Activist Judge Overturns Iowa AntiGay Marriage Law

[KingMerv00]

I am not so sure I get his "due process" finding...

I haven't read the link yet but I'll bet he is referring to "substantive due process".

 

[Brown]

Well, here's a new development, from the Des Moines Register:

Democrats retained a fiercely contested House seat in a special election Tuesday, turning aside Republican hopes to showcase a victory as a sign that Iowa's political tide has turned.

Democratic candidate Curt Hanson, a retired schoolteacher, won against GOP candidate and Jefferson County Supervisor Stephen Burgmeier by 3,932 to 3,825 votes, according to unofficial tallies.
...
Campaign reports filed five days before Tuesday's election show that Burgmeier and Hanson had raised nearly $313,000 in cash and in-kind contributions. That total doesn't include money raised in the last days of the election or the $86,080 spent on television ads on behalf of Burgmeier by the National Organization for Marriage in Washington, D.C. Both candidates support allowing a constitutional vote on whether Iowa should ban same-sex marriage. (emphasis mine)

So the self-proclaimed National Organization for Marriage didn't get its man elected, but on the other hand, the group's opponent said that he favored letting the citizens vote on amending the constitution.

So more than $400,000 was spent, and fewer than 8,000 people voted. This may be the most expensive Iowa House race in history.

Jefferson County (the part of Iowa where the fictional James Ryan from "Saving Private Ryan" was raised) is hardly a hotbed of political intrigue. The Republicans tried to say that the issues in question were national--spending, bailouts and national health care reform, taxes. The Democrats said the issues were local issues. But apparently same-sex marriage (a local issue with national impact) was not one of the major decisive questions.

 

[Fishstick]

Their name is also pretty ironic. "National Organisation for Marriage". But their message is that they are against (gay) marriage.

No you see that's the whole point because Marriage is between a Man and a Woman because uh... Anyway they can have the same thing, just with a different name, that's the same rig.. ?



Oh.

 

[Brown]

Spin, baby, spin. From the Des Moines Register:

A group opposed to same-sex marriages failed to secure victory for Republicans in Iowa this week, but the massive injection of out-of-state money on the issue foreshadows what's to come in next year's elections, political scholars said Wednesday.

Despite the loss, the National Organization for Marriage succeeded in making gay marriage an issue, the head of the group said Wednesday. He vowed that its "Reclaim Iowa Project" will remain active in the 2010 state elections. (emphasis mine)

What a hoot! With this standard of "success," then I suppose the Hindenburg landing at Lakehurst was a success. The group spent more on this election than either candidate raised. And the group's man lost anyway.

Ah, but he only lost by 107 votes, and Obama won in this district by over 1,400 votes. But missing from the story is any mention of how many total voters turned out for a presidential election as opposed to a special election for the Iowa House. Might that little tidbit of fact make a difference?

This story really isn't much of a story. The piece is basically reaction to news, which is not, in and of itself, news. There are several other instances of individuals quotes in this story who claim victory... even though their man LOST.

 

[supercorgi]

If Massachussetts falls to pieces because of their legalization of gay marriage, then we can act. But if they don't, then why bother?

Well we've been having gay marriages for 6 years now and the state hasn't fallen apart yet. It's pretty much a big non-issue in these parts.

 

[Praktik]

Remember when all the hippies thought: "well when we get older and the old people around NOW die out we're gonna legalize weed"

it didn't happen.

While all the demographic trends point to a shift happening wherein once the dinosaurs stuck in the muck of backwards Victorian morality die out that we'll finally be able to shed all of this anti-gay stuff - is the same thing going to happen?

In other words, are there enough NEW bigots being made to hold the status quo beyond our expectations?

 

[aerosolben]

Remember when all the hippies thought: "well when we get older and the old people around NOW die out we're gonna legalize weed"

it didn't happen.

While all the demographic trends point to a shift happening wherein once the dinosaurs stuck in the muck of backwards Victorian morality die out that we'll finally be able to shed all of this anti-gay stuff - is the same thing going to happen?

In other words, are there enough NEW bigots being made to hold the status quo beyond our expectations?

No. For a few reasons:

• People cease using marijuana as they get older - they don't stop being gay. Age itself (not just generational differences) is more of a factor.
• The Federal government is much more heavily involved in drug laws than marriage laws
• Racism is really the most apt analogy, and we have solid evidence of changing values over time there.

I expect to see legal gay marriage come about throughout most of the US in the next decade.

 

[Praktik]

No. For a few reasons:

• People cease using marijuana as they get older - they don't stop being gay. Age itself (not just generational differences) is more of a factor.
• The Federal government is much more heavily involved in drug laws than marriage laws
• Racism is really the most apt analogy, and we have solid evidence of changing values over time there.

I expect to see legal gay marriage come about throughout most of the US in the next decade.

Ok well that was heartening. Thank you for alleviating my afternoon pessimism.

(and here's hoping the roomie was successful in his bid to refresh our herb supplies when I get home)

 

[linusrichard]

No. For a few reasons:

• People cease using marijuana as they get older - they don't stop being gay. Age itself (not just generational differences) is more of a factor.
• The Federal government is much more heavily involved in drug laws than marriage laws
• Racism is really the most apt analogy, and we have solid evidence of changing values over time there.

Also - and maybe this is really just a rewording of your third point - the marriage laws are discriminatory, while the weed laws are not. Marijuana is banned across the board, while marriage is banned only for certain people. That kind of thing gets harder to stomach over time.