Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

Hahaha. You could be a lawyer twisting phrases like that.

I'll take that as a compliment, as we are discussing a court case! :thumb:

 

[Rob Henderson]

It was absolutely meant as one.

 

[ASTRALdragon]

If that is what would make them happy, wouldn't denying them that be denying them happiness? Seems rather simple to me......

So, in answer to your question, yes. I AM arguing that denying homosexuals the right (excuse me, privilege, just like it is for everyone else) to marry is interfering with their pursuit of happiness.

In that case, we are also denying happiness to several child molesters out there who are pursuing their happiness with underage children.

Obviously it's not the be-all-end-all... That wouldn't make sense... I'm not saying that this is all it's going to take to shut up gay right activist groups for all eternity... I'm just saying that if something as simple as marriage would make them happy (and it would make the vast majority of gays happy) then why deny them the opportunity to screw up just like the rest of us?

I think my law professor said this best, "Where do we draw the line? Today it's man-man/woman-woman, tomorrow it's humans-animals, next week who knows?" Marriage should be defined as what it has been held to be for hundreds of years; between a man and a woman ONLY. If same sex marriages are legalized, who knows what floodgates will be opened...

As a resident of California, I find it insulting that the Supreme Court would even consider overturning the will of the people. Does voting and democracy not mean anything in the U.S. anymore?

 

[Rob Henderson]

In that case, we are also denying happiness to several child molesters out there who are pursuing their happiness with underage children.

This has already been addressed. There is a legal age of consent throughout the United States. I believe that age of consent should be upheld. There is a difference between the underdeveloped, easily manipulated mind of a child and a fully developed, fully matured brain of an adult.

I think my law professor said this best, "Where do we draw the line? Today it's man-man/woman-woman, tomorrow it's humans-animals, next week who knows?" Marriage should be defined as what it has been held to be for hundreds of years; between a man and a woman ONLY. If same sex marriages are legalized, who knows what floodgates will be opened...

As a resident of California, I find it insulting that the Supreme Court would even consider overturning the will of the people. Does voting and democracy not mean anything in the U.S. anymore?

The zoophilia has already been addressed as well. Perhaps we should read the entire thread before jumping right in....


Animals cannot think, and therefore cannot sign a legal document under their own free will. Humans and animals will never be allowed to get married simply for the legality of the matter. There is no such prohibiting factor when two men or women want to marry.

You say it's insulting that the Supreme Court would overturn the will of the people... Do you realize that if the Supreme Court hadn't made it a law AGAINST the will of the people, black people would still be treated as second class citizens?

When TOG and I bring up the Civil Rights Movement, it is not a reference to choice in the matter... We're not saying you somehow have a choice to what race you are, or that there is no choice in the matter of homosexuality... We're simply saying that, without the Supreme Court going against the will of the people, something that we now consider to be a hateful act would still be common place.

 

[Chukpike]

You say it's insulting that the Supreme Court would overturn the will of the people... Do you realize that if the Supreme Court hadn't made it a law AGAINST the will of the people, black people would still be treated as second class citizens?

You do realise that it was a Iowa Supreme Court decision and not a US Supreme Court ruling? You are aware that state or Federal Supreme Courts do not make laws?
Making laws is the legislatures job.

When TOG and I bring up the Civil Rights Movement, it is not a reference to choice in the matter... We're not saying you somehow have a choice to what race you are, or that there is no choice in the matter of homosexuality... We're simply saying that, without the Supreme Court going against the will of the people, something that we now consider to be a hateful act would still be common place.

Please supply sources supporting your statement, "without the Supreme Court going against the will of the people,". Let us see where the Supreme Court on Civil Rights ruled against the majority of Americans.

Comparing the Civil Rights Movement to Gay Rights movement is about like comparing Shinola (shoe polish) and s***. Apparently you don't see any deference.
Blacks did not have a choice, sexual preference is a choice. So far the US Supreme Court has not decided that sexual preference is a right. Notice the word preference in describing homosexual choices.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

That is not entirely true. Though I disagree vehemently with Rob's opinion on this matter, the fact is that the SCOTUS does make laws that are upheld as a Union standard. In fact, it was a SCOTUS decision on where we draw the line between state rights and federal rights when the two are in dispute, namely the case of Marbury v. Madison, in which Madison's appointees were denied due to his Senate choices. The result of that ruling empowers the SCOTUS to deny Congress when the Constitution states a case against any judicial decision that seats an incumbant despite the state acceptance of that person.

