Here we go again.
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled today that a state law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman was unconstitutional and struck language saying as much from the Iowa code.
If the Hawkeye State has an initiative/referendum process for amending its constitution as does the Golden State, this represents yet another setback for gay marriage. It will galvanize opponents of the institution. My guess is that given the number of social conservatives in Iowa, they could succeed in gathering the requisite signatures within a month.
If more than 52% of Californians voted to overturn as similar decision, expect an even larger majority of Iowans to do the same.
As have all state supreme court decisions mandating the state to recognize same-sex marriages, this one will lead to a popular backlash. When state supreme courts leave this matter to the states, support for popular initiative defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman increases. When they mandate gay marriage, they galvanize the opposition leading to a backlash at the ballot box.
FROM THE COMMENTS: Pink Elephant writes:
Amendments to the iowa consittuion require the proposed language to pass both houses in two separate sessions before it even gets on the ballot. Although it will galvanize opponents to same-sex marraige elsewhere, same-sex marriage in Iowa is safe for a while.
Given the state’s constitution, that sounds about right.
it’s a great day in the midwest! Discrimination and bigotry are such 20th century ideas. Thank goodness the decision was UNANIMOUS!
and in other news, bnl has decided to date women, because he doesn’t want to cling to 20th century ideas like discrimination, and feels both sexes should have to put up with him equally.
The fact that the decision did not have any dissenters is what I find amazing. This is “fly over country”….not the liberal east and left coast. I like the fact that this happened, although I know it will not stand up and I agree that judicial activism is not the way to go. The population needs to get behind the (same sex marriage) idea to make it permanent.
It’s worth noting that Iowa is a liberal state, having voted Democratic in the last several Presidential elections.
Just noting it as general info. Not going anyplace special with it: after all, CA is a liberal state too and, as has been noted on this blog many times, liberals in practice are some of the biggest “homophobes” (real or imagined).
I somewhat agree with you, the first thing I thought about when I heard was whats the constitutional ammendment process for Iowa. If it is very populist in nature like Califorina, then its seems very unlikely that gay marriage will last past 2010..or whenever they do an election. I guess I can hope that is more like Massachutes, which means it might take longer and the issue will be less emotional and have had time to settle in.
I had honestly forgotten that Iowa was even debating same sex marriage case, and it is nice that all the judges ruled the same…maybe that is a better sign than the split votes we have seen.
This decision is absolutely hilarious.
Including this paragraph, quoted from Independent Gay Forum:
“Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all.”
What sound reasoning! Therefore, since pedophiles consider intimacy with adults to be as unappealing as most non-pedophiles consider intimacy with children to be, it is unconstitutional to deny pedophiles the right to marry children. Since bestialists consider intimacy with humans to be as unappealing as most non-bestialists consider intimacy with animals to be, it is unconstitutional to deny bestialists the right to marry animals.
This is what happens when judges ignore the clear letter of the law — or more precisely, the absence of specific statute — and create things out of thin air. No consistency, no thinking, just “We want it, so we’ll make it happen”.
buckeye,
“it’s a great day in the midwest! Discrimination and bigotry are such 20th century ideas. Thank goodness the decision was UNANIMOUS!”
Hmmm, so using your logic, if the Iowa Supreme Court issues a unanimous ruling allowing human sacrifice to address religious and cultural sensitivities, then that’s okay with you too, huh?
Some people don’t even have the slightest clue what “judicial activism” is. This was — as reflected in the unanimous ruling — a very simple case. Equal protection under the law. And since they are the Iowa Supreme Court, they had to rule on the case before them. This isn’t a case of a judiciary run amok. It’s simply doing its job.
But sure, worry about the backlash. That makes sense. The law that was declared unconstitutional was already preventing gay marriage, so it strains credulity to think that somehow this sets it back further.
Also: In NO WAY does the ruling “mandate” gay marriage, it allows for it between two consensual adults. It might be helpful to your cause, whatever it could possibly be, if you could use language correctly.
Judging by the reaction in the blogosphere, the only faction this decision is galvanizing is the liberals. Gay marriage is the next great cultural war, and both sides will come guns blazing.
#6 – Unless he was the one being sacrificed, Mark. 😉
Regards,
Peter H.
I guess the Iowa Supreme court banned abortion tax money because men can’t have abortions.
I’m just happy it is now legal for me to marry all 3 of my 18 year old triplet nieces.
Liberals are dumber than roofing nails.
Jay B. where does it say 2 consenting adults? Why not 4 or 14? I completely understand liberal ideology.
No values, no rules for you, no morals, it’s all easy all the time for libs. But the box has been opened. Morons like you don’t realize the your own lunacy becuase you’re too busy pretending to stand for something. Jay B. you stand for nothing but self indulgance.
