Iowa Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Well, i think it is awesome, but it is definitely not over. If enough signatures are gathered in maine, the legislature could be halted until a state-wide vote occurs to see if the people wish to veto the legislature... so it is not all dandy yet...

[psychdesire]

That is great. Tyra had an amazing show about Gay and Lesbian Rights in America. Definitely a start, I agree.

[Jill1228]

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

Nice work, Maine!!!

WOOT! I love it!

[ThetaDancer]

California disappointed me today.

[MexicanMami0286]

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

California disappointed me today.

Same...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

California disappointed me today.

It would have been scary if it had gone the other way. Imagine a court saying that the Constitution was unconstitutional. How absurd would that be? Where do you think the bounds of judicial power should be?

[alphasweetiegir]

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

California disappointed me today.

ditto that

[ThetaDancer]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It would have been scary if it had gone the other way. Imagine a court saying that the Constitution was unconstitutional. How absurd would that be? Where do you think the bounds of judicial power should be?

I do understand why the justices upheld Prop. 8. and I do understand that it was virtually their only choice. And no, I don't think that judges should be legislating from the bench. But at the end of the day, it still makes me pretty sick that bigotry is constitutional. Maybe disappointed wasn't the right word...because really, who could have expected otherwise...but it was still a sad reminder of the state of the situation.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

I do understand why the justices upheld Prop. 8. and I do understand that it was virtually their only choice. And no, I don't think that judges should be legislating from the bench. But at the end of the day, it still makes me pretty sick that bigotry is constitutional. Maybe disappointed wasn't the right word...because really, who could have expected otherwise...but it was still a sad reminder of the state of the situation.

my thoughts exactly...

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It would have been scary if it had gone the other way. Imagine a court saying that the Constitution was unconstitutional. How absurd would that be? Where do you think the bounds of judicial power should be?

Word.

Here's the thing, guys - most of us think that people deserve the same rights across the board. That's cool - however, we also agree there are exceptions . . . felons, the mentally deficient, minors, etc. Each state has the right to decide those exceptions via their own Constitution - and amendments define these things. It would have been puke-inducing to see judges go "nope, the will of the people is stupid, GTFO dorks" - right?

[SWTXBelle]

Right.

But I'm still confused as to how the same-sex marriages BEFORE Prop. 8 can be recognized - that would seem to class homosexuals into two different groups, and that can't be right, er, constitutional. What am I missing?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Right.

But I'm still confused as to how the same-sex marriages BEFORE Prop. 8 can be recognized - that would seem to class homosexuals into two different groups, and that can't be right, er, constitutional. What am I missing?

That same-sex marriages were constitutional between the previous Supreme Court decision declaring prohibition of same-sex marriages unconstitutional and the ratification of Prop 8. The same-sex marriages entered into prior to Prop 8 were legal. The court basically said that they cannot now be illegal -- that they are grandfathered in, so to speak.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

I do understand why the justices upheld Prop. 8. and I do understand that it was virtually their only choice. And no, I don't think that judges should be legislating from the bench. But at the end of the day, it still makes me pretty sick that bigotry is constitutional. Maybe disappointed wasn't the right word...because really, who could have expected otherwise...but it was still a sad reminder of the state of the situation.

One man's bigotry is another man's religious values. Interestingly, the wording of these sorts of propositions avoids the issue of classifications altogether by simply stating that the marriage contract is defined as being between a man (the husband) and the woman (the wife). There's arguably no classification here whatsoever because a gay person has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as does a straight person. That might seem like word play or whatever, but it's a fairly legitimate argument.

The majority spoke and they think marriage = between a man and a woman.

Even if you want to say it's a classification discriminating against homosexuals, then why is that not okay when it's okay to discriminate against people who want to be in polygamous unions or people who want to marry close relatives? Why is it okay that the rules and requirements for divorce vary greatly from state to state?

The bottom line is that states should and always have had the right to define these things for themselves without judges overriding the will of the people. Personally, I think Prop 8 and similar measures are slaps in the face to a lot of very good people. I could even be persuaded to accept polygamous unions if we could figure out some way to not give extra rewards (tax incentives, insurance incentives, etc.) for doing so.

What's happening here is people are confusing what they subjectively see as right vs. wrong with what the law is. Judges shouldn't be basing their decisions (as the lone dissenter would have) on what is right (in their opinion).

[ThetaDancer]

Originally Posted by Kevin

One man's bigotry is another man's religious values. Interestingly, the wording of these sorts of propositions avoids the issue of classifications altogether by simply stating that the marriage contract is defined as being between a man (the husband) and the woman (the wife). There's arguably no classification here whatsoever because a gay person has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as does a straight person. That might seem like word play or whatever, but it's a fairly legitimate argument.

The majority spoke and they think marriage = between a man and a woman.

Even if you want to say it's a classification discriminating against homosexuals, then why is that not okay when it's okay to discriminate against people who want to be in polygamous unions or people who want to marry close relatives? Why is it okay that the rules and requirements for divorce vary greatly from state to state?

The bottom line is that states should and always have had the right to define these things for themselves without judges overriding the will of the people. Personally, I think Prop 8 and similar measures are slaps in the face to a lot of very good people. I could even be persuaded to accept polygamous unions if we could figure out some way to not give extra rewards (tax incentives, insurance incentives, etc.) for doing so.

What's happening here is people are confusing what they subjectively see as right vs. wrong with what the law is. Judges shouldn't be basing their decisions (as the lone dissenter would have) on what is right (in their opinion).

Are you directing this toward me? As I explained, I agree judges shouldn't be basing their decisions on what they see as right v. wrong or going against the will of the people.

[AGDee]

I understand what you're saying, Kevin, but I can see the argument too of someone saying "if the majority say that marriage = man + woman of the same race", then that would also be Constitutional, yet, it's not Constitutional and states can't make that designation.