese








Since: 19.3.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 1142 days
Last activity: 674 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.97
(deleted by CRZ on 5.4.09 2129)
Thread rated: 4.61
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Pirates
Next thread: The Songs of the Kims Go unheard?
Previous thread: A new low for Republicans
(244 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
First and foremost, I wish people would actually pay attention to the amount of people blocking traffic vs the amount of people taking part in demonstrations. The percentage is quite small. Second, the media (primarily TV)
The W - Current Events & Politics - One more court calls gay marriage ban unconstitutionalRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.116 seconds.