NationStates Jolt Archive

The state supreme court (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage) just ruled. No details yet. I had heard there was a case going on in that state, but so far from the coasts I didn't think a favorable ruling likely. Any thoughts? CatTribe, NeoA, do you have any details or analysis?

Not all that surprising. It's a kind of "mind your own business" state.

WHOA

The Iowa Supreme Court just ruled that the state's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, The Des Moines Register reports. That makes Iowa the first Midwestern state where gay marriage is legal.


http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/04/iowa-court-upholds-gay-marriage.html

cool.

Gratz Iowa!

I wonder if this is a bit too close for Kansas' comfort. ;)

WHOA

The Iowa Supreme Court just ruled that the state's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, The Des Moines Register reports. That makes Iowa the first Midwestern state where gay marriage is legal.


http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/04/iowa-court-upholds-gay-marriage.html

cool.

I don't know what the distinction is (legally) between "not illegal" and "legal", but as I read what little there is to read, it seems to leave the decision to grant licenses up to the license agencies. I'm pretty sure that they're not going to issue any to gay couples, given the choice.

Good that the SCOI gives them the choice, but still.

I wonder if this is a bit too close for Kansas' comfort. ;)

We all know at the next State gathering, Iowa is going to grope Kansas. Kansas will hit Iowa, get drunk and then apologise. After that Kansas and Iowa make out. The next day Kansas denies everything and Iowa cries.

We all know at the next State gathering, Iowa is going to grope Kansas. Kansas will hit Iowa, get drunk and then apologise. After that Kansas and Iowa make out. The next day Kansas denies everything and Iowa cries.

All the while, Missouri is covertly filming the whole thing and waxing its carrot to the video later.

I don't know what the distinction is (legally) between "not illegal" and "legal", but as I read what little there is to read, it seems to leave the decision to grant licenses up to the license agencies. I'm pretty sure that they're not going to issue any to gay couples, given the choice.

Good that the SCOI gives them the choice, but still.
i guess the counties are going to have to scramble to make sure that none of their county clerks are willing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples then.

one clerk already did, that is how the case got to the courts to begin with.

and its far easier to drop into the clerk's office in the next county over than it is to go all the way to massachusetts.

i guess the counties are going to have to scramble to make sure that none of their county clerks are willing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples then.

one clerk already did, that is how the case got to the courts to begin with.

and its far easier to drop into the clerk's office in the next county over than it is to go all the way to massachusetts.

Bets on whether or not said clerk is still employed?

We all know at the next State gathering, Iowa is going to grope Kansas. Kansas will hit Iowa, get drunk and then apologise. After that Kansas and Iowa make out. The next day Kansas denies everything and Iowa cries.

:fluffle:

Bets on whether or not said clerk is still employed?
nooooo im not taking THAT bet!

:fluffle:

What a great day! I had my last lecture of the academic year, I'm going to start my new job in a few hours and now I get fluffled by LG. Could life be better?

Not terribly surprised. Before I started visiting Iowa a few years ago (transplanted family), I'd have been surprised. Not anymore.

Progress is progress regardless of what state does it.

Woo, go Iowa.

I never thought I'd say that, I think I may have to go sit down.

PS. Oh since I'm posting i may as well say, woo Kryozerkia, Lunatic Golfballs good to see you're still posting [too many 'woo's'] & Sapient Cephalopods is a truly awesome name.

*returns to dungeon lair*

I wonder if this is a bit too close for Kansas' comfort. ;)

We all know Kansas is closet homosexual.

I saw the article on this as soon as I poked Google News this morning, and had to do a little happy dance. I told you people the Midwest isn't all bad! ;)

I saw the article on this as soon as I poked Google News this morning, and had to do a little happy dance. I told you people the Midwest isn't all bad! ;)

But, but, I'd heard you smell :eek:

But, but, I'd heard you smell :eek:

Yes. We smell delicious. :wink:

Not terribly surprised. Before I started visiting Iowa a few years ago (transplanted family), I'd have been surprised. Not anymore.I've only been there to drive through on the way to California or back. I'll have to make sure and spend some time and money in the state next time I go through.

Haha, California got bested by effing Iowa. Now how do you feel, Cali?

I saw the article on this as soon as I poked Google News this morning, and had to do a little happy dance. I told you people the Midwest isn't all bad! ;)

Indeed they aren't.

Having been raised in Texas, Iowa's a whole different world.

Kyahaha! Victory shall be ours! Suck on that, homophobes!

Woo, go Iowa.

I never thought I'd say that, I think I may have to go sit down.

PS. Oh since I'm posting i may as well say, woo Kryozerkia, Lunatic Golfballs good to see you're still posting [too many 'woo's'] & Sapient Cephalopods is a truly awesome name.

*returns to dungeon lair*

:D Thankeesai re the name.

I've only been there to drive through on the way to California or back. I'll have to make sure and spend some time and money in the state next time I go through.

I've been nicely surprised. Good food, nice people, some wicked microbrews. (Make sure you hit Amana's Millstream brewery, if you're a beer lover...)

We all know at the next State gathering, Iowa is going to grope Kansas. Kansas will hit Iowa, get drunk and then apologise. After that Kansas and Iowa make out. The next day Kansas denies everything and Iowa cries.

That is so... corny...

(Somebody kill me for that pun.)

That is so... corny...

(Somebody kill me for that pun.)

Death by 1000 ears!!!!!

In before "legislating from the bench."