ILC – if protecting traditional marriage makes a person a homophobe, does taking a stand against a Christian make one a Christianphobe? If someone disagrees with a liberal point of view they are always targeted with some orwellian term in an attempt to silence them. Instead of protector of traditional marriage it is homophobe.
Jay,
It is considered Judicial activism as the Iowa constitution does not address the issue of marriage at all. Thus it is left to the co-equal branch (the legislature) to define. They did so.
The court decided to interfere, despite the law defining marriage did not keep a gay man or woman from entering into a marriage with one (1) person of the opposite sex. That’s judicial activism.
gus. That made me laugh. I’d love to see someone argue that before the court.
Those who celebrate this decision elevate their parochial interests over the one freedom most important–the right of the people to govern themselves. If it so chooses, society does not have the obligation to give its imprimatur to homosexual conduct. Yet the Iowa Supreme Court says that it does. Who died and made them king?
I don’t believe in gay marriage. I look at the homosexual lifestyle in the same manner I look at swingers–outside the mainstream and not something to which I wish to extend my approval. That said, if someone wishes to engage in such conduct, it’s their choice, and they have every right to engage in it and to be treated with decency and respect. My view is live and let live–I don’t wish to have society approve this conduct, but I also don’t wish any ill on homosexuals. Totally neutral.
Equal protection allows this.
Gee, as one who lives in flyover country, it’s great to y’all being so nice about us hicks. I was just out huskin’ corn with my Uncle Zeke when he showed me his newfangled box-thingie which connects with something he calls the Interweb–
Anyway, don’t be surprised if the people of Iowa don’t vote to undermine a tradition designed for heterosexuals in order to accommodate the shrill cries of a group who has no plans to use marriage and in fact wants to make marriage include open relationships, multiple partners, and serial monogamy.
The people of Iowa are fair. Like me, they don’t support gay marriage, but they do see the need for equal legal relationships and would support civil unions. I would love to cross the border some day and legalize my same-sex covenant with Jason Statham. But the gay activists are going to destroy that possibility with over-the-top protests and a rock-throwing war in front of the Lutheran Churches. Old ladies with signs, wear your helmets!
Comment from Bench Memos
Best line in the decision
“[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.†(p. 16)
So 7 folks in black robes can now define generational standards, but their contemporaries in the (co-equal) legislature can’t.
Also does this mean bnl and others will cheer if this logic were applied to religion? After all a generation of shiara raised men and women want to crush people under the walls, surely their right to do so should be protected under ‘the standards of their generation’
Amendments to the iowa consittuion require the proposed language to pass both houses in two separate sessions before it even gets on the ballot. Although it will galvanize opponents to same-sex marraige elsewhere, same-sex marriage in Iowa is safe for a while.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080120/NEWS10/801200342
I agree that left-liberals throw around the term “homophobe” rather too much. I support gay marriage. I also recognize that it is possible for good and reasonable people to disagree with me without being “homophobes”. And I think Christians should get even with their left-liberal opponents, so to speak, by describing the latter as “theophobes”. (In other words, “theophobe” is a bit tighter and more euphonous than “Christophobe” or “Christianphobe”, IMO 😉 )
“Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all.â€
Absurd reasoning. Here’s a restatement, plugging in other concepts:
“Viewed in the complete context of civil society, including the need to provide for oneself, working at a job is as unappealing to a kleptomaniac as stealing is to a hardworking citizen. Thus, the right of a kleptomaniac to provide for himself only by securing employment or starting his own legitimate business is really no right at all.â€
The point is not to equate homosexuality with criminality, but merely to point out that anything whatsoever can be justified using such reasoning.
Jay B., please note that I flesh out my understanding of the meaning of mandate in the text of the post. I did see the firedoglake link (which likely brought you here) and smiled. I credited those lefties for drawing my attention to the haste with which I pixeled this post.
So, I added a few words to the main body of the text to make clear what I meant–“As have all state supreme court decisions mandating the state to recognize same-sex marriages . . . ” The best titles are, by their nature, short, so I didn’t see it necessary to amend that, esp. since I flesh out the meaning in the text of the post.
And yes, this is judicial activism. It doesn’t just overturn a law, it mandates that the state grant privileges to same-sex couples. And how does it strain credulity to say this sets the marriage movement back?
Look at the record. In the wake of Washington State and New York State Supreme Court decisions affirming state laws defining marriage in its traditional terms, the vote totals in referenda and initiatives so defining marriage fell, with one state’s (Arizona) voters actually defeating such a measure (for the first time ever). Then two years later, the Golden State mandates gay marriage and Arizona’s voters shift course.
Please, please show me an example of a state supreme court ruling mandating state recognition of gay marriage leading to a popular initiative affirming their decision.
After being quoted in the main post, my inability to spell “constitution” is all the more embarrassing
The Democrats hold a 12 seat majority in the state house (56-44) and a 14 seat majority in the state senate (32-18).
That is pretty firm ground. The added weight of the unanimous decision also helps.
Link
Pink Efelant,
Dont wory, wee do’nt take of four speling heere 😉
According to Article X of the Iowa constitution (see it online at the Iowa legislature, open the box at left saying “Iowa Code”, then “Iowa Constitution”, then click on Article X – Amendments), in order to amend the constitution of Iowa, it must be passed by simple majority in both houses, then it must be passed again by the legislature after there is a general election to choose a new legislature (after at least three months of time), and then it must be sent to the people to be voted on. As far as I can tell, there is no initiative process for amending the Iowa constitution.
The only other way would be through a constitutional convention (see section 3 of article X). This requires the people to approve of a convention in a referendum held in years divisible by 10. If this is approved, the convention must be held, and any amendments or a constitution coming from it must themselves be approved via referendum.
Hence, it seems pretty clear to me that if there is going to be a referendum on same-sex marriage in Iowa, it’s at least a few years away.
As I do with everyone else who makes this argument, Live, gotta call you on this. You’ve been listening to a little too much Levin. This is NOT judicial activism. The case in front of the Iowa Supreme Court WAS NOT questioning whether a gay could marry some someone from the opposite sex. There is no provisions on the Iowa , put in place by the legislature that would prevent that. The court case was a direct, specific challenge to a specific law, which prevented people of the same sex from being legally able to marry each other i.e. man to man, woman to woman. You may not like the decision, but this was definitely NOT judicial activism. The Mass court was more appropriately decried as activist because not only did they rule that the law in question was unconstitutional, well within their scope of responsibilities via judicial review, but they then crossed a line when they instructed the legislature to pass a law to their liking.
And it looks like a href=”http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_03_29-2009_04_04.shtml#1238779100″>Iowa doesn’t have the screwed up quickie amendment procedure that California has. So this change is likely to stay.
The opinion was of the activist variety. The court ignored the legislature’s right to enact statutes, and thus entered the arena of legislation itself. On a side note, most (if not all countries) that permit gay marriage have done so through legislative means. Generally, courts have had little to do with creating new rules of law that encompass family relationships and the like (see Canada’s creation of gay marriage, e.g.). But the court did not stop there. It also went over the head of the legislature in declaring that sexual orientation is a protected class in Iowa. This was never before decided by the legislature, and such a determiniation has exclusively remained in the power of the legislature. The opinion also failed to consider or discuss the majority of court opinions in this country that have preserved traditional marriage. Finally, the court admitted that any gay or lesbian has the same right as a heterosexual person to marry someone of the opposite sex (i.e. explaining that traditional marriage concerns gender, not sexuality). But then the court emphasized that it can be considered discrimination to deny someone the right to marry whomever he or she has a sexual attraction to, intimate relationship with, or romantic feelings for. In reading the language, I was struck with visions of the door to polygamy slowly swinging open.
Did they say whether it was ok to marry your sister.
I mean shouldn’t all laws be about what liberals believe is “fair”. And what about consenting sheep??
Jay B. where does it say 2 consenting adults? Why not 4 or 14? I completely understand liberal ideology.
Right. If group marriage proponents want to petition the state in an effort to overturn laws — and take it all the way up to the Supreme Court — they have the right, don’t they? And yet, I haven’t heard about or from such groups, so I’m not much concerned with them or their rights. I have heard from plenty of gay couples however, who are prevented from being treated as equal citizens under the law. Which the Iowa Supreme Court also thinks is Unconstitutional.
Please, please show me an example of a state supreme court ruling mandating state recognition of gay marriage leading to a popular initiative affirming their decision.
Massachusetts. Pretty simple. The state supreme court issued a ruling legalizing marriage, challenged the Legislature to either come up with a better, constitution-friendly, discriminatory law or change the constitution, which the House tried to do (or at least begin the proceedings) and failed. The voters of Massachusetts were free to vote for people who were either for or against gay marriage — and they’ve overwhelmingly voted in favor of those who support it. The fact that there are now MORE pro-gay marriage people in the State Legislature than there were after the SC ruling is, by any definition, an affirmation of their position.
And I bet Vermont will be showing how popular equal rights are when they overturn Douglas’ popular-will defeating veto. But I’m sure you don’t think Douglas is engaging in “activist government” thwarting “the people’s will”.
That’s representative democracy for you. If you want the CA-model, then these anti-minority outcomes are usually, but not always, guaranteed.
I think it’s generally offensive to compare human beings to animals.
To sonicfrog; your logic is that any time the Supreme Court says a law is unconstitutional, by definition that is not judicial activism??
So they could rule that stealing is no longer illegal, cause that is their job?
Judicial activism is when the courts take on the role of legislature and/or executive. They do not base their decision on what the law says but on whatever they want the decision to be.
That is tyranny. We will all rue the day when judges became our new kings and queens.
As others have noted, there is no logic in their decision that would stop 5 people from getting married, just what 7 kings and queens believe that “E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation”.
If Iowans want marriage between two men or two women, it is a decision that is the legislatures, not the Courts.
Sonicfraud, you are incorrect, this was Judicial activism at it’s worst. The judges interpreted the Constitution in a manner that they agreed with. It could have gone either way. THe people of Iowa were clear in their wishes and unless there is clear language in the Constitution that disallows the law, the law should have stood. Thanks for playing. No door prizes for you.
Erik, 2 thoughts come to mind.
1) I was not “comparing” humans to animals and
2) What you find offensive is not my concern.
Get over yourself little one.
Right. If group marriage proponents want to petition the state in an effort to overturn laws — and take it all the way up to the Supreme Court — they have the right, don’t they?
Obviously you haven’t been reading what the ACLU believes and supports.
It’s the Trojan horse approach. Use gay-sex marriage because it’s more popular, get stupid judges to state that equal protection can be redefined at will and that whatever you find most convenient and sexually appealing should be the grounds for marriage, and blammo, the arguments against plural marriage are gone.
Meanwhile, the hilarity of watching the Obama Party get thrown into the meat grinder for this one is great. The Iowa Obama Party has been whining that Iowa didn’t need a constitutional amendment and has been progressively trying to block it. Now that argument is undercut completely, and they have to choose sides. Wonder which one they’ll choose?
Jay, it is really quite simple. Gays have exactly the same rights as everyone else. They are free to marry someone that the State Laws allow anyone else to marry.
I certainly understand the moronic tripe you are trying to foist, but it doesn’t fly son. The court made law. That is not their job. Why do liberals hate America so much that they cannot abide her and her laws and traditions?
Is it because you liberals are freaks, fruits and nuts?
I wouldn’t piss on a liberal if he/she was on fire, because you are all vile losers. The one thing I can say for sure about you and your ilk. You (liberals) are not honest.
Jay, I’m sorry you aren’t honest.
I think it’s generally offensive to compare human beings to animals.
Pedophiles think it’s offensive to be called weirdos and banned from having sex with children.
And now, under the Iowa decision, not only can they argue that your bans on them are offensive and a violation of equal protection, they can argue that since they find intimacy with adults unappealing, their right to marry adults is no right at all, and therefore they should be allowed to marry children.
The more I read this thing, the more rube-ish it appears.
Well, screwed that link up.
It’s here.
Gus
Call it activism if you want. The simple fact is that one of the main reasons for the courts to exhist is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Was it Judicial activism when the courts struck down seperate but equal laws? Yes. Struck down white only bathrooms? Yes. Many at the time made the same arguments about those pesky judges. If the majority was allowed to vote they would have put those laws right back into play. Thats why judges are often appointed for life.
And gay patriot, your comments about this setting back the cause are suspiciously like the southern preachers letter to Martin Luther King to back off his marches.
I suggest you read Kings Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
Eric in Austin
North Dallas, bingo. How does the government have the authority to say a 12 year old girl cannot marry her Uncle? The Iowa Court has decided that “fairness” is allowing that which society, laws, and traditions have said is not acceptable. Liberals destroy our culture and traditions by bastardizing what words mean.
Marriage is for the propagation of the human race and for the stability of society. I’m not suggesting gays cannot “do” each other to their hearts (and other parts) delight. But no cutural traditions are safe from liberals and their wants. Liberals always try to find a way around the rules.
No North Dallas the pedophile argument doesn’t work and never did.
Children cannot give consent so it is rape which is a violation of the childs rights
Slippery slope arguments are lazy.
Try agian.
Eric in Austin
The court made law. That is not their job.
These sentences are idiotic. Of course it’s the courts’ job to interpret law — which is what they’ve done here. You don’t like the decision. You can even think it’s wrong on the merits. But it’s moronic to argue that the Supreme Court doesn’t have the right to rule on a law, and overturn it if they think it is unconstitutional. What do you think Courts do? Accept whatever comes out of a Legislature as right and correct? What’s the point of a Supreme Court then?
There is a mechanism for the state to overturn the decision and make a constitutional law — and to do that, they have to pass an amendment.
Why do liberals hate America so much that they cannot abide her and her laws and traditions?