Roger Taney, a SCOTUS judge, denied a black man his right to freedom after the union seceded and he (Dred Scott) was taken to a free state. That was the litmus for the civil rights monevement, where the court ruled it unconstitutional to allow any state to define freedom based on racial or ethnic parameters.

In 1954, it was the Supreme Court that ruled in favor of your Iowa example, citing that racial segragation in public school was against the Republic standards despite the state upholding of the segragation doctrine upheld in the State Apellate Court. This was the very standard under which the fairness doctrine was argued some years later. While Earl Warren and the de jure argument were not "law" per se, the ruling was upheld and freed any man or woman from the discrimibation based on their skin color.

No, the SCOTUS does not INSTIGATE laws - they review state laws. That, however, does not change the fact that any state is bound by their interpretation of those laws. So, in a round-about sort of way, they do make law precedence.

 

[pixiedustboo]

In that case, we are also denying happiness to several child molesters out there who are pursuing their happiness with underage children.



I think my law professor said this best, "Where do we draw the line? Today it's man-man/woman-woman, tomorrow it's humans-animals, next week who knows?" Marriage should be defined as what it has been held to be for hundreds of years; between a man and a woman ONLY. If same sex marriages are legalized, who knows what floodgates will be opened...

As a resident of California, I find it insulting that the Supreme Court would even consider overturning the will of the people. Does voting and democracy not mean anything in the U.S. anymore?

I agree with this guy. +1.

(Not only where does one draw the line - but at how many).

 

[Rob Henderson]

You do realise that it was a Iowa Supreme Court decision and not a US Supreme Court ruling? You are aware that state or Federal Supreme Courts do not make laws?
Making laws is the legislatures job.

Read AZ's post... He covers it in more detail than I would.

Please supply sources supporting your statement, "without the Supreme Court going against the will of the people,". Let us see where the Supreme Court on Civil Rights ruled against the majority of Americans.

Brown vs Board of Education... The US Supreme court ruled AGAINST THE PEOPLE that segregation of schools was unlawful and unethical, and forced schools to accept integration of blacks into the school system.

http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2008/June/20080628205130eaifas0.6517755.html

Two years later, the court also overturned laws that discriminated against minorities... Things like making black people sit at the back of a bus, and separate drinking fountains, etc. were made illegal.

Comparing the Civil Rights Movement to Gay Rights movement is about like comparing Shinola (shoe polish) and s***. Apparently you don't see any deference.
Blacks did not have a choice, sexual preference is a choice. So far the US Supreme Court has not decided that sexual preference is a right. Notice the word preference in describing homosexual choices.

And again, if you read what I said in the last post, the part you so conveniently chose not to respond to... I say that it's not the fact that they have a choice in the matter... It's the fact that the Supreme Court went against the will of the people because they saw the whole picture. The picture that treating blacks as second class for something as trivial as skin color was absurd, and unethical. The same ruling will come about in the Gay Rights Movement, mark my words. Because to treat someone as somehow inferior to someone else because of a personal choice is JUST as absurd as treating a black person as a second class citizen. To deny someone happiness (within reason) because of a personal choice is selfish and closed-minded.



BTW, it's spelled difference.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

Rob,

The same ruling will come about in the Gay Rights Movement, mark my words. Because to treat someone as somehow inferior to someone else because of a personal choice is JUST as absurd as treating a black person as a second class citizen. To deny someone happiness (within reason) because of a personal choice is selfish and closed-minded.

This is what is known as a litmus - that is, it is the power of precedence over the commonalities of principle. This is especially true in law doctrine, where one authority sets the standard for other law parameters to be set.

Yes, this is the way of democracy within a Republic. I do not disagree that, at times, the majority ruling is a caste in need of adjudication. Please do not mistake my intent here.

However, the example provided, that of castigating skin color, is simply not comparable to a responsible, mature, legally-recognized adult choice. Under your (flawed) theory, anyone that robbed a store to feed his family would not be subjugated to any penalty the law affords to the lawless - it accounts for the intent of motive: in your example, that motive is happiness (loving a partner regardless of gender); in mine, it is altruistic and yet not one single bit LESS altruistic: the need to feed one's family.

Please explain to me why those are different and how our socio-values should account for those differences.

Warning: If you state the "one is a crime" bit, you'll lose this debate in shame. Fair warning. Remember, I am not exactly walking into this lacking an education on debate tactics.

Breathe for a few minutes and then tell me and everyone else how one altruism is more important than another altruism.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Rob,

This is what is known as a litmus - that is, it is the power of precedence over the commonalities of principle. This is especially true in law doctrine, where one authority sets the standard for other law parameters to be set.

Yes, this is the way of democracy within a Republic. I do not disagree that, at times, the majority ruling is a caste in need of adjudication. Please do not mistake my intent here.

However, the example provided, that of castigating skin color, is simply not comparable to a responsible, mature, legally-recognized adult choice. Under your (flawed) theory, anyone that robbed a store to feed his family would not be subjugated to any penalty the law affords to the lawless - it accounts for the intent of motive: in your example, that motive is happiness (loving a partner regardless of gender); in mine, it is altruistic and yet not one single bit LESS altruistic: the need to feed one's family.

Please explain to me why those are different and how our socio-values should account for those differences.

Warning: If you state the "one is a crime" bit, you'll lose this debate in shame. Fair warning. Remember, I am not exactly walking into this lacking an education on debate tactics.

Breathe for a few minutes and then tell me and everyone else how one altruism is more important than another altruism.

A man stealing food for his family has options... That man can find a job. There is no substitute for holy matrimony. A man can choose another alternative to stealing. There is no alternative to marriage.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

A man stealing food for his family has options... That man can find a job. There is no substitute for holy matrimony. A man can choose another alternative to stealing. There is no alternative to marriage.

I'm sorry. Did you just say that no person can refuse to marry and equate that to the the choice of watching their kids die of starvation?

 

[Rob Henderson]

I mean to say that if two people want to get married, then they shouldn't have to say "Well, civil unions are okay, I guess......." Because they are two different things.


There are always jobs. If a person is so desperate that he/she is stealing food to feed their family, then that person can find work. It won't be a glamorous job, but there is always work available.

That sounds cold-hearted, but I really don't have a lot of sympathy for able-bodied people who are "too good" to work at a fast food restaurant or work construction. If you're at the point where you are STEALING for food, then you would do better to work at McDonalds and show your kids a GOOD example, rather than stealing for food and not having to do any work.

 

[Chukpike]

That is not entirely true. Though I disagree vehemently with Rob's opinion on this matter, the fact is that the SCOTUS does make laws that are upheld as a Union standard. In fact, it was a SCOTUS decision on where we draw the line between state rights and federal rights when the two are in dispute, namely the case of Marbury v. Madison, in which Madison's appointees were denied due to his Senate choices. The result of that ruling empowers the SCOTUS to deny Congress when the Constitution states a case against any judicial decision that seats an incumbant despite the state acceptance of that person.

Roger Taney, a SCOTUS judge, denied a black man his right to freedom after the union seceded and he (Dred Scott) was taken to a free state. That was the litmus for the civil rights monevement, where the court ruled it unconstitutional to allow any state to define freedom based on racial or ethnic parameters.

In 1954, it was the Supreme Court that ruled in favor of your Iowa example, citing that racial segragation in public school was against the Republic standards despite the state upholding of the segragation doctrine upheld in the State Apellate Court. This was the very standard under which the fairness doctrine was argued some years later. While Earl Warren and the de jure argument were not "law" per se, the ruling was upheld and freed any man or woman from the discrimibation based on their skin color.

No, the SCOTUS does not INSTIGATE laws - they review state laws. That, however, does not change the fact that any state is bound by their interpretation of those laws. So, in a round-about sort of way, they do make law precedence.

Thanks for restating the obvious, courts do not make laws. They make rulings using existing law to determine how it may be applied. That is their function.
The cases you sighted also used existing law to affirm the decisions, the courts wrote no new law.

Unfortunately, it does seem that the courts think they can make new laws. It is also why the Gay Rights movement use the courts to take a "round-about" approach in reaching their goals.

 

[Chukpike]

Read AZ's post... He covers it in more detail than I would.

The question was,"You do realise that it was a Iowa Supreme Court decision and not a US Supreme Court ruling?"

Didn't know yes or no would be so hard.

Brown vs Board of Education... The US Supreme court ruled AGAINST THE PEOPLE that segregation of schools was unlawful and unethical, and forced schools to accept integration of blacks into the school system.

http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2008/June/20080628205130eaifas0.6517755.html

Two years later, the court also overturned laws that discriminated against minorities... Things like making black people sit at the back of a bus, and separate drinking fountains, etc. were made illegal.

These are not sources showing the court going against the will of the majority. Try again.

And again, if you read what I said in the last post, the part you so conveniently chose not to respond to... I say that it's not the fact that they have a choice in the matter... It's the fact that the Supreme Court went against the will of the people because they saw the whole picture. The picture that treating blacks as second class for something as trivial as skin color was absurd, and unethical. The same ruling will come about in the Gay Rights Movement, mark my words. Because to treat someone as somehow inferior to someone else because of a personal choice is JUST as absurd as treating a black person as a second class citizen. To deny someone happiness (within reason) because of a personal choice is selfish and closed-minded.

Not going to mark your words, it is just hot air.

You present this statement as fact: "It's the fact that the Supreme Court went against the will of the people because they saw the whole picture."

Once again supply sources so that your fact can be verified. Something like a legitimate source showing the statistics proving the majority of the US citizens did not agree with these decisions.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

I mean to say that if two people want to get married, then they shouldn't have to say "Well, civil unions are okay, I guess......." Because they are two different things.


There are always jobs. If a person is so desperate that he/she is stealing food to feed their family, then that person can find work. It won't be a glamorous job, but there is always work available.

That sounds cold-hearted, but I really don't have a lot of sympathy for able-bodied people who are "too good" to work at a fast food restaurant or work construction. If you're at the point where you are STEALING for food, then you would do better to work at McDonalds and show your kids a GOOD example, rather than stealing for food and not having to do any work.

Really?

I have applied at McDonalds. They told me I was too old and too over-qualified.

You seriously need a perspective on life that doesn't involve a college professor lying to you about truths.

8 years ago, I made $27 an hour as an industrial electrician.

But I got hurt.

Now I am too qualified for most jobs and not qualified enough for others.

You naivety is refreshing, but you're wrong just the same. It won't be more than a day or two before I grab my .45 and in hunger go find me something to eat. I haven't had anything in DAYS. I am hungry.

But I guess you know it all.

Jobs?

I have been BEGGING for anyone to hire me for anything. I have Internet only thanks to a glitch in the system that left mine on (after it had been disconnected 2 months ago).

I'm a vet. Yet I have to beg. And you civilians laugh at me and deny me.

Take your "Anyone can work" and cram it, boy. You have no idea what the real world is all about.

Are you hungry? No? Good. I am. And I'll survive no matter what it takes.

 

[The Other Guy]

Really?

I have applied at McDonalds. They told me I was too old and too over-qualified.

You seriously need a perspective on life that doesn't involve a college professor lying to you about truths.

8 years ago, I made $27 an hour as an industrial electrician.

But I got hurt.

Now I am too qualified for most jobs and not qualified enough for others.

You naivety is refreshing, but you're wrong just the same. It won't be more than a day or two before I grab my .45 and in hunger go find me something to eat. I haven't had anything in DAYS. I am hungry.

But I guess you know it all.

Jobs?

I have been BEGGING for anyone to hire me for anything. I have Internet only thanks to a glitch in the system that left mine on (after it had been disconnected 2 months ago).

I'm a vet. Yet I have to beg. And you civilians laugh at me and deny me.

Take your "Anyone can work" and cram it, boy. You have no idea what the real world is all about.

Are you hungry? No? Good. I am. And I'll survive no matter what it takes.

Well, the economy is in rather poor shape, in case you haven't noticed, and most companies aren't hiring. And why does half of America have a disdain for education? Maybe that's why we're falling behind in the world...

18 years ago, my grandfather retired from his job at General Motors. Since 2000 he has watched his pension steadily dwindle away to nothing in an era filled with war against medicare. Just because people are mad at unions... he doesn't even have a high school diploma. If GM goes bust he couldn't get a job if he wanted to. And healthcare, for a 76 year old man with heart problems? Yeah right. And he's a veteran.

Wait, you're haven't eaten in days yet you're typing on a computer, which has to be worth some amount of cash? And being a vet doesn't mean we bend over backwards to give you the world. And who's laughing? Am I? Is Rob? I don't think so.

As for the usual age run? You would have to respond thoughtfully to a 30 year old posting the exact same thing, so leave out the "you're too young to understand" talk and actually make a real response.

Am I hungry? No. If I am, will I be posting here instead of scrounging items around my house for cash so I won't be hungry any longer? No. And I'll survive, too.

---------------
But to respond to the ACTUAL TOPIC, I have heard of several groups pushing petitions in their counties to get it overturned. It's hard to tell how far they'll get...

 

[A Can of Man]

There are always jobs. If a person is so desperate that he/she is stealing food to feed their family, then that person can find work. It won't be a glamorous job, but there is always work available.

Henderson, my God you are stupid. Has it ever occured to you that some people *really* don't have any options sometimes?

 

[Del Boy]

Well, the economy is in rather poor shape, in case you haven't noticed, and most companies aren't hiring. And why does half of America have a disdain for education? Maybe that's why we're falling behind in the world...

18 years ago, my grandfather retired from his job at General Motors. Since 2000 he has watched his pension steadily dwindle away to nothing in an era filled with war against medicare. Just because people are mad at unions... he doesn't even have a high school diploma. If GM goes bust he couldn't get a job if he wanted to. And healthcare, for a 76 year old man with heart problems? Yeah right. And he's a veteran.

Wait, you're haven't eaten in days yet you're typing on a computer, which has to be worth some amount of cash? And being a vet doesn't mean we bend over backwards to give you the world. And who's laughing? Am I? Is Rob? I don't think so.

As for the usual age run? You would have to respond thoughtfully to a 30 year old posting the exact same thing, so leave out the "you're too young to understand" talk and actually make a real response.

Am I hungry? No. If I am, will I be posting here instead of scrounging items around my house for cash so I won't be hungry any longer? No. And I'll survive, too.

You know what TOG - that response to AZ was just about the most insensitive post I have come across on these boards.
Furthermore, it clearly confirms the advice you have been getting from vets and other older guys, the advice being that you know nothing of the real world, real issues. All that politickin' sounds great there on the paper, but it amounts to sweet fanny adams when you have nothing to eat.
Your solution - take the man's computor away! HA! Some enlightened politickin' there, I must say.

My advice to you is the one the Seaman's union once gave me when I needed a ship to sail on - " Come back in a 100 years ,son!"
You know what I told him; " Sure - what time Mr Jones?" Try some of that before putting down AZ. Walk a mile in his shoes.

---------------

 

[Rob Henderson]

Really?

I have applied at McDonalds. They told me I was too old and too over-qualified.

You seriously need a perspective on life that doesn't involve a college professor lying to you about truths.

Leave my professors out of it. They're not the ones that give me my opinions. I make them myself, as I've said a thousand times before... There is a job out there for you. Maybe not McDonalds, but there is a job out there somewhere that will hire you. You just haven't found it yet. I know it's hard, my dad's currently out of work having just retired from the military after 29 years of active duty. You're not the only one suffering.

8 years ago, I made $27 an hour as an industrial electrician.

But I got hurt.

Now I am too qualified for most jobs and not qualified enough for others.

And I'm sorry you got hurt.....

You naivety is refreshing, but you're wrong just the same. It won't be more than a day or two before I grab my .45 and in hunger go find me something to eat. I haven't had anything in DAYS. I am hungry.

Do some odd jobs... Surely someone would let you cut their grass for enough money for a meal... Ramen noodles are only 35 cents... I'm a college kid, I know how to get by cheap.

But I guess you know it all.

Never said that, never will.

Jobs?

I have been BEGGING for anyone to hire me for anything. I have Internet only thanks to a glitch in the system that left mine on (after it had been disconnected 2 months ago).

I'm a vet. Yet I have to beg. And you civilians laugh at me and deny me.

Take your "Anyone can work" and cram it, boy. You have no idea what the real world is all about.

Are you hungry? No? Good. I am. And I'll survive no matter what it takes.

Like I said, my father is in the exact same boat. You don't have a monopoly on suffering during this recession. Are you not drawing any sort of pension at all? Have you foreclosed on your house? How are you still paying your water/electricity/AC bills?

You say "you civilians laugh and deny me"... I'll have you know I take the military and the people who have served in it very seriously. I would never disrespect a veteran or the military in general.

Come to Montevallo and I'll buy you a meal. But I'd be willing to bet the farm that you wouldn't take a "pity" meal because you'd rather starve than owe someone.

Henderson, my God you are stupid. Has it ever occured to you that some people *really* don't have any options sometimes?

Again... There are always options... And rather than posting on a forum that doesn't mean anything instead of eating a meal ISN'T stupid?!?! That's about the most ridiculous thing I've EVER heard.

 

[The Other Guy]

You know what TOG - that response to AZ was just about the most insensitive post I have come across on these boards.
Furthermore, it clearly confirms the advice you have been getting from vets and other older guys, the advice being that you know nothing of the real world, real issues. All that politickin' sounds great there on the paper, but it amounts to sweet fanny adams when you have nothing to eat.
Your solution - take the man's computor away! HA! Some enlightened politickin' there, I must say.

My advice to you is the one the Seaman's union once gave me when I needed a ship to sail on - " Come back in a 100 years ,son!"
You know what I told him; " Sure - what time Mr Jones?" Try some of that before putting down AZ. Walk a mile in his shoes.

---------------

You know, if it pays for food...

and I have been getting advice from vets. I never denied that. But the people who I get advice from actually show some respect to my own opinion.

If I receive none, I give none.

Now can we please get back to the topic at hand.