Good for Iowa. Iowa is surprisingly a very liberal state, believe it or not. They're big on little-L libertarian ideals like everyone minding their own damn business and keeping the government out of people's private lives.

The state supreme court (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage) just ruled. No details yet. I had heard there was a case going on in that state, but so far from the coasts I didn't think a favorable ruling likely. Any thoughts? CatTribe, NeoA, do you have any details or analysis?

FWIW, here is a link (pdf) to the Iowa Supreme Court's decision in Varnum v. Brien (http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20090403/07-1499.pdf) holding that Iowa's laws against same-sex marriage violated the Iowa Constitution.

I'm still reading the decision, but this seems like a major step forward.

Excellent.

Yes. We smell delicious. :wink:

Like bacon :D

FWIW, here is a link (pdf) to the Iowa Supreme Court's decision in Varnum v. Brien (http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20090403/07-1499.pdf) holding that Iowa's laws against same-sex marriage violated the Iowa Constitution.

I'm still reading the decision, but this seems like a major step forward.

Thanks.
The decision looks very strong.

*Glances across the river*

feh, we'll still have more gays per capita in Omaha and Lincoln alone than in all the State of Iowa.

Not that it's a bad thing - Iowa's still just a shit state. :3

Yay!

*waits for someone to think that all Iowa corn is now gay*

To the citizens of all American states who still value their right to have a say in how their society is organized and do not wish to live under judicial tyranny: amend your state constitutions NOW and pre-empt any potential action by rogue jurists to impose their agenda on you.

If we in California had done that, we wouldn't have needed Prop 8.

The judiciary in this country is more and more out of control and needs to be slapped down HARD.

To the citizens of all American states who still value their right to have a say in how their society is organized and do not wish to live under judicial tyranny: amend your state constitutions NOW and pre-empt any potential action by rogue jurists to impose their agenda on you.

If we in California had done that, we wouldn't have needed Prop 8.

The judiciary in this country is more and more out of control and needs to be slapped down HARD.

And make sure slavery and the second class position of women get reinstated as well ! How dare those judges impose such ideas on society !

I won't re-hash the entire 69-page decision herein, but will answer any questions anyone may have about the Court's rationale.

I did find interesting the Court's taking head-on the issue of religious views (footnotes omitted):

Now that we have addressed and rejected each specific interest advanced by the County to justify the classification drawn under the statute, we consider the reason for the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage left unspoken by the County: religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The County’s silence reflects, we believe, its understanding this reason cannot, under our Iowa Constitution, be used to justify a ban on same-sex marriage. While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the notion of same-sex marriage unsettling. Consequently, we address the religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate as a means to fully explain our rationale for rejecting the dual-gender requirement of the marriage statute.

It is quite understandable that religiously motivated opposition to same-sex civil marriage shapes the basis for legal opposition to same-sex marriage, even if only indirectly. Religious objections to same-sex marriage are supported by thousands of years of tradition and biblical interpretation. The belief that the “sanctity of marriage” would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples bears a striking conceptual resemblance to the expressed secular rationale for maintaining the tradition of marriage as a union between dual-gender couples, but better identifies the source of the opposition. Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained—even fundamental—religious belief.

Yet, such views are not the only religious views of marriage. As demonstrated by amicus groups, other equally sincere groups and people in Iowa and around the nation have strong religious views that yield the opposite conclusion.

This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .”). The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil contract” and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code § 595A.1. Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage.

We, of course, have a constitutional mandate to protect the free exercise of religion in Iowa, which includes the freedom of a religious organization to define marriages it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general assembly shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] . . . .”). This mission to protect religious freedom is consistent with our task to prevent government from endorsing any religious view. State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation. Knowlton v. Baumhover, 182 Iowa 691, 710, 166 N.W. 202, 208 (1918). This proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state.

As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more.
The only legitimate inquiry we can make is whether [the statute] is constitutional. If it is not, its virtues . . . cannot save it; if it is, its faults cannot be invoked to accomplish its destruction. If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned.
Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 483, 54 S. Ct. 231, 256, 78 L. Ed. 413, 452 (1934) (Sutherland, J. dissenting).

In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.

To the citizens of all American states who still value their right to have a say in how their society is organized and do not wish to live under judicial tyranny: amend your state constitutions NOW and pre-empt any potential action by rogue jurists to impose their agenda on you.

If we in California had done that, we wouldn't have needed Prop 8.

The judiciary in this country is more and more out of control and needs to be slapped down HARD.

No, they won't.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

There will be gay marriage. And there's nothing you can do about that.

To the citizens of all American states who still value their right to have a say in how their society is organized and do not wish to live under judicial tyranny: amend your state constitutions NOW and pre-empt any potential action by rogue jurists to impose their agenda on you.

If we in California had done that, we wouldn't have needed Prop 8.

The judiciary in this country is more and more out of control and needs to be slapped down HARD.

What needs to be slapped down HARD are bigots like you thinking you have the right to legislate discrimination against other people.

Sadly a group of Iowa farmers just killed the Iowa supreme court and declared gay marriage ban back in force.

To the citizens of all American states who still value their right to have a say in how their society is organized and do not wish to live under judicial tyranny: amend your state constitutions NOW and pre-empt any potential action by rogue jurists to impose their agenda on you.

If we in California had done that, we wouldn't have needed Prop 8.

The judiciary in this country is more and more out of control and needs to be slapped down HARD.

