• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Activist Judge Overturns Iowa AntiGay Marriage Law

DoubtingStephen

Queer Propagandist
DoubtingStephen
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
1,545
An "activist judge" has ruled that the Iowa gay panic sanctity of marriage law is unconstitutional.

In his ruling, Hanson said the state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.

"Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage ... by reason of the fact that both persons comprising such a couple are of the same sex," he said.

The judge said the state law banning same-sex marriage must be nullified, severed and stricken from the books and the marriage laws "must be read and applied in a gender neutral manner so as to permit same-sex couples to enter into a civil marriage..."
Click to expand...

Link
 
Here's my prediction. Come back in four years to see how I did:

1. Judge grants stay pending appeal, preventing gays in Iowa from marrying.

2. Iowa Court of Appeals hears the case, finds the law unconstitutional on a technical issue nobody even brought up.

3. Iowa's Supreme Court hears the case, finds the law overbroad and orders the Legislature to create a civil marriage statute within ninety days.

4. Legislature hangs itself up, creating an utterly unworkable law.

5. A second round of suits ends in the Supreme Court ordering county clerks to allow gays to marry.

6. For four months, gay marriage is legal in the State of Iowa.

7. Iowa passes a Constitutional Amendment barring gay marriage but ordering insurance agencies to extend benefits to "queer life partners, interior decorators and women with mullets."

8. Campaigning for President in Iowa, Senator Clinton speaks of her affection for homosexuals, famously saying, "As you all know, my mother President Clinton was gay."

9. Aliens attack and we are enslaved by insect overlords.
 
Of course the judge will be harshly villified.

A losing district attorney commented, after the judge ruled, that this matter should not be decided by a judge.

Usually in a state where a court has ruled in a fashion that favors equal rights for gay people, the folks opposed to equality say that it is not a matter for the courts to decide. In many states legislatures have passed laws preventing gay marriage, there was no conservative response that this is not a matter for the legislature.

Here in California, when the legislature passed a bill that would allow gay marriage, our Party of Jesus Governator said it was not a matter that should be decided by the legislature. He vetoed the bill. Apparently it should be decided by the Governator.
 
This judge will get a bit of fan mail from me, that's for sure.

This guy is my hero. I'm straight, but it bothers me to the core that someone who is not is denied rights that are given me for no good reason.

Washington, a very liberal state, has one of the lamest civil union laws ever. When you go to the page to download the form, it says it "registers your civil union but does not grant any legal rights". A complete joke.

My husband has suggested we divorce and get a civil union instead. Then I told him the only reason I married him was in case of emergency............
 
DoubtingStephen said:
An "activist judge" has ruled that the Iowa gay panic sanctity of marriage law is unconstitutional.

Link

In his ruling, Hanson said the state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.
Click to expand...
It's sorta simple, that Fourteenth Amendment deal, isn't it? I am not so sure I get his "due process" finding as well as the equal protection, but the element of the XIVth has been the 800 pound gorilla in the room the whole time.

DR
 
Do opponents of gay marriage realize they're fighting a losing battle? Once the Baby Boomer generation starts dying out, the more liberal but less numerous younger generations will be enacting all sorts of wacky things. Kids these days aren't afraid of the gays at all, because they grew up with Spongebob and Tinky Winky and Steve from Blue's Clues. (I know, I know, Steve's not. But it would be awesome if he were. Dreamy. I'd totally gaymarry him.)
 
TragicMonkey said:
Do opponents of gay marriage realize they're fighting a losing battle?
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely! Why do you think they are in such a rush to get this stuff passed NOW, without hesitation. It can't be because there is this massive rush of gay marriages happening everywhere. I said this long ago. They are doing it now because they know in 20 years no one will care.

In fact, when I write to my representatives and whatnot, this is the argument I make. Why rush? Why not give it time and let's see how much of a problem gay marriage is. Right now it obviously is not a real issue. Until it looks to actually be causing a problem in society, let's hold off on making any serious changes.

If Massachussetts falls to pieces because of their legalization of gay marriage, then we can act. But if they don't, then why bother?
 
Miss Anthrope said:
My husband has suggested we divorce and get a civil union instead. Then I told him the only reason I married him was in case of emergency............
Click to expand...

You could divorce and get a civil union and also sign enduring power of attorney over to each other.
;)
 
DoubtingStephen said:
Here in California, when the legislature passed a bill that would allow gay marriage, our Party of Jesus Governator said it was not a matter that should be decided by the legislature. He vetoed the bill. Apparently it should be decided by the Governator.
Click to expand...

This is rich given the conservative principle is that big cultural shifts should only happen via deliberative, legislative process. That doesn't mean he should feel he should have not vetoed it, but it does mean he should take the decision of his own state legislature seriously.