Why do conservatives claim to love America so much that they can’t be bothered to learn about simple things like “checks and balances” or “the stone obvious role of the Judiciary?”
North Dallas
The pedophile analogy is silly and is getting tiresome.
Pedophiles have sex with children. Children cannot give consent for sex and therefor, the act is rape, a clear violation of the childs rights.
Slippery slope arguments like that are lazy, try again.
Eric in Austin
Jay, either you are willfully dishonest or you are an idiot.
Which one do you choose? It’s the dishonest choice isn’t it.
You are fully aware that this court legislated from the bench. It is quite easy to interpret the equal protection as applying to men marrying men, but it is equally easy to say that it doesn’t apply for obvious and biological reasons. That not withstanding nor being debated on it’s merits (biology that is) , this court ruled based on their own personal biases. The law is not illegally discriminative. You know that, and you know the reasons why the court made this bad ruling. Your problem is projection. Like most dimwitted liberals you project your biases on others. The court has a duty to protect and defend the Constitution not to mold it to what they want it to be or mean. Liberals don’t believe that any rules apply to them and liberals stamp their feet and have tantrums until they get their way.
You nor I live in Iowa, though I do have family there. This ruling doesn’t affect me directly, but it stinks none the less. You know it’s absurd, but because you are a liberal you go along because your weak flawed morally bankrupt ideology outweighs your tiny brain and virtually non-existant honesty.
Since we did human beings need marriage to procreate? I really don’t get the line of logic that says marriage is for creating children…when humans have been around a lot longer than the institution of marriage. Marriage probably came about for more political reasons, since more ancient marriages were done for power, wealth, influence, etc.
So say that Marriage exists for some one sole purpose is to ignore the history of the institution and how it has evolved. Marriages today are a far cry from what they were a in the past, they are hardly done for anything more than people being in love.
And cultures and traditions change, thats the natural progression of history…sometimes its good and sometimes it bad. I prefer to see this as a good change.
Stepping aside from the claims of juducial advocacy or activist judges, just wanted to clarify one thing… A court does have a limited right to a statute enacted by the legislature. Just because the legislature passes a bill and the governor signs it into law does not mean it is sacrosanct. Indeed, this is one of the two basic functions of the courts — the other acting as arbiter between parties in dispute. The limit to that right, of course, is a test as to whether the law is unconstitutional. A court should not overturn a statute simply because the judges don’t like it. I think there’s plenty of room for disagreement as to whether or not the statute actually was constitutional or, more broadly, whether state or federal constitutions should be interpreted through an evolving, “living” perspective of what a particular constitution provision means, but courts not only have the right but a duty to protect all citizens from unconstitutional laws. One such recent example were the DC anti-gun laws and the Heller decision. I didn’t hear many conservatives claiming “judicial activism” on that, even though it overturned the laws enacted by the city’s democratically elected representatives. (And, FWIW, as a resident of DC, I agree with the decision in Heller, too.)
Er… that should be a “limited right to interpret a statute…” (Bit distracted, listening to the news of the shooting.)
Gus:
Talk about throwing a tantrum. Quit stamping your foot and take a few deep breaths.
The court didn’t legislate from the bench. They simply confirmed that individual rights were being violated and correctly ruled that the Iowa constitution did not allow that.
The law very much is discriminative and the majority decision agreed with that.
Weak flawed ideology? I’ll take Jays ideology over Gus’s insulting rants any day.
Eric in Austin
The court has a duty to protect and defend the Constitution not to mold it to what they want it to be or mean.
So, the Court can’t interpret what the Constitution means? In what world does this make sense? Why do you need Courts then? In this world Law is law and law is inflexible and determinate.
I’m granting that you are sincere that you think this is a liberal plot against tradition, but your reading of the Judiciary’s role is ignorant. It’s an equal member of government. Not a rubber stamp for codifying laws.
So you are arguing that the court does not have the right of judicial review?
As it should. The court is deciding what is constitutional IN Iowa, not the ret of the United States. I’m sure the defense in this case did bring up the fact that SSM is not legal in other states. But again, the court is deciding what the law is in Iowa. As far as other countries go, I would assume that you, just as I did, severely criticized Judge Kennedy for referring to foreign courts when deciding the law on the death penalty for murderers under the age of 18.
Uh, the legislature of Iowa already passed a law that states that sexual orientation is a protected class. This is why it’s always a good idea to fact check before you post something.
spam filter.
The court didn’t ‘interpret the constution’ The constution in Iowa is silent on the issue. Therefore, it falls to the legislature. Keep in mind that phrase.
“[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.†(p. 16)
So those folks who are cheering this arguement, lets take this a step backwards ok?