What a reasoned critique of the Iowa Supreme Court's decision: Waahh! The courts actually do their job! They must be stopped!!

pre-empt any potential action by rogue jurists to impose their agenda on you
No-one is imposing anything on you. Leave us alone, and we will leave you alone.

needs to be slapped down HARD.

What, no rants against "deviants?" You're going to pretend your stance on homosexual rights in Iowa or California is based on lofty principles against "judicial tyranny?"

Really? Because we all know you hate (and fear, clearly on a very personal level) homosexuals; surely you know you do, so why pretend otherwise?

I think we all missed the point -

That point is Iowa is still a shitty state. :3

Go to Nebraska, we don't persecute - We're just slow to legalize. :P

What, no rants against "deviants?" You're going to pretend your stance on homosexual rights in Iowa or California is based on lofty principles against "judicial tyranny?"

Really? Because we all know you hate (and fear, clearly on a very personal level) homosexuals; surely you know you do, so why pretend otherwise?

Hasn't found a big enough closet yet.

I think we all missed the point -

That point is Iowa is still a shitty state. :3

Go to Nebraska, we don't persecute - We're just slow to legalize. :P

I hear you guys have elevated terrain, is this true?

What a reasoned critique of the Iowa Supreme Court's decision: Waahh! The courts actually do their job! They must be stopped!!

with a side order of "oh noes, we didn't mean to enshrine justice and equality into those constitutions. this must be undone!"

I hear you guys have elevated terrain, is this true?

Yes, yes we do actually.

Yes, yes we do actually.

http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/mapcom/images/ne_h.gif

Lol, where?

http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/mapcom/images/ne_h.gif

Lol, where?

Is it jsut me or does your map have the Missouri river running up hill ?

... so now... there's a chance that Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock are more than BFFs.

Is it jsut me or does your map have the Missouri river running up hill ?

No, the Missouri River flows south towards the Gulf of Mexico.

No, the Missouri River flows south towards the Gulf of Mexico.

i am talking about where it meets the platte

I hear you guys have elevated terrain, is this true?
There's a hilly corner of it by the Wyoming border, but obviously it was only included into Nebraska by mistake. (The name, from a native word nidhbadhka for the Platte river, means "flat", as of course does "Platte").

i am talking about where it meets the platte

the 'olive green' is LOWER than the yellow. so still downhill. ;)

the 'olive green' is LOWER than the yellow. so still downhill. ;)

Okay that's the issue. mine it is coming out the same orange as the places out west are.

Is it jsut me or does your map have the Missouri river running up hill ?

There's a small range out along the River in Florence district of Omaha, and there's a lot of hills and scattered levitation out west.

I didn't say there was a fucking Mountain, though. Ass hat. :3

There's a hilly corner of it by the Wyoming border, but obviously it was only included into Nebraska by mistake. (The name, from a native word nidhbadhka for the Platte river, means "flat", as of course does "Platte").

Nebraska is a native word that means Flat Land or to be Flat, yes. I was just saying we have spots throughout the state that are higher than usual.

Overall sure we're flat :3, but it's still a beautiful state (so long you don't count what you see along I-80).

EDIT - No, my bad. Nebraska means flat water, close but no cigar I have.

Three Posting ftw - The more you drive westward in the state the 'higher you get' in terms of terrain. It's just a gradual climb, is all.

There's a small range out along the River in Florence district of Omaha, and there's a lot of hills and scattered levitation out west.

I didn't say there was a fucking Mountain, though. Ass hat. :3

why you calling me an asshat?I was just confused by the map coming out a different color in my browser.

why you calling me an asshat?I was just confused by the map coming out a different color in my browser.

Lol, I'm sorry - I use it even when I'm not trying to be mean :/.

Lol, I'm sorry - I use it even when I'm not trying to be mean :/.

well fine then Jackass.

well fine then Jackass.

:P, see it's fun!

But no, you're right. There is no significant elevation in Nebraska, just minor freckles of such. In all, Nebraska 'does get higher' as you drive westward - but I think I mentioned that already 0o.

Technically, we're a Prehistoric Lake site. No lies.

To the citizens of all American states who still value their right to have a say in how their society is organized and do not wish to live under judicial tyranny: The citizens don't have the right to violate the Constitution, or their state constitutions.

The citizens don't have the right to violate the Constitution, or their state constitutions.

Citizens can't violate the Constitution. Only the government/authorities can. The Constitution defines and limits government.

So how exactly is this going to be implemented? Is it going to be a county by county thing? Is it going to be restricted to Iowans only?

So how exactly is this going to be implemented? Is it going to be a county by county thing? Is it going to be restricted to Iowans only?
I've been waiting to see if contracts clause cases will hit the federal courts anytime soon - marriage being a contract, legally speaking, no? - for a long time.

I understand that Mass. marriage laws made contract clause challenges in other states practically unworkable, because of the specifics of it, but I would be curious to know how our resident legal minds are thinking.

So how exactly is this going to be implemented? Is it going to be a county by county thing? Is it going to be restricted to Iowans only?

Currently, there is a federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act that allows each state to define marriage and to not accept as valid the marriages of another state that don't meet their standards. I don't believe that law has experienced a Supreme Court challenge yet. I look forward to it.

To the citizens of all American states who still value their right to have a say in how their society is organized and do not wish to live under judicial tyranny: amend your state constitutions NOW and pre-empt any potential action by rogue jurists to impose their agenda on you.

If we in California had done that, we wouldn't have needed Prop 8.

