Activist Judge Overturns Iowa AntiGay Marriage Law

[linusrichard]

A pretty poor arguement though. It is such a small percentage of the population that it will have little effect.

That's not even the reason why it's a terrible argument. You could achieve a comparable result by not allowing redheads to marry, or Muslims, or people whose last names start with "W," or people born in February. That it will (allegedly) save some money doesn't make it okay.

The second reason it's a terrible argument is that people spend a ton of money on weddings, and that is ultimately going to mean more tax revenues, which includes putting money into social security.

 

[pgwenthold]

According to the Des Moines Register (and other sources), Catholic leaders are upset and say that the decision will grievously harm children. From my standpoint, I don't think the Catholic Church has any moral authority to lecture anyone about hurting children.

The obvious reference aside, I will argue that no homosexual marriage would do more harm to children than did Sister Claire Marie Meyer, the big fat nun I (and hundreds of others) had as our second grade teacher.

So don't think this is just about "priests molesting alter boys." The extent of abuse went a lot further than that.

 

[Brown]

There are still rumblings about the Iowa Supreme Court's decision, but (as of this writing) the Earth has not opened up and swallowed the State. There has been at least one death threat made against a gay legislator, and some politicians have put forth pig-ignorant approaches, such as "overruling" the Court with an executive order or simply saying that the Court's decision is "only an opinion" and not legally binding in any sense.

 

[Upchurch]

...or simply saying that the Court's decision is "only an opinion" and not legally binding in any sense.

...


What?

 

[Cleon]

There are still rumblings about the Iowa Supreme Court's decision, but (as of this writing) the Earth has not opened up and swallowed the State. There has been at least one death threat made against a gay legislator, and some politicians have put forth pig-ignorant approaches, such as "overruling" the Court with an executive order or simply saying that the Court's decision is "only an opinion" and not legally binding in any sense.

Ah, conservatives. They're all for law & order, except when they don't like it.

 

[Brown]

...


What?

From the Des Moines Register:

"If I have the opportunity to serve as your next governor," Bob Vander Plaats told about 350 people at a rally, "and if no leadership has been taken to that point, on my first day of office I will issue an executive order that puts a stay on same-sex marriages until the people of Iowa vote, and when we vote we can affirm and amend the Constitution."
...
Bill Salier, co-founder of Everyday America, told the crowd that state lawmakers need to thank the Supreme Court justices for their opinion but say that it is merely opinion and that the law is still on the books.

Being bat-spit crazy and being pig-ignorant would ordinarily be two strikes against someone, but for publicity hounds, they are an absolute boon.


One wonders: what WILL these folks do if the machinery to amend the Iowa Constitution is engaged and the citizens decide that they don't want to amend the State Constitution to take a giant step backward?

 

[Dr Adequate]

What?

From the same people who brought you: "Evolution is just a theory".

 

[pgwenthold]

I'm trying to understand the Lt Gov's comments. They make absolutely no sense. At least, they show no indication that he has any clue about how the government works.

"The courts rule that the legislation is unconstitutional. So the governor should issue an executive decree."

Welcome to the world of a dictatorship. Or am I missing something?

My initial thought was, "He wants the Governor to pull a George Wallace?" Recall, Wallace later regretted his actions.

 

[Cobalt]

Ah, conservatives. They're all for law & order, except when they don't like it.

Kids, you can play this game too!

Ah, (insert political group). They're all for (blank), except for when they don't like it.

 

[pgwenthold]

I'm wondering if someone closer to the action in Iowa can explain the whole "Let us vote" thing to me. What do they want, a direct referendum for the majority to squash the rights of a minority group? I mean, does Iowa even have state-wide referenda? I remember seeing local initiatives that were sent up, but generally regarding funding issues (to float a bond to pay for schools, or such). I don't remember laws being made by referendum at all.

So what are the "let us vote" people going on about (aside from ignorance of the government)? Mob rule? When can we vote to prevent lefties from getting driver's licenses? I mean, cars in the US are made for right footed people - lefties have to use their weaker foot to accelerate and brake; that makes them a bigger risk on the road; besides, driving is a PRIVELIDGE, not a right.

(ok, I realize that is BS, but it makes about as much sense as the anti-gay arguments)

 

[Shalamar]

I know some conservatives that think that it is ok for the majority to impose their will on the minority, simply because they don't like the ruling/law/whatever. Its really quite unfortunate, and I really really want to find the reasoning for it.

I am quite in favor of Gay Marriage. I don't see any problems, and it certainly does NOT diminish the marriage I currently have. if that makes me an evil godless heathen liberal out to destroy the United States, then so be it. better that then a true god-fearing american conservative who want to use the constitution of the States/country to QUASH the rights of another group.

And some people wonder why I refuse to become an American Citizen.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I'm wondering if someone closer to the action in Iowa can explain the whole "Let us vote" thing to me. What do they want, a direct referendum for the majority to squash the rights of a minority group?

Yes, that's exactly what they want. Sadly, many people only want protections for minority positions when they are part of said minority.

 

[Brown]

I'm trying to understand the Lt Gov's comments. They make absolutely no sense. At least, they show no indication that he has any clue about how the government works.

"The courts rule that the legislation is unconstitutional. So the governor should issue an executive decree."

Welcome to the world of a dictatorship. Or am I missing something?

My initial thought was, "He wants the Governor to pull a George Wallace?" Recall, Wallace later regretted his actions.

Did I miss comments buy the Lt. Governor of Iowa (Patty Judge)? The one who proposed the pig-ignorant notion of suspending the Court's decision via executive order was Bob Vander Plaats, who has said he wants to be the next governor and is trying to turn the issue into something upon which he can mount a campaign.

The Governor of the Iowa, Chet Culver, has said he is not going to do anything about the Supreme Court's decision. Thier is virtually no risk that he will try to "pull a Wallace" or otherwise defy the Court.

Some see Culver as vulnerable in the next election, and so it is no surprise that various wind-bags are trying to find a way to assert that the decision was somehow his "fault."

Culver's position (which is legally sound, unlike Vander Plaats's) is that it would be a waste of taxpayer money to try to oppose the decision by way of further court challenges or grandstanding stunts. Curiously, his opponents like to paint themselves as thrifty fiscal conservatives, and yet they seem to urge courses that will add to the citizens' tax bills ... unnecessarily.

 

[pgwenthold]

Did I miss comments buy the Lt. Governor of Iowa (Patty Judge)? The one who proposed the pig-ignorant notion of suspending the Court's decision via executive order was Bob Vander Plaats, who has said he wants to be the next governor and is trying to turn the issue into something upon which he can mount a campaign.

I might be confusing them. Judge may not have advocated the executive order, but I know she did a phone campaign, maybe to push the "let us vote" thing.


My in-laws got a recorded message call from Judge calling for action of some sort.

 

[Brown]

The "Let us vote" business, putting the best face on it, means that the citizens ought to be allowed to amend the state constitution. It is of course possible to amend the constitution and citizen votes decide whether an amendment will be adopted, but it is not as easy to amend the constitution in Iowa as it is in other states. I expect that the anti-gay forces will solicit the help of various powerful out-of-state groups to produce television commercials that would show the horrors associates with allowing two people of the same sex to have their marriage recognized by the state.

Putting a more realistic face on it, the "Let us vote" crowd espouses the view that a minority ought not to have rights unless those rights are conferred by the majority. And further, the majority can choose to refuse those rights based upon whim or overt bigotry. In other words, the "Let us vote" attitude is a "majority rules" mentality.

 

[Brown]

Judge may not have advocated the executive order, but I know she did a phone campaign, maybe to push the "let us vote" thing.


My in-laws got a recorded message call from Judge calling for action of some sort.

This doesn't sound like something Patty would do, either personally or wearing her Lt. Gov. hat. One wonders whether someone is running a phone campaign falsely attributing the sponsor.

According to the Des Moines Register, an Assistant Attorney General authored a notice to all county recorders: "All county recorders in the state of Iowa are required to comply with the Varnum decision … and to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples in the same manner as licenses issued to opposite gender applicants."

The current tactic-of-the-day is

[Republican Sen. Merlin] Bartz and other Republicans are pushing for a "conscience clause" that would allow county recorders to opt out of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples if their religion is opposed to gay marriage.

Discussion about this proposal has been at roughly the level of second-graders arguing about who is and who is not a poopy-head, although second-graders tend to be a bit more articulate. In the end, a state senator put some more careful thoughts into this statement:

Well, here's the crazy part of it. For example, what if a county recorder is morally opposed to mixed race marriages? You know it used to be illegal under Iowa law for mixed race marriages. Well what if you were a county recorder at that time. Does Senator Bartz think they should be able to say 'no' to a mixed race couple?

What about divorced Iowans? Some religions believe it should be 'one man, one woman, one time.' And under the Bartz approach, your county recorder would be able to say: 'No, I'm a Catholic and you don’t get to have a second marriage. You had your one.'

