Iowa <3 Gay Marriage

[ilikeverin]

I know there's another gay marriage thread, but I think this one deserves a page of its own...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7981893.stm

Who woulda thought that Iowa would become the third state to allow gay marriages?!

[Bono]

All states where this type of ruling was issued had unelected Supreme Courts. Coincidence? I think not.

[Verily]

All states where this type of ruling was issued had unelected Supreme Courts. Coincidence? I think not.

Elected courts are a travesty of justice. Coincidence? I think not.

Funny how you get your panties in a twist about populism when it's economically left-wing.

[Aizen]

I commend Iowa. Gay marriage is inevitable.

[RI]

Hooray for the destruction of families!  Good job pointyheaded judges of Iowa!

Curse you, separation of powers!

[Brittain33]

Hooray for the destruction of families! 

This ruling binds many existing families together. It doesn't destroy any families.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The Iowa Supreme Court may love it, but I'm going to guess the voters don't!  Constitutional amendment in 3!  2!  1!

[Verily]

The Iowa Supreme Court may love it, but I'm going to guess the voters don't!  Constitutional amendment in 3!  2!  1!

They'd have to wait at least four years. Iowa has a very convoluted referendum process.

Basically, in order to amend the constitution in Iowa, you need consecutive approval from both houses of the legislature in two separate legislative sessions, then you need a majority vote from the population.

The Democrats hold a 31-19 majority in the Iowa Senate and a 56-44 advantage in the House. Those numbers may be sufficient for an amendment to pass the House, but they certainly are not for it to pass the Senate. The Senate leadership has commented that it will squash any attempt to pass an amendment. In any case, the deadline for submitting new bills for the 2009-2010 session passed about a month ago.

In the best case scenario for the anti-marriage people, then, Republicans make substantial gains in the 2010 election, enough to pass the amendment in the 2011-2012 session. But, even if it passes in both houses in the 2011-2012 session, it has to be passed again in the 2013-2014 session before being able to be brought before the people in a referendum. If it is passed quickly in the 2013-2014 session, the amendment could be on the ballot in 2013.

So, yeah. This is an extremely decisive victory.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

no surprise.  As I've stated before, there is a reason why the New Testament uses the Genesis story of Lot in Sodom as a picture of the deliverance of believers during the endtimes.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Hooray for the destruction of families!  Good job pointyheaded judges of Iowa!

Pssst! I don't want to dissapoint you, but this is 2009, not 2004.

[Stranger in a strange land]

The Iowa Supreme Court may love it, but I'm going to guess the voters don't!  Constitutional amendment in 3!  2!  1!

They'd have to wait at least four years. Iowa has a very convoluted referendum process.

and by that point more people will support gay marriage: I predict a majority of Americans will support gay marriage by 2030, if not sooner. Of course this particular ruling seems likely to be overturned

[Brittain33]

no surprise.  As I've stated before, there is a reason why the New Testament uses the Genesis story of Lot in Sodom as a picture of the deliverance of believers during the endtimes.

If gays can get married and enjoy civil rights while simultaneously advancing the Rapture and the return of Christ for people who believe that to be the outcome, then it becomes a win-win situation in the eyes of both, no?

[Brittain33]

The Iowa Supreme Court may love it, but I'm going to guess the voters don't!  Constitutional amendment in 3!  2!  1!

It has been the policy of gay legal organizations to sue in venues where constitutional amendment is not an easy process. (California being an exception, but there are many other reasons why a lawsuit was pursued there.) This is why Massachusetts, Vermont, New York, and Maryland were venues, but Texas wasn't, among other reasons. 

[A18]

All states where this type of ruling was issued had unelected Supreme Courts. Coincidence? I think not.

If I remember correctly, the California Supreme Court is elected.

Of course, this decision is nothing more than a policy decree masquerading as law.

[Brittain33]

All states where this type of ruling was issued had unelected Supreme Courts. Coincidence? I think not.

If I remember correctly, the California Supreme Court is elected.

They are subject to being voted out of office in a retention election, but they are appointed. Pennsylvania has a similar system. It means that the elected officials identify and place nominees for the Supreme Court, but there is recourse to the voters in the long run if some judge draws attention and outrage over the long haul. Personally, I think that's better that judges raising and spending millions of dollars from the attorneys who'll be arguing cases before them and the businesses they'll be ruling on, and advertising to voters on random current issues of the day.