The DSM III had homosexuality as a mental disorder. Lets say the DSM VI has it relisted. By supporting this decision, you’re supporting that the state has a compelling interest to institutionalize gay people and subject them to electric shock therapy since “equal protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.†And the state should protect the mentally ill and help them.
In fact, you should be tolerant and understanding of older folks who grew up when the DSM III was the standard, after all, that generation’s standard of equal protection included caring for the mentally ill.
Heck, the civil war was wrong since “[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.†clearly showed the standards of the south gave equal protection to their slaves.
In fact, aren’t ‘the standards of each generation’ determined by a majority?
Or left handed people for that matter, our brains are clearly wired differently, so if it’s a condition to be treated…
Dangit Pink Elephant! Now you’ve got -me- misspelling constitution. 😉
For those trying to make this a “oooh! those liberals!1!!” case, also note in the 4 states where the SC ruled about the unconstitutionality of laws preventing gay marriage, 3 out of the 4 majority opinions were written by jurists appointed by Republicans.
In Massachusetts, the ruling was written by Justice Margaret Marshall (appointed by Weld).
In California, the ruling was written by Justice Ronald George (appointed by Wilson).
In Connecticut, the ruling was written by Justice Richard Palmer (appointed by ex-Republican Lowell Weicker).
And in Iowa, the ruling was written by Justice Mark Cady (appointed by Branstad).
“So they could rule that stealing is no longer illegal, cause that is their job?”
What keeps people who make these silly arguments from eating worms and running into traffic?
I didn’t hear many conservatives claiming “judicial activism†on that, even though it overturned the laws enacted by the city’s democratically elected representatives.
Kind of hard to claim the judiciary is activist when it’s reading what is specifically spelled out in the Federal constitution.
You have the right to marry to whomever you’re sexually attracted? Not quite so much.
I would reiterate that the court’s decision was judicial activism that is unrecognized in the democratic world. Of the western nations that have granted specified rights to same-sex couples (whether styled as marriage or civil union), no nations created or granted rights through the judicial process. Spain, Belgium, Holland, the UK, and France all created rights through parliamentary means. Likewise with Canda. The magnitude of this issue and the redefining of an institution that has been the foundation of societies for thousands of years should be placed before the vote of each nation’s people, not a handful of people who are without accountability. If there is a desire to change the institution of marriage, then let it come from the populace. Let there be discussion and dialogue. So often today, the mere mention of preserving traditional marriage is immediately labeled as bigotry and the discussion closed. It is easy to refuse a dialogue, limit another’s voice through labeling, and then keep the discussion out of the spotlight and in the dark chambers of a few activist judges. Unfortunately, such a process will never be accepted by a general populace who never felt that its voice was heard.
I’m confused. Some of our gay conservative friends seem to be arguing against same sex marriage. I understand if they don’t like the methodology (I’d much rather this go through the legislatures than the courts), but it seems quite a few of you (yes, ND30, I’m looking at you) are arguing against same sex marriage. Am I misunderstanding?
Judicial activism once again, and it will be interesting to see if it galvanizes opposition to gay marriage in Iowa. I’m a little tired of my friends trumpeting “Iowa is schooling California on gay marriage!” and the like. Hello! The same thing happened in California with Prop 22, which is what spurred Prop 8.
Having said that, a dear friend from high school — who sang at my wedding — lives in Iowa and is now able to legally marry his long-term boyfriend. And I’m very happy for him.
And yet we have the liberals in charge in DC.
If it could have gone either way, then how could it be judicial activism? By your own admission, the decision they came to was within the parameters of possibilities. The only reason you are labeling the decision “activist” is because you don’t agree with the conclusion.
Next please!
Like all constitutions, Iowa’s is silent on many things but equal protection, which that state’s Supremes found the SSM ban a violation of, isn’t one of them. Disagree with their ruling? Great! Feel free to avail yourself of the amendment process then.
No need: this reasoning is ridiculous, an absurd farce and specious at best. Nevertheless, in general I believe such SSM bans are unconstitutional but have zero idea about Iowan precedence or law on equal protection under their constitution. I’d wager that neither do you.
Really? Where, exactly? Surely you don’t mean the 14th Amendment since segregation and interracial marriage are not “specifically spelled out” and were thought to be perfectly in line with the Constitution until “activist” judges found otherwise in the century AFTER the amendment was adopted (kiss strict constructionism bye-bye). Just like a gay or lesbian doesn’t have their rights infringed because they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex in your reasoning, prior to Loving the argument was similiar because one was free to marry persons of the same race.
I would reiterate that the court’s decision was judicial activism that is unrecognized in the democratic world. Of the western nations that have granted specified rights to same-sex couples (whether styled as marriage or civil union), no nations created or granted rights through the judicial process. Spain, Belgium, Holland, the UK, and France all created rights through parliamentary means. Likewise with Canada.
Wrong.
“In 1999, same-sex couples in Canada were entitled to receive many of the financial and legal benefits commonly associated with marriage in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in M. v. H. [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3. However this decision stopped short of giving them the right to full legal marriage. Most laws which affect couples are within provincial rather than federal jurisdiction. As a result, rights varied somewhat from province to province.
In 2002 and 2003, court decisions in the federal courts of three provinces then required the federal government to implement full same-sex marriage within the next two years:
* in Ontario: Halpern et. al. v. Canada (Ontario Superior Court, July 12, 2002)
* in Quebec: Hendricks v. Quebec (Quebec Superior Court, September 6, 2002)
* in British Columbia: Barbeau v. British Columbia 2003 BCCA 251 (Court of Appeal for BC, May 1, 2003)
Also, in places like Vermont and Massachusetts (and from a Legislative perspective, California) have all voted in favor of gay marriage. Massachusetts in exactly the same circumstances as Canada.
Surely you don’t mean the 14th Amendment since segregation and interracial marriage are not “specifically spelled out†and were thought to be perfectly in line with the Constitution until “activist†judges found otherwise in the century AFTER the amendment was adopted (kiss strict constructionism bye-bye).
What I was referring to was the Second Amendment and its very clear prohibition on restricting the right to bear arms. The Thirteenth and the Fifteenth Amendments provide ample context in which to interpret the Fourteenth relative to interracial marriage and segregation.
Furthermore, John, since you want to try to quote Loving, I will remind you that just a few years later, in Baker v. Nelson, the very same Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to a gay marriage ban “for want of a Federal question”, thus making it clear that gay marriage bans did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Since you consider the judiciary the ultimate power in the universe, why do you hypocritically demand gay marriage bans be overturned when the court has already decided that they’re not unconstitutional?
To No. 57,
Not every homo agrees with gay marriage (by legislation OR judicial decree). Get over it.
Only if one wants to violate the very reasoning you’ve been championing. Why was Brown constitutional yet Plessy was not? Why were McLaughlin and Loving constitutional yet Pace was not? All cited the 14th Amendment and the only diffference was the make-up of SCOTUS when each ruling was given. Funny thing though, by virtue of strict constructionalism, the earlier decisions are far more in line with the “original intent” that existed when the 14th Amendment was adopted than the later rulings were.
You do every time, NDT, and I’ll remind you once again that you have yet to provide any valid reason why I should view Baker as being different from Plessy. Or Pace. Or Elk. Or portions of Strauder. Or Berea College. Or the Civil Right Cases of 1883. Or Korematsu.
I do? Since when? Nope, unlike you I consider the judiciary the Third Branch of Government as outlined in the US Constitution. Now since this particular decision today involves the Iowa Constitution and not the Federal, I surmise their state system holds likewise but I could be wrong. I’d wager you haven’t a clue either.
Project much, NDT? Whether you believe I am being hypocritical or not is irrelevant for I may “demand” whatever I please as guaranteed by the First Amendment – just as you may caterwaul and make an ass of yourself online as you frequently do. Now whether any of our three branches of government decide to pay heed to our collective kvetching is another matter entirely because such isn’t protected by the US Constitution at least.
PS. Just noticed. Sonicfraud…. Wow. That’s clever.
Is it reasonable to assume that this will light a fire under marriage amendment supporters in other states?
understand if they don’t like the methodology (I’d much rather this go through the legislatures than the courts), but it seems quite a few of you (yes, ND30, I’m looking at you) are arguing against same sex marriage. Am I misunderstanding?
No, you’re not.
Marriage is an institution that has evolved through thousands of years to meet the needs, issues, and societal impact that opposite-sex couples produce, primarily in terms of children.
Gay couples are not opposite-sex couples, nor should they try to be. Instead of dealing with the very real issues of irresponsibility, promiscuity, and narcissistic behavior that cause the vast majority of problems for gay people, the gay community has instead tried to blame them on the absence of marriage, which is neither defensible or psychologically advisable. Furthermore, when gays who are used to promiscuity and casual adulterous behavior try to live within the confines of marriage, either they will have to change or they will demand that the requirements of marriage be lessened and eliminated to accomodate their needs — and I wouldn’t place bets on the former.
Funny thing though, by virtue of strict constructionalism, the earlier decisions are far more in line with the “original intent†that existed when the 14th Amendment was adopted than the later rulings were.
Indeed they are. And in fact they made it clear that such decisions were up to the states, the majority of which had already repealed or never put in place such statutes at the times that Brown and Loving came up.