Under the Bartz approach if your county recorder didn’t think Catholics should marry Baptists, that would be the law in your county. That’s just so wrong.

In Iowa, everyone is equal under the law. County recorders don’t get to decide for themselves which laws they will follow and which they won’t.

 

[pgwenthold]

This doesn't sound like something Patty would do, either personally or wearing her Lt. Gov. hat. One wonders whether someone is running a phone campaign falsely attributing the sponsor.

I didn't hear the call. My MIL answered the phone, and said it was the Lt Gov calling for some opposition to the court decision on gay marriage.

As for the state senator's comments, it always brings me back to the question that I continually ask: Honestly, how do the anti-gay people feel knowing that they are using the exact same arguments that are used by racists? You could take almost any anti-gay marriage rant and substitute "interracial" for "gay" and it would be something you would have heard 50 years ago.

Merits of the argument aside, such a realization would give me serious pause.

 

[Brown]

As for the state senator's comments, it always brings me back to the question that I continually ask: Honestly, how do the anti-gay people feel knowing that they are using the exact same arguments that are used by racists? You could take almost any anti-gay marriage rant and substitute "interracial" for "gay" and it would be something you would have heard 50 years ago.

Merits of the argument aside, such a realization would give me serious pause.

Actually, there is an importance difference between the two.

Let's assume that the question is whether dark-skinned people--a minority--ought to be allowed to vote. In the event that this right to vote is eventually put into place, the light-skinned people actually do lose something. In particular, their voting power is diluted. If more people enter the voting pool, the power of a single vote is reduced.

Or if a court ruling determines that minority students ought to be allowed to attend a school that was previously attended only by students of the majority, the majority could actually lose something: classroom space, teacher-to-student attention, convenience.

In the case of same-sex marriage, however, the granting of equal protection to same-sex couples deprives the opposite-sex couples of nothing. Voting power and schools are limited resources, but marriage is virtually an unlimited resource.

Indeed, the advocates argued to the Iowa Supreme Court that same-sex marriage would hurt opposite-sex marriage. The Court asked a simple question, "In what way?" There was no answer to this question that could withstand even modest scrutiny, and as far as I can tell there remains no reasonable answer today. Some people feel that they have been hurt by the ruling, but they are unable to say how.

 

[pgwenthold]

Indeed, the advocates argued to the Iowa Supreme Court that same-sex marriage would hurt opposite-sex marriage. The Court asked a simple question, "In what way?" There was no answer to this question that could withstand even modest scrutiny, and as far as I can tell there remains no reasonable answer today. Some people feel that they have been hurt by the ruling, but they are unable to say how.

There is a thread on this over in Social Issues, where I have pointed out that they DO say how they have been harmed. It is usually something like, "Gay marriage would tell my kids that homosexuality is acceptable, but our religion says it is wrong."

(admittedly, that isn't really harm to heterosex marriage, but to heterosexual parents)

Of course, translated, what they are saying is, "Gay marriage would undermine my attempts to teach my kids that homos are evil." It's not a surprise that this argument doesn't hold up in court.

It also begs a lot of questions about society. TV shows, for example, also show homosexuality to be normal. The state allows that, too. In the end, the biggest problem these people face is the fact that homosexuals really AREN'T evil, outside of a "God hates fags" perspective. As homosexuality becomes more commonplace in today's society, it becomes more and more apparent that they aren't a problem. This is the thing that scares the anti-gay people more than anything. Kids these days are so used to seeing homosexuality all over that they don't care, and they can't see what all the fuss is about.

It's pretty obvious why the anti-gay crowd in Iowa is adament about getting it banned NOW. They realize that if they wait even a couple of years with legal gay marriage, everyone will realize that Iowa has NOT been swallowed up by God's minions, and, in fact, gay marriage is no big deal. Shoot, even after 5 years most citizens of Iowa still won't know any married gay couple. How can anyone believe that it is a problem when most people don't see any difference?

As I said, the anti-gay people know that when this happens, they don't have a prayer in the world of stopping it. So act now with predictions of doom before reality has a chance to get in the way.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

As for the state senator's comments, it always brings me back to the question that I continually ask: Honestly, how do the anti-gay people feel knowing that they are using the exact same arguments that are used by racists? You could take almost any anti-gay marriage rant and substitute "interracial" for "gay" and it would be something you would have heard 50 years ago.

Honestly? Most of them would have no problem with that.