There aren't that many states with elected Supreme Courts. The ones that come to mind are Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Ohio, and Michigan.

[A18]

Fair enough.

[Scam of God]

It's little surprise that the reactionists are whining about this, nor is it of any affair: the Republican Party has always hated freedom and liberty. The idea that the individual is a self-willing, rational creature capable of making his or her own life-choices is anathema to them; rather, everyone must subscribe to a system of 'morality' set down by Bronze Age goatherders.

I highly doubt that this would have been the result of a referendum on the matter, which is a fine demonstration of the fact that a 'true democracy' is impossible: it will always devolve into a tyranny of the majority. I nevertheless congratulate the people of Iowa on the fact of the matter that their state has led a persecuted minority that much closer to true freedom.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I see you're all more optimistic than I am!

[Scam of God]

I see you're all more optimistic than I am!

Amending Iowa's constitution is a lot harder than amending California's. First, they have to get both the house and senate to pass the amendment. There are substantial Democratic majorities in both houses now (56-44 in the house, and a whopping 32-18 in the senate), and they blocked the anti-gay-marriage amendment in the last session.

Second, they need to wait for the next legislative session and pass the amendment again. Then, if it hasn't died, it goes on the ballot for a popular vote. Even in the worst-case scenario, I figure we have at least two years before gay marriage could possibly be made illegal in Iowa.

Moreover, the amendment needs to be passed by two consecutive general assemblies. Each one lasts for two years, and there would be an election in the middle. So I figure that gives us gay marriage at least until November 2012. That's more than three years. Until then, the unbridled freedom of the individual to make his own choices in life is guaranteed.

[Scam of God]

More from the Wall Street Journal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While the conservatards were hyperventilating over Massachusetts and California, gay marriage snuck into flyover country.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

no surprise.  As I've stated before, there is a reason why the New Testament uses the Genesis story of Lot in Sodom as a picture of the deliverance of believers during the endtimes.

If gays can get married and enjoy civil rights while simultaneously advancing the Rapture and the return of Christ for people who believe that to be the outcome, then it becomes a win-win situation in the eyes of both, no?

no, because in the end, the sexual immoral will be condemned.

But, hey, I was simply remarking why I am not surprised.

[Brittain33]

A funny result is that many non-political friends are learning that Iowa, while not exactly Vermont, isn't just another version of Kansas or Nebraska. I have no illusions that this enjoys massive support in the state, BUT we've all known about Iowa's liberal ideosyncracies for a while, and the state did help give us Obama as a candidate.

[Scam of God]

no surprise.  As I've stated before, there is a reason why the New Testament uses the Genesis story of Lot in Sodom as a picture of the deliverance of believers during the endtimes.

If gays can get married and enjoy civil rights while simultaneously advancing the Rapture and the return of Christ for people who believe that to be the outcome, then it becomes a win-win situation in the eyes of both, no?

no, because in the end, the sexual immoral will be condemned.

But, hey, I was simply remarking why I am not surprised.

Of course. Because your faith is your crutch, and you mistakenly believe everyone is as crippled as you.

[© tweed]

no surprise.  As I've stated before, there is a reason why the New Testament uses the Genesis story of Lot in Sodom as a picture of the deliverance of believers during the endtimes.

If gays can get married and enjoy civil rights while simultaneously advancing the Rapture and the return of Christ for people who believe that to be the outcome, then it becomes a win-win situation in the eyes of both, no?

no, because in the end, the sexual immoral will be condemned.

But, hey, I was simply remarking why I am not surprised.

do you think divorce should be legal?

[Keystone Phil]

no surprise.  As I've stated before, there is a reason why the New Testament uses the Genesis story of Lot in Sodom as a picture of the deliverance of believers during the endtimes.

If gays can get married and enjoy civil rights while simultaneously advancing the Rapture and the return of Christ for people who believe that to be the outcome, then it becomes a win-win situation in the eyes of both, no?

no, because in the end, the sexual immoral will be condemned.

But, hey, I was simply remarking why I am not surprised.

Of course. Because your faith is your crutch, and you mistakenly believe everyone is as crippled as you.

Don't you have a class to teach right now, Doctor?