And if it shouldn't be in the hands of the legislature, in whose hands should it be?
 
Party of Jesus Presidential Candidate and Magic Underwear aficionado Mitt Romney has not disappointed by attacking the Judge using standard Party of Jesus ad hominem technique:
"The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act," Romney said in a statement issued by his campaign. "This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."
Click to expand...

Note that Mitt carefully avoided using troublesome phrases like equal rights.

It's all about the imaginary evil condemned by the Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy.

Looks like Mitt has the hatemonger vote locked up already.
 
Beerina said:
This is rich given the conservative principle is that big cultural shifts should only happen via deliberative, legislative process. That doesn't mean he should feel he should have not vetoed it, but it does mean he should take the decision of his own state legislature seriously.

And if it shouldn't be in the hands of the legislature, in whose hands should it be?
Click to expand...

From Wiki:

In February 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, ordered a change in the certificate application documents to allow for same-sex marriages, Governor Schwarzenegger opposed the move as being beyond the powers of the mayor but also said that he supports gay rights and has expressed support for a law to grant civil unions to gay couples.

In 2005 when he vetoed a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriages he defended his actions by saying that California voters had passed an initiative banning such recognition and that he supports that state's domestic partnership law that gives same-sex couples many of the same rights as a heterosexual married couple.

Still, critics have observed that there is no federal requirement that other states recognize a state-granted domestic partnership, as is the case with marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause
Click to expand...
 
Anybody know where one can send the judge an e-mail congratulating him on his courage?
 
Yay Iowa judge.


hey Washington state Democratic Supermajority in the legislature:
LET ME GET MARRIED IDIOTS!

hey Washington state supreme court: read this ruling and LEARN SOMETHING IDIOTS!

Seriously, Iowa? Before Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Connecticut, Minnesota, Vermont and all the supposedly liberal states but Massachusetts? Get with it liberals, help a gay man out here.
 
I really have never figured out why anyone would be against gay marriage, if it doesn't hurt them in any way?
 
nightwind said:
I really have never figured out why anyone would be against gay marriage, if it doesn't hurt them in any way?
Click to expand...

I think that the people in Iowa are desperately afraid there will be thousands of deaths as a result of the destruction of the Sanctity of Marriage. Take Massachusetts as an example. In only 2.5 years of gay marriage there have already been zero deaths, property values have gone down by 0%, and up to zero fundamentalist Christians have been forced to flee the state as a result of marital sanctity gay panic syndrome.

Seriously though, there are some people that are so stupid that when Fundamentalist Christian leaders predict non-specific dire consequences they believe it. We call these people the majority.
 
Yeah this is one subject where I simply cannot comprehend the thought process of the people who disagree with me. I'm pro-choice but I understand the pro-lifer position. Some take to extremes, but I get where they're coming from, I really do. But there is just nothing that makes sense about the obsessive drive to stop gay marriage. I honestly don't understand what's supposed to be so pressing and perilous. What do they honestly think the worst-case scenario is here?
 
yodaluver28 said:
Yeah this is one subject where I simply cannot comprehend the thought process of the people who disagree with me. I'm pro-choice but I understand the pro-lifer position. Some take to extremes, but I get where they're coming from, I really do. But there is just nothing that makes sense about the obsessive drive to stop gay marriage. I honestly don't understand what's supposed to be so pressing and perilous. What do they honestly think the worst-case scenario is here?
Click to expand...

Awesome post. Couldn't agree more.
 
I think a large part of it comes from a fear of the unknown and the consequences of that unknown.

My Mom (who steadfastly believes I'm gay just because I can't get girlfriends) thinks that if gay marriage were legal that other things that are supposedly fundamental to society will disappear. For example she thinks that if a society can make gay marriage legal, then why not make theft legal, or murder legal? For her, and others like her, all abject morality, and laws derived from them, is not the product of a collaborative society but dictated by divine authority. For these people murder isn't wrong because it has ended a distinct human life, it's wrong because God commanded it was to be wrong. So for them because religious authority continues to state it's wrong, regardless of it's inherent irrationality, it is wrong. That it harms no one is irrelevant to them.

Now what makes this even more confusing is that these same people will often rationalize themselves around God's Will in other areas. Rationalizing theft or understanding that outlawing coveting, a thought process, itself is rather silly and impossible. But for this one, they stand their ground. To account for that one must also understand that the secondary element of this is the halcyonic view of the past that they have. Gays just didn't get married in the good-old-days and so they shouldn't now. This is the same mindset that kept women "in the kitchen" and out of the workplace for far too long.

Just my 2 cents on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom