Yep. Iowa. Huh.

On 4/3, a unanimous state Supreme Court decision struck down a prohibition on same sex marriage under the Iowa constitutional statue of equal protections under the law.

Fuck yeah Iowa.

So, continue from the SPPACE R&R thread...

JermCool wrote:I seem to recall that required a Constitutional amendment on the federal level. Not some state-level judge arbitrarily passing out his views of the world as law.

... sigh. It wasn't "some state-level judge", it was the highest judges in the relevant chain of courts - this was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Iowa.

Furthermore, they weren't creating new law from the bench and I'm sick of hearing it. Both semantically, as no new law was created, and an old law wasn't even interpreted and given (or given new) meaning (which is one of the jobs of appellate courts anyway!) ... What they did was find that a state law violates a part of the state constitution; and similar to how state and federal law are subordinate to the federal constitution - you can't pass a lower level law that violates a higher-level protection - state law is subordinate to the state constitution.

If the majority of the people within a state say it's okay, then fine.

And it's fine only if the majority of the people say it's okay? :/

What I have a problem with is courts saying that the people shouldn't be allowed to decide the issue.

So if the people decide on a course of action that's illegal and unconstitutional, they should still be able to say "yep, this is how it's going to be", and it should be their way, despite being illegal?

There are other paths to equal protection (civil unions)

... *twitch* And now, another point, just phrased in the way of me being sick of hearing it and snapping.

/me rolls up a newspaper and baps Jerm on the nose*

NO. WRONG. X is not Y, 1 is not 2, equal protection is not separate but 'equal'!

StruckingFuggle wrote:... sigh. It wasn't "some state-level judge", it was the highest judges in the relevant chain of courts - this was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Iowa.

Furthermore, they weren't creating new law from the bench and I'm sick of hearing it. Both semantically, as no new law was created, and an old law wasn't even interpreted and given (or given new) meaning (which is one of the jobs of appellate courts anyway!) ... What they did was find that a state law violates a part of the state constitution; and similar to how state and federal law are subordinate to the federal constitution - you can't pass a lower level law that violates a higher-level protection - state law is subordinate to the state constitution.

You're arguing semantics. It was a state-level court. My point was that this was not on the same level as the civil rights movement. You're focusing on the wrong parts.

If the majority of the people within a state say it's okay, then fine.

And it's fine only if the majority of the people say it's okay? :/

Someone other than Fuggle needs to explain to me the difference in the wording between what I said and what he's repeating. Yes. If the majority says it's okay to legalize gay marriage in a referendum within that state, then legalize gay marriage within that state. Not because a judge (or judges, or justices) says it should be legal. The MAJORITY of the PEOPLE.

So if the people decide on a course of action that's illegal and unconstitutional, they should still be able to say "yep, this is how it's going to be", and it should be their way, despite being illegal?

If the people decide it, then it wouldn't be illegal or unconstitutional. And we're talking about marriage, which for all intents and purposes has been explained as NOT being in the Constitution. Therefore the 10th Amendment would apply and it would be up to the States.

... *twitch* And now, another point, just phrased in the way of me being sick of hearing it and snapping.

Tough. Get over it and move on.

/me rolls up a newspaper and baps Jerm on the nose*

NO. WRONG. X is not Y, 1 is not 2, equal protection is not separate but 'equal'!

Here's New Zealand. They passed a Civil Union bill which contained nearly identical wording to the Marriage Act. Equal protection under the law. The reason they used that? Because they couldn't get a majority vote for Gay Marriage. X = Y. So drop the condescending BS, mmmkay?

I think they are basing the ruling on this clause of the Iowa State Constitution:

Laws uniform. SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

Which, can be construed to be applicable in this instance. However, if that holds true, I would then argue that it could be extended to apply to more than two-person marriages.

Well, no actually. If you have a law that polygamy is outlawed, all are treated the same.

I'm so tempted to insert an Iowa "If you make it a law, they will come" joke, but honestly, I don't know if Field of Dreams is a relevant movie now days.

If they want so bad to be as miserable as the rest of the married world, be my guest.

Lucksi, Well, yes. If you have a law that same sex marriage is outlawed, all are treated the same.

This is such a joke of an issue, made even more of a joke by how damned seriously so many people take it.

I'd love to see some state come up with a compromise: a bill that legalizes gay marriage with the stipulation that some people who like to pry in others' business have a moral opposition to homosexuality and they would like to make that known. Call it the "what effen ever" act.

So much time is wasted on this issue. Seriously, on all sides it's a semantics argument and it's just silly.

Dear Reader,
Coincidentally, I am Iowan. I also have a stance against gay marriage and I am not afraid to stand up for my convictions. I can respect the fact that there are gay people, but I do not believe in gay marriage as a right. I define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, as it always has been defined since the dawn of civilization.

All states have a law against polygamy, so I see no reason why gay marriage doesn't fall into the same argument. Polygamy has been deemed an amoral. The government stepped in and said no to it. If they can do it for polygamy, why not gay marriage? The way I see it, it's all or nothing. Either both polygamy and gay marriage are legal, or both are illegal.

Well, now that I have that out of the way, I might as well amuse by telling funny stories. In track, my track coach mentioned that guys should not stretch each other out in a provocative manner...even though it is now legal in Iowa, he mentioned in an afterthought.

Kraggh

Kraggh wrote:I define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, as it always has been defined since the dawn of civilization.

That's absolutely not the case.

Polygamy has been deemed an amoral. The government stepped in and said no to it.

If it was amoral, why would they say no?

The way I see it, it's all or nothing.

Then I look forward to seeing proof that you sent ALL your income to the IRS last year.

Deacon,
I am not sure if you interpreted my wording correctly. As it is, I do not understand your wording. Since debate is the exchanging of logic in seeking to find an overall truth, certain facts must be known, as logic needs facts to stand on. The first two facts in a debate are:
Fact: I have an opinion
Fact: You have an opinion
In order to continue further, both sides must know and understand the other person's point of view. I know that I do not understand yours, and I am not sure if you understand mine. You see, your responses seemed to have an air of witty jokes, which confused me. Jokes are not always the best tools in debate. I seem to understand that you disagree with me, but otherwise, I did not fully interpret your retaliations.

In the meantime, I will try to define my opinion better.

We make laws, first and foremost, based on what we think is best. "What is best" is a question of morality, and thus laws are made according to what we think is right or wrong. I see gay marriage as defying traditional marriage. Culturally, it is between a man and a woman. Religiously, I believe it to be sacred and holy. To break one of our oldest traditions is, in my opinion, wrong and a crime against tradition and God. What is wrong should not be law, and thus, I do not believe that gay marriage should be legal.

I also believe that banishing polygamy while allowing gay marriage is inconsistent. Gay marriage and polygamy are in the same boat, so to speak. They are both questions of what is traditionally acceptable and what God wills. Polygamy has been an historical form of marriage, but it is not accepted now in the United States. The select few who want it are denied it. This is because many people do not believe that polygamy is what marriage is meant to be, and thus polygamy is wrong and made unlawful. It has been considered a freedom that will not be legalized. These are the same circumstances of the argument against gay marriage, and yet this virtually identical issue is not resolved. This is my second issue with gay marriage, as I find its acceptance inconsistent with choices that we as a people have already made.

Kraggh

I think Deacon's point (well, one of them) was that you meant "IMMORAL", not "AMORAL".

Dear StruckingFuggle,
I quickly looked it up on dictionary.com. I see where I went wrong. I presumed that amoral was the same as immoral, although now I realize that the word represents neutrality. Thank you for informing me.

Kraggh

Anyone else think Kraggh is a computer learning human culture and patterns?

It's a distinct possibility. Or a young Fuggle, actually.

Kraggh wrote:Fact: I have an opinion

Fact: you have your facts wrong.

Marriage has been many things since the dawn of civilization. Security for political treaties and/or business relationships, for instance. A man may have many wives, or a wife may have multiple husbands. Biblically speaking, most of the movers and shakers had multiple wives. A number took concubines. Some just took their maids (e.g. Abraham. Yes, THE Abraham). In some cultures a pederast could fit right in. In some it was the law. They certainly existed in all of them. Does that mean we legalize it? The basis for your argument is bullshit for two reasons 1) it's incorrect and 2) it's irrelevant regardless.

You see, your responses seemed to have an air of witty jokes, which confused me. Jokes are not always the best tools in debate.

Apparently you're not the best tool for this debate, either, Confusedcious.

We make laws, first and foremost, based on what we think is best. "What is best" is a question of morality, and thus laws are made according to what we think is right or wrong.

Well, that may be, but I'd say before deciding what is best for others is deciding only what actively hurts another person and basing laws off of that.

I see gay marriage as defying traditional marriage. Culturally, it is between a man and a woman.

It may defy your idea of a traditional marriage. In India and, say, Pakistan, it's not uncommon for the traditional marriage to involve someone you don't even know. Culturally, it depends on which culture you're talking about, and America is a melting pot.

Religiously, I believe it to be sacred and holy.

What you believe religiously is between you and your priest and your gods. Your religious ideas have no place in controlling your neighbor's life anymore than my religious ideas have any place in determining what you can or can't do.

To break one of our oldest traditions is, in my opinion, wrong and a crime against tradition and God. What is wrong should not be law

I'd say our one true oldest tradition is freedom, and you are damn sure violating that, regardless of anyone's god. It is wrong to do so, and as such it should not be law.

I also believe that banishing polygamy while allowing gay marriage is inconsistent.

Then feel free to lead the fight for polygamy. I don't think you're going to get far with that.

They are both questions of what is traditionally acceptable and what God wills.

What god wills?? What does that have to do with anything? This isn't about what you approve of in your church sermons, but rather what we will recognize legally. And since you're going off of tradition and what your god wills, I better see you fighting just as hard for polygamy as you are against gay marriage.

This is because many people do not believe that polygamy is what marriage is meant to be

Why not? Don't they understand that it's traditionally acceptable and what your god wills?

It has been considered a freedom that will not be legalized.

A freedom cannot be legalized. It can only be abridged or stolen altogether.

This is my second issue with gay marriage, as I find its acceptance inconsistent with choices that we as a people have already made.

I think it'd be interesting to have you sit down and do an audit of the laws across this nation to see just how many "inconsistencies" there are.

Kraggh wrote:This is my second issue with gay marriage, as I find its acceptance inconsistent with choices that we as a people have already made.

The voters in numerous states have approved civil unions, some of which are identical in benefits to marriage save for the ability to get a marriage certificate. Given that such relationships are now acceptable enough to see their official recognition approved by voters, and that people who do not believe in any god -- and may even be outright atheist -- can be married and have that marriage recognized by the state, how could marriage remain defined by what a church believes? And even if it can, which church? The United Church of Christ, a denomination claiming more than 1.1 million adherents, backs gay marriage. Or does their view not count?

I suspect that others will also begin to change their views, since Episcopalians allow gay clergy, and Presbyterians are expected to in the coming years; each of them claims 2.2 million members, and the Episcopal Church allows local dioceses to decide individually whether to bless gay unions, something done in the primate's own diocese in Nevada. What is the difference between sanctifying a marriage and blessing a union?

On a somewhat related note, the various Judeo-Christian denominations cannot even agree on a uniform Ten Commandments. There are at least four versions (Judaic, Catholic, Protestant, and Anglican) in wide use. How then are we to take the words of one church and apply it to the entire country? (I mention this point only in support of the view of a non-unified religious background in this country. I am not intending to start a deep religious discussion on the topic here, so if you want to discuss this point in depth on its own, please start a new thread.)

In California, Prop 8 modified the state Constitution to block gay marriage last year, but another measure is gathering signatures for the 2010 ballot that would overturn that provision, and it's widely expected to pass, given that voter opposition to gay marriage decreased significantly in the past decade. Prop 22, which added a statute that recognized only marriage between a man and a woman, passed in 2000 by a 22.8% margin; Prop 8, which basically added that to the state Constitution, passed by a mere 4.6% margin. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a portion of the electorate may have been confused by Prop 8 and voted for it thinking that it would support gay marriage, or were deceived by its advertising, particularly the one suggesting that churches would be forced to conduct marriages outside of their beliefs, something which could never happen under the First Amendment. (And who would want to get married in a church that didn't accept them?)