The question is whether or not you want the courts to mandate things that are not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution and claim that “generational differences” allow them to do it. I would far much prefer that the courts stick to the document and let generational differences be expressed through the legislatures and the voters. Obviously you believe that judges should ignore both and do as they please depending on the political fad of the moment.
This would imply that a future generation can define equal protection to exclude sexual orientation or behavior.
once again, gaypatriot.net states it’s opposition to equality under the law. Glad to see gay conservatives are leading the way for gay rights!
Erik,
You forgot to mention that Iowa’s governor is also a Dem. So the question is, why did the Dems, with complete control of the legislative process, let a gay marriage bill die in committee just two weeks ago?? That reveals an absence of commitment to liberty on the part of the party that its supporters prefer to ignore.
That’s hilarious, Kevin, given that gay-sex liberals like yourself support bans on marriage when your Obama Party massas support them.
What that shows quite nicely is that “equality” means nothing when it comes out of the mouth of an Obama Party member.
Once again, Kevin opens his mouth and removes all doubt.
So why bother trying to make a specious argument about the 13th & 14th Amendments prohibiting bans on interracial marriage and laws supporting segregation? It’s clear that in your mindset states may repeat history if they so choose irregardless of the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Sorry NDT, but Federalism doesn’t give States the power to pick and choose what rights they want to respect and which ones they do not.
Putting aside for the moment that most states did in fact have such statutes in place until the 1950s, and bans fell in such states as California thanks not to the will of the people but due to “judicial activism”, are you really trying to make the argument that the courts can “legislate from the bench” only if a majority of States are either neutral or on the winning side of the issue at stake? So much for Federalism then and your argument.
Like striking down anti-miscenegation laws? Like mandating integration? The question for you apparently is only relevant when you disagree with a particular outcome and not on the merits of the case before the courts.
Rather opaque “obviousness” since I missed this belief myself that I supposedly hold, but then inconsistent reasoning and ad hominem were always your forte…
#47 ericl proclaims:
1.What is the well established “right” that was being violated?
2.) Oh! They found a previously unrecognized “right?”
3.) What established legal basis did they use to support this “right?”
4.) Did they find that the Iowa Constitution protects unidentified rights?
The title of the post alone is comedy gold. Presumable if I’m a Hawkeye I’m “mandated” to marry among my gender.
LOL. God bless the comedy sites who’ve turned me on to you, GP.
Since many of the commenters here seem to be self-made Constitutional scholars, I’d recommend reading Mark Levin’s book “Liberty & Tyranny” and then coming back with your thoughts about the intent of the Judiciary by the Founding Fathers.
So why bother trying to make a specious argument about the 13th & 14th Amendments prohibiting bans on interracial marriage and laws supporting segregation?
You might wish to read what I actually said, John.
What I was referring to was the Second Amendment and its very clear prohibition on restricting the right to bear arms. The Thirteenth and the Fifteenth Amendments provide ample context in which to interpret the Fourteenth relative to interracial marriage and segregation.
Next:
It’s clear that in your mindset states may repeat history if they so choose irregardless of the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Marriage is not a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. If it were, bans on child marriage, incestuous marriage, plural marriage, and bestial marriage would be unconstitutional. It is a privilege granted by society to those to whom society deems it useful to extend it.
The question for you apparently is only relevant when you disagree with a particular outcome and not on the merits of the case before the courts.
It’s interesting that you say that, John, because your argument is quite obviously that the courts should ignore the merit and instead find reasons to produce a particular outcome. We see that particular degree of idiocy in the Iowa decision, in which the justices, in a rather desperate attempt to explain why they were overturning established law, magically conjured a right to “intimacy” in which you have to grant marriage to whatever relationship sexually excites a person the most.
Justice Scalia put it best when he pointed out that just because he disagrees with a law doesn’t make it unconstitutional. The Constitution is not a document that judges can mold at will to fit whatever outcome they wish. It is a document that explicitly guarantees certain rights, primarily the one for voters to govern themselves, and only abridges that for very specific instances.
This isn’t one of them.
Trying again. Apparently my first non-obscene comment was deleted by our ubiquitous censors.
With respect to the slippery slope argument, if I can get J. Aniston and A. Jolie to marry me, what of it? Doesn’t that make me some sort of genius in society’s eyes?
Sorry, folks. I just can’t get very worked up about who people choose to love and commit to. The human condition is infinite in its complexity, and I offer our host as proof.
Let me just remind the people and Dear Soon EX-Supreme Court Judges that it is never over till it is over…..and IT’S NOT OVER! Enough said. Time for ACTION!
Here we go again indeed.
Jim Burroway has posted extensively about the ruling at Box Turtle Bulletin. (Last time I checked he had three posts up on it.)
From the comments to these posts, Id say most BTB readers are jumping for joy at the ruling. Of course, I couