Democrats win Iowa State House special election

[Holmes]

Actually, NOM spent $86k and kept airing anti-gay marriage ads throughout the district. And they lost. lololololol

I didn't think we'd win, but we did.

[Holmes]

Maybe it'll teach them to meddle into other states' business next time.

Apart from helping the Democratic leadership from keeping their caucus in line with same-sex marriage, it's also good news for them for 2010. Of course it's not a mandate, but I don't think too many people were expecting a Democratic win here tonight. Can't speak for Culver here, but if the Dems in the legislature keep it up, they can survive 2010(which I'm hearing from people in Iowa that it could be bad for them... same-sex marriage obsessed Republicans + midterm election + recession, and all).

[Holmes]

I wouldn't say it's a vote-winner in rural districts like this one (yet?), more like it's not a wedge issue. And Republicans learned that the hard way.

Last time this seat was open in 2002, the Democrats also just barely won by 55 votes.

[Holmes]

No, the Democrat didn't use same-sex marriage as a wedge issue. $86k is a lot of money for a special election in a small district, and they donated it to the Republican over the Democrat for a reason. And have you seen his ads?

There was that debate where they were asked, but the Democrat basically said "I support a vote, uhh that's it". Not to mention he had a lot of gay groups help his GOTV campaign(which probably won his election), I doubt his vote is solidly in the yes column if Republicans find some procedural way to bring an amendment up for a vote.

I wouldn't mind a massive state legislative election thread.

[Holmes]

He was the county supervisor of Jefferson, the biggest county in the district... Wapello is bigger but there's just a fragment of it in the district.

He lost Jefferson, though.

[Holmes]

And then you end up with a major legal mess, like in California, where there are different classes of same-sex couples in the state of Iowa, and the issue will end up in federal court again. Maybe Bush's top lawyer would help us again.

Either way, even if the Republicans can get a vote in the House where it's a bit closer, it'll be way harder in the Senate. And even then, the earliest it can be on the ballot is 2012, I believe. That's almost three and a half years of same-sex marriage, they wouldn't be able to take it away easily like in California when people were still getting used to it.

[Holmes]

The ACLU has opposed teh gay agenda too, like they opposed the hate crimes bill that passed the Senate for example.

Anyway, it's a representative democracy for a reason. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the constitution, not the electorate. You should channel your anger towards the authors of Iowa's Equal Protection Clause. If voters are being denied a vote on this issue, that means they basically have to vote on everything that happens in the legislature and the Supreme Court? Cause those are being forced down their throats as well. I really can't prove my point further.

[Holmes]

Hell yeah, the Equal Protection Clause had everything to do with it. Read Varnum v. Brien, it's a good ruling. The court ruled that the state was only allowed to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses on the grounds that they somehow harmed Iowa society. It seems like the anti-gay marriage lawyers didn't prove their case good enough because they didn't convince any of the justices. They also decided that denying committed same-sex couples who wanted to get married but are denied all the rights that the state of Iowa gives to married couples was inconsistent with that clause. Perhaps if Iowa had some sort of civil union system, the ruling would not have been unanimous.

You're complaining now that it's legal, but were you calling for a public vote when almost every state passed an anti-same-sex marriage law in the past few decades? Surely there were many people who wanted a say on it back then, too.

[Holmes]

Hell yeah, the Equal Protection Clause had everything to do with it. Read Varnum v. Brien, it's a good ruling. The court ruled that the state was only allowed to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses on the grounds that they somehow harmed Iowa society. It seems like the anti-gay marriage lawyers didn't prove their case good enough because they didn't convince any of the justices. They also decided that denying committed same-sex couples who wanted to get married but are denied all the rights that the state of Iowa gives to married couples was inconsistent with that clause. Perhaps if Iowa had some sort of civil union system, the ruling would not have been unanimous.

You're complaining now that it's legal, but were you calling for a public vote when almost every state passed an anti-same-sex marriage law in the past few decades? Surely there were many people who wanted a say on it back then, too.

Then guess what? Maybe they should have gotten off their lazy behinds and organized a vote to strike down the laws or change the state constitution to allow gay marriage. Getting a law repealed puts the "burden of proof" per say on the side that doesn't like the laws. Right now its on us to get a vote (like we did in Maine). Anywhere else its your problem, like in California. The pro-gay groups are trying to get another vote there, hooray for them. At least they are doing something and not just whining or hiding behind the excuse a few liberal judges used to implement their own agenda.

So abolish every court and the constitution and let the electorate decide everything?

Anyway, I have a story to tell you since you think every court that strikes down an anti-same-sex marriage law is liberal and activist. After California's court wrote In re Marriage Cases, they had a case where a private school expelled a student based on her sexual orientation. The court upheld the expulsion saying the private school had the right to do what it did. Doesn't sound very liberal or activist to me. I'm totally against the ruling but that's how it is. I'm probably never gonna get a vote on it.

My point is, courts uphold and strike down laws all the time. You can't cherry pick ones that need a public vote. The ruling changed the lives of many people in Iowa for the better. Just because you and others want to impose your morality on a state, doesn't mean you have to alter the state's constitution to create an ugly legal mess.


[also going to be afk for 2-3 days, if someone can pick up for me that'd be cool]