The judiciary in this country is more and more out of control and needs to be slapped down HARD.

Everytime this happens, I look foward to responses like this. The fear is obvious. It oozes from the page.

I almost feel bad for people like you. Youre on the losing side of history. No matter how long it takes, youre going to lose the battle eventually.

But then I remember what you stand for and what youd do if you could have your way, and just enjoy your bitter tears.

I didn't say there was a fucking Mountain, though. Ass hat. :3

You've been here long enough; you ought to know better. Warned for flaming.

*sniffle*

So, when are the gays going to invade Iowa to get married and force their states to accept gay marriage?

Nevar.

They're already occupying New Hampshire or whichever North Eastern state beat the rest of the union to legalization of it.

Nevertheless, I think I've covered Iowa's too smelly for anyone to personally care.

Everytime this happens, I look foward to responses like this. The fear is obvious.

You mistake fear for opposition to, and outrage at, judicial arrogance and tyranny.

It oozes from the page.

No, what oozes from your page is typical liberal presumptuousness and condescension.

I almost feel bad for people like you.

Save your sympathy for people like yourself.

Youre on the losing side of history.

No, we're on the losing side of unelected wanna-be fuehrers in black robes imposing their agenda on society. When the people have had an opportunity to vote on the matter, it is your side that invariably loses.

No matter how long it takes, youre going to win battle eventually.

Fixed.

But then I remember what you stand for and what youd do if you could have your way, and just enjoy your bitter tears.

There are no tears for you to enjoy. There will be tears, however, when, God willing, the California Supreme Court finally pulls its head out of its ass and upholds Prop 8. But not our tears.

You are free to enjoy remembering what I'd do if I could have my way, though. :D

You mistake fear for opposition to, and outrage at, judicial arrogance and tyranny.
Yes, the arrogance, doing their job!

This is why, when you said you were a lawyer, we all laughed at you.
No, what oozes from your page is typical liberal presumptuousness and condescension.
Guilty.:D
No, we're on the losing side of unelected wanna-be fuehrers in black robes imposing their agenda on society.
Liberal activist judges in fucking Iowa? Are you kidding me?
When the people have had an opportunity to vote on the matter, it is your side that invariably loses.
Which is why we have things like laws. Because the founders were smart enough not to let rights be at the whims of the majority.

Besides, Obama won. By your logic of "the majority is always right!" you support Obama, correct? So, how many of these can I put you down for? :D
http://www.victoryplate.com/?directLoad&uid=39E016FF9270DBE85CB72FE011FCEB73
Fixed.
Im sure the pro-segregation side thought the same thing:D
There are no tears for you to enjoy. There will be tears, however, when, God willing, the California Supreme Court finally pulls its head out of its ass and upholds Prop 8. But not our tears.
We'll see.
You are free to enjoy remembering what I'd do if I could have my way, though. :D
The difference between us is I dont get off to images of human rights violations.

No, we're on the losing side of unelected wanna-be fuehrers in black robes imposing their agenda on society. When the people have had an opportunity to vote on the matter, it is your side that invariably loses.

People voted for Hitler too. And Obama, if you'd prefer a non-Godwin example. Given the high value you place on the will of the people, shouldn't you be bowing before the Dark Lord like the rest of us? Or is this one of those times when democracy is only right when 51% of people agree with you?

Nevar.

They're already occupying New Hampshire or whichever North Eastern state beat the rest of the union to legalization of it.

Nevertheless, I think I've covered Iowa's too smelly for anyone to personally care.

You need to lay off Iowa. You're from Nebraska, ffs. You've got less than a micron of room to brag.

People voted for Hitler too. And Obama, if you'd prefer a non-Godwin example. Given the high value you place on the will of the people, shouldn't you be bowing before the Dark Lord like the rest of us? Or is this one of those times when democracy is only right when 51% of people agree with you?

Can't you see his signature? He already believes that there are separate Presidents.

You need to lay off Iowa. You're from Nebraska, ffs. You've got less than a micron of room to brag.

Oh, I assure you there's plenty of room.

:3

EDIT: Though I am pleasantly surprised you've taken a shred of anything I've had to say between Nebraska and Iowa with a pinch of seriousness.

Oh, I assure you there's plenty of room.

:3

EDIT: Though I am pleasantly surprised you've taken a shred of anything I've had to say between Nebraska and Iowa with a pinch of seriousness.

The sensitivity comes from spending three years in North Dakota and having people slag me who were from eastern Montana, for cryin' out loud. It's all the same topography with lines drawn in certain places.

Here's the heart of the ruling:

Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil
marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the
remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner
allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil
marriage.

The sensitivity comes from spending three years in North Dakota and having people slag me who were from eastern Montana, for cryin' out loud. It's all the same topography with lines drawn in certain places.

I was actually going to use something along that as my response :P.

It's all the same crap old terrain (even in a way, I find it all beautiful) - just different boundary lines.

However, it's just a thing Iowans and Nebraskans have for one another I suppose. Then, again, Nebraskans seem to dislike a lot of states lol. I blame it on the Football team.

EDIT: Nebraska - Germany of the Midwest.

No, we're on the losing side of unelected wanna-be fuehrers in black robes imposing their agenda on society. When the people have had an opportunity to vote on the matter, it is your side that invariably loses.

Once again, the ignorance of your argument is exceeded only by its homophobic roots.

The Iowa Supreme Court Justices are not entirely unelected, as they stand for judicial retention after being appointed for one year and then must face re-election every eight years.

So, just like your tantrums over other judicial rulings, your premise that they are anti-democratic is simply wrong.

Well, bravo, Iowa Supreme Court! And unanimously, too, even better. I especially liked the statement that excluding gay people from civil marriage served no governmental purpose.

Haha, California got bested by effing Iowa. Now how do you feel, Cali?
We're going to have to redefine the word "hick."

I won't re-hash the entire 69-page decision herein, but will answer any questions anyone may have about the Court's rationale.

I did find interesting the Court's taking head-on the issue of religious views (footnotes omitted):
I can't tell you how happy this makes me. Especially these parts:

This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .”). The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil contract” and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code § 595A.1. Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage.

We, of course, have a constitutional mandate to protect the free exercise of religion in Iowa, which includes the freedom of a religious organization to define marriages it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general assembly shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] . . . .”). This mission to protect religious freedom is consistent with our task to prevent government from endorsing any religious view. State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation. Knowlton v. Baumhover, 182 Iowa 691, 710, 166 N.W. 202, 208 (1918). This proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state.

And this:

The only legitimate inquiry we can make is whether [the statute] is constitutional. If it is not, its virtues . . . cannot save it; if it is, its faults cannot be invoked to accomplish its destruction. If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned.
Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 483, 54 S. Ct. 231, 256, 78 L. Ed. 413, 452 (1934) (Sutherland, J. dissenting).

(EDIT: By the way, I also love that a case titled Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell is the vehicle for such an elegant and noble piece of rhetoric. :D)

The state supreme court (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage) just ruled. No details yet. I had heard there was a case going on in that state, but so far from the coasts I didn't think a favorable ruling likely. Any thoughts? CatTribe, NeoA, do you have any details or analysis?

I find it pleasantly confusing to say that Iowa is more socially progressive California.

What a reasoned critique of the Iowa Supreme Court's decision: Waahh! The courts actually do their job! They must be stopped!!

Well, it is well in keeping with conservative values that no government organization should ever do its job.

Can't you see his signature? He already believes that there are separate Presidents.

I don't believe that that is what he's referring to.

He is referring to the treatment that President Bush received from the left wing (with or without justification). And states that he will treat President Obama the same way.

Personally, I'd say that that approach is both petty and stupid.

It's petty, in the sense of "Waah! You said bad things about my friend, so now I'm gonna say bad things about yours!!"

It's stupid in that it blows (poor choice of words given the thread topic) a chance for conservatives generally (and Republicans specifically) to make an attempt for the moral high ground - which Fate knows they need. But then again, your typical Republican is a moral excavation in the first place. They'd need to head up for about a mile just to get to ground level morally. As New Mitanni demonstrates, with his false claim to authority, as well as his blatant desire to have the laws enshrine hatred and bigotry.

P.S. NM, there are 2 reasons that Prop. 8 won (by a very narrow margin). First, the Mormon pured millions and millions of dollars into it from out-of-state. Second, the "Yes-to-Prop.8" campaign used blatant lies and misinformation to trick the voting public into thinking that it was all about the kids. Which (duh!) it wasn't.

I don't believe that that is what he's referring to.

Yes. Yes it is. Why else would he use "my President" and "your President"? What's the need for the pronouns, when the article "the" is correct?

It's not enough to see the words. Look closer.

Personally, I'd say that that approach is both petty and stupid.

On that point, you are entirely correct.

Yes. Yes it is. Why else would he use "my President" and "your President"? What's the need for the pronouns, when the article "the" is correct?

It's not enough to see the words. Look closer.



On that point, you are entirely correct.

The clue is in the tenses he attaches.

He says "I will give your President the same respect you gave mine." (Emphasis added). He refers to "his President" in the past tense, and is therefore fairly obviously (when added to his expressed opinions) referring to George W. Bush.

I have to admit that reading through this thread, this was what was going through my head:

Townspeople:
Oh, there's nothing halfway
About the Iowa way to treat you,
When we treat you
Which we may not do at all.
There's an Iowa kind of special
Chip-on-the-shoulder attitude.
We've never been without.
That we recall.
We can be cold
As our falling thermometers in December
If you ask about our weather in July.
And we're so by God stubborn
We could stand touchin' noses
For a week at a time
And never see eye-to-eye.
But what the heck, you're welcome,
Join us at the picnic.
You can eat your fill
Of all the food you bring yourself.
You really ought to give Iowa a try.
Provided you are contrary,
We can be cold
As our falling thermometer in December
If you ask about our weather in July.
And we're so by God stubborn
We can stand touchin' noses
For a week at a time
And never see eye-to-eye.
But we'll give you our shirt
And a back to go with it
If your crops should happen to die.

Farmer:
So, what the heck, you're welcome,
Glad to have you with us.

Farmer and Wife:
Even though we may not ever mention it again.

Townspeople:
You really ought to give Iowa
Hawkeye Iowa
Dubuque, Des
Moines, Davenport, Marshalltown,
Mason City, Keokuk, Ames,
Clear Lake
Ought to give Iowa a try!

:D

Kyahaha! Victory shall be ours! Suck on that, homophobes!

Deliberate choice of words? :p

I have to admit that reading through this thread, this was what was going through my head:

Townspeople:
Oh, there's nothing halfway
About the Iowa way to treat you,
When we treat you
Which we may not do at all.
There's an Iowa kind of special
Chip-on-the-shoulder attitude.
We've never been without.
That we recall.
We can be cold
As our falling thermometers in December
If you ask about our weather in July.
And we're so by God stubborn
We could stand touchin' noses
For a week at a time
And never see eye-to-eye.
But what the heck, you're welcome,
Join us at the picnic.
You can eat your fill
Of all the food you bring yourself.
You really ought to give Iowa a try.
Provided you are contrary,
We can be cold
As our falling thermometer in December
If you ask about our weather in July.
And we're so by God stubborn
We can stand touchin' noses
For a week at a time
And never see eye-to-eye.
But we'll give you our shirt
And a back to go with it
If your crops should happen to die.

Farmer:
So, what the heck, you're welcome,
Glad to have you with us.

Farmer and Wife:
Even though we may not ever mention it again.

Townspeople:
You really ought to give Iowa
Hawkeye Iowa
Dubuque, Des
Moines, Davenport, Marshalltown,
Mason City, Keokuk, Ames,
Clear Lake
Ought to give Iowa a try!

:D

I fucking love that movie.

I find it pleasantly confusing to say that Iowa is more socially progressive California.

It comes from the farmers of the Iowa constitution being smart enough not to let people add amendments by simple majority vote.

Deliberate choice of words? :p

I don't know what you're talking about. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip)

So, when are the gays going to invade Iowa to get married and force their states to accept gay marriage?

As soon as they hook up with the Uruk-Hai and set a date they can all swarm en masse on.

Yes. We smell delicious. :wink:

I'm sure you do. :)

Citizens can't violate the Constitution. Only the government/authorities can. The Constitution defines and limits government.Certainly, and if the citizens pass a ballot initiative or referendum, the citizens take over the role of government for that moment. Ergo, the ballot initiative or referendum can be challenged just like anything else.

Neat!

I don't know what you're talking about. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip)

Has anyone ever told you you're a complete riot? :cool:

On a more relevant note, way to go Iowa!

Hooray for Iowa, more liberal than the states that claim they are.

Certainly, and if the citizens pass a ballot initiative or referendum, the citizens take over the role of government for that moment. Ergo, the ballot initiative or referendum can be challenged just like anything else.
Not in Iowa.

I know earlier someone was saying that we ddint know if this meant that marriages would actually be happening.

Well:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iHUp4BkOCwXHCaN3c1RyYj61fYTQD97BM4000


w00t.

I know earlier someone was saying that we ddint know if this meant that marriages would actually be happening.

Well:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iHUp4BkOCwXHCaN3c1RyYj61fYTQD97BM4000


w00t.
Yeah, baby! *sings* Here comes the bride, hmm-hmm-hm-hm...

Yeah, baby! *sings* Here comes the bride, hmm-hmm-hm-hm...

Normally Id be excited that this might mean it may transfer over to my little midwestern state IL. However, Im not counting on it. The southwestern suburbs of Chicago combined with southern IL will make sure that doesnt happen anytime soon.:(

Normally Id be excited that this might mean it may transfer over to my little midwestern state IL. However, Im not counting on it. The southwestern suburbs of Chicago combined with southern IL will make sure that doesnt happen anytime soon.:(
Patience, KoL. Slow and steady wins the race, one state at a time.

Even so, I will continue to make Iowa jokes. :cool:

Oh, I assure you there's plenty of room.

:3



Yes, we have so much to brag about when our constitution only allows marriage between a man and woman... :(

Go to Nebraska, we don't persecute - We're just slow to legalize. :P
Nebraska ftw!

The clue is in the tenses he attaches.

He says "I will give your President the same respect you gave mine." (Emphasis added). He refers to "his President" in the past tense, and is therefore fairly obviously (when added to his expressed opinions) referring to George W. Bush.

No, sorry. The pronouns outweigh everything. There is no "your" or "my" President. The President is the President of all US Citizens. By attempting to separate into Presidents he likes and dislikes, he's obviated all claims to impartiality and reason. I never once claimed that Bush was not "my" President. By using pronouns, he's assuming I did, and claiming that Obama is not "his" President. It's all poppycock, and I'm wondering why you're defending it...unless you have no clue as to NM's posting history.

No, sorry. The pronouns outweigh everything. There is no "your" or "my" President. The President is the President of all US Citizens. By attempting to separate into Presidents he likes and dislikes, he's obviated all claims to impartiality and reason. I never once claimed that Bush was not "my" President. By using pronouns, he's assuming I did, and claiming that Obama is not "his" President. It's all poppycock, and I'm wondering why you're defending it...unless you have no clue as to NM's posting history.
Just a small comment from a more or less disinterested observer, but I got the sense that NC was NOT defending NM's bullshit. Rather that he thought the original criticism was saying that NM meant there are two presidents to choose among NOW (perhaps as if Bush could be reinstated), whereas, diagramming NM's sentences (such as they are), we can see that he means two CONSECUTIVE presidents, one of which he claims as "his" and the other of which he denounces as "ours."

Of course, it hardly matters because, regardless of what he's talking about it's all just bullshit anyway. Sad, tantrum-throwing bullshit.

Just a small comment from a more or less disinterested observer, but I got the sense that NC was NOT defending NM's bullshit. Rather that he thought the original criticism was saying that NM meant there are two presidents to choose among NOW (perhaps as if Bush could be reinstated), whereas, diagramming NM's sentences (such as they are), we can see that he means two CONSECUTIVE presidents, one of which he claims as "his" and the other of which he denounces as "ours."

Of course, it hardly matters because, regardless of what he's talking about it's all just bullshit anyway. Sad, tantrum-throwing bullshit.

A beacon of sweet, sweet clarity, as usual. Thank you, Mur.

I'll drop it.

I'm pissed as hell over this development. I wanted my home state of Minnesota to be the first midwestern state to stand up for marriage equality.

Related:

Can you imagine what it's going to be like, 50 years from now, when kids are taught about "the last state to allow gay marriage"? I remember learning about Loving v. Virginia, and thinking about how ashamed people from Virginia must feel to know that their state was still denying marriage rights to interracial couples in 1963, and to have the name of their state permanently attached to that court case as proof of the bigotry that they allowed to be written in their state laws.

I'm pissed as hell over this development. I wanted my home state of Minnesota to be the first midwestern state to stand up for marriage equality.

Related:

Can you imagine what it's going to be like, 50 years from now, when kids are taught about "the last state to allow gay marriage"? I remember learning about Loving v. Virginia, and thinking about how ashamed people from Virginia must feel to know that their state was still denying marriage rights to interracial couples in 1963, and to have the name of their state permanently attached to that court case as proof of the bigotry that they allowed to be written in their state laws.

But it resulted in a case about marriage rights called Loving v. Virginia. You just can't beat that! :D

But it resulted in a case about marriage rights called Loving v. Virginia. You just can't beat that! :D
True dat. :D

I think we need Cuddlemuffin v. Alabama now. Or maybe Frank and Harold Monogamy should bring a case against Mississippi.

FiveThirtyEight (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html) has an interesting article on when various states are statistically likely to vote against a marriage ban. Mississippi, alas, is last on the list, to the point where if I produced a child now in Mississippi, they would probably be able to vote on it when it finally rolled around.

I suspect, however, that the Supreme Court will declare gay marriage bans unconstitutional rather sooner.

FiveThirtyEight (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html) has an interesting article on when various states are statistically likely to vote against a marriage ban. Mississippi, alas, is last on the list, to the point where if I produced a child now in Mississippi, they would probably be able to vote on it when it finally rolled around.

I suspect, however, that the Supreme Court will declare gay marriage bans unconstitutional rather sooner.

It's extremely surprising to see Utah so high up on that list. I'm sure there's statistical accuracy in these predictions, but seeing Utah voting against a marriage ban before 20 other states kind of runs contrary perception, doesn't it?

I'm pissed as hell over this development. I wanted my home state of Minnesota to be the first midwestern state to stand up for marriage equality.

Related:

Can you imagine what it's going to be like, 50 years from now, when kids are taught about "the last state to allow gay marriage"? I remember learning about Loving v. Virginia, and thinking about how ashamed people from Virginia must feel to know that their state was still denying marriage rights to interracial couples in 1963, and to have the name of their state permanently attached to that court case as proof of the bigotry that they allowed to be written in their state laws.
I have a feeling that relatively few residents of the last state would feel any shame in it at all. Only frustration at having been forced to cave in the end. But then, I'm bitter.

It's extremely surprising to see Utah so high up on that list. I'm sure there's statistical accuracy in these predictions, but seeing Utah voting against a marriage ban before 20 other states kind of runs contrary perception, doesn't it?

It does seem counter-intuitive, but on the other hand, Utah has a very mixed demographic (though the Mormons like to pretend otherwise). I saw a Maddow report several weeks ago about some changes the Utah state legislature made to their bizarre laws controlling how people can order drinks in bars (seriously, it's like a practical joke). Rachel Maddow interviewed a former Utah governor who told her that the religious controls on Utah come from a small but vocal, influential and belligerent minority in the state senate, and that every single social advancement in Utah comes at a pce of three steps forward, two steps back. But he said there is constant pressure and political fighting against the theocratic faction. So who knows where Utah will end up?

the iowa supreme court just ruled that the state's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, the des moines register reports. That makes iowa the first midwestern state where gay marriage is legal.

go iowa! :D

Iowa is now a more rainbowey state <3

And the fact that it was a shut out, meaning not one of the judges opposed it was pretty awesome as well.

Maine for next!

It's extremely surprising to see Utah so high up on that list. I'm sure there's statistical accuracy in these predictions, but seeing Utah voting against a marriage ban before 20 other states kind of runs contrary perception, doesn't it?Nate Silver explains his methodology: the most important variable in predicting the percentage is the year (as time goes by, and the old generation dies off); then the proportion of people who say religion is important in their lives-- but, it does matter WHICH kind of religion, and the best proxy for that factor he could find was "white evangelicals". The problem is that Mormons were not included as "evangelicals", and so Utah and Idaho are counted as low in evangelical-ness, somewhat throwing off the results.

Many thanks to Mark on that 538 thread for this delightful link (http://www.godhatesiowa.com/).

Ah. Yeah, that would explain it. Although the most fundamentalist Mormon I ever knew was a lesbian (note, however, that "fundamentalist" need not always coincide with "politically conservative"). Her family was screwed up something fierce.

Also, God hates Iowa? Makes me wonder what the Westboro Baptist Cult is going to do in 2015 when Kansas is predicted to go rainbow-coloured. Decamp en masse to Mississippi? But that state's a bed of sin and infamy, as witnessed by God smiting it with Hurricane Katrina! What's a pocket-sized theocratic despot to do? Of course, Freddie may have gone to his eternal reward by then.

Ah. Yeah, that would explain it. Although the most fundamentalist Mormon I ever knew was a lesbian (note, however, that "fundamentalist" need not always coincide with "politically conservative"). Her family was screwed up something fierce.

Also, God hates Iowa? Makes me wonder what the Westboro Baptist Cult is going to do in 2015 when Kansas is predicted to go rainbow-coloured. Decamp en masse to Mississippi? But that state's a bed of sin and infamy, as witnessed by God smiting it with Hurricane Katrina! What's a pocket-sized theocratic despot to do? Of course, Freddie may have gone to his eternal reward by then.
We can but hope, for the poor's man's own sake. But he could always buy a house in Detroit, cheap.

I do wonder about people like him, though. How do they cope when the country finally just makes it clear that we are not going to follow their orders/desires? The KKK after segregation ended did not handle it too well. I wonder what we'll have to look forward to with the WBC.

Just because I mentioned my disappointment about IL earlier:
http://www.gaypolitics.com/2009/03/05/harris-introduced-civil-union-bill-advances-in-illinois/

Its something. Apperantly my state doesnt even have civil unions currently.

You mistake fear for opposition to, and outrage at, judicial arrogance and tyranny.

You mistake upholding the Constitution and the principles of equality under the law for arrogance and tyranny.

Of course, it isn't uncommon for a privileged class to somehow feel put upon when others start getting equal rights.

No, we're on the losing side of unelected wanna-be fuehrers in black robes imposing their agenda on society. When the people have had an opportunity to vote on the matter, it is your side that invariably loses.

Thus far. But when you look at the younger population - those of us who will eventually be running the show, it's very clear that it will be your side that loses out in the future.

Not to mention the fact that history has shown a trend towards increasing equality and freedom. Not the other way around.

There are no tears for you to enjoy. There will be tears, however, when, God willing, the California Supreme Court finally pulls its head out of its ass and upholds Prop 8. But not our tears.

Why does your "side" get so much enjoyment out of causing others to suffer?

You mistake upholding the Constitution and the principles of equality under the law for arrogance and tyranny.

Of course, it isn't uncommon for a privileged class to somehow feel put upon when others start getting equal rights.



Thus far. But when you look at the younger population - those of us who will eventually be running the show, it's very clear that it will be your side that loses out in the future.

Not to mention the fact that history has shown a trend towards increasing equality and freedom. Not the other way around.



Why does your "side" get so much enjoyment out of causing others to suffer?
Your last question can be answered by your previous points.

Homophobes like NM enjoy seeing gays and gay allies suffer because:

1) NM and his ilk are part of a privileged class and resent having their unearned perks taken away.

2) NM and his ilk know that they will lose this war in the end, so they must revel in any battles they do win.

3) NM and his ilk are so desperately fond of a hierarchical system, wherein gays/women/blacks/whoever are Less Than, that they feel oppressed whenever their envisioned hierarchy is not obeyed. The Lesser People are not supposed to lead lives that are as happy and fulfilling as the Chosen People, yet NM and his type see Lesser People increasingly leading happy and fulfilling lives anyhow. This is unacceptable, and is also why they must rejoice whenever Lesser People are barred from being happy and leading fulfilling lives.

I'm pissed as hell over this development. I wanted my home state of Minnesota to be the first midwestern state to stand up for marriage equality.

A fellow Minnesotan! :eek::):hail:

A fellow Minnesotan! :eek::):hail:

Holy shit, there's more than one of you?:p

Holy shit, there's more than one of you?:p

lol

Your last question can be answered by your previous points.

Homophobes like NM enjoy seeing gays and gay allies suffer because:

1) NM and his ilk are part of a privileged class and resent having their unearned perks taken away.

2) NM and his ilk know that they will lose this war in the end, so they must revel in any battles they do win.

3) NM and his ilk are so desperately fond of a hierarchical system, wherein gays/women/blacks/whoever are Less Than, that they feel oppressed whenever their envisioned hierarchy is not obeyed. The Lesser People are not supposed to lead lives that are as happy and fulfilling as the Chosen People, yet NM and his type see Lesser People increasingly leading happy and fulfilling lives anyhow. This is unacceptable, and is also why they must rejoice whenever Lesser People are barred from being happy and leading fulfilling lives.

No, he just has bad memories of the last gay man to hit on him:

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w174/ratik/uruk-hai.jpg

No, he just has bad memories of the last gay man to hit on him:

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w174/ratik/uruk-hai.jpg

Too big to sig. :(

Holy shit, there's more than one of you?:pYes, don'tchaknow?

But he could always buy a house in Detroit, cheap.
Don't you think Detroiters have suffered enough?

Don't you think Detroiters have suffered enough?
True that. Let's just stick the old fucker on a barge and push it off from the docks.

Of course, it isn't uncommon for a privileged class to somehow feel put upon when others start getting equal rights.

Back to your turnips serfs :p

Many thanks to Mark on that 538 thread for this delightful link (http://www.godhatesiowa.com/).

Yeah like that just happened this year. :rolleyes:

True that. Let's just stick the old fucker on a barge and push it off from the docks.

You mean Phelps, or Detroit?

You mean Phelps, or Detroit?

Phelps. I still have hope for Detroit.

Phelps. I still have hope for Detroit.

You must not have lived here :D

I got a job offer yesterday, in Santa Cruz. Next month I'm packing up the car and driving west, hoping never to return except to visit the folks. Michigan dumped some snow on me (WTF? it's April!) just to remind me why I wanted to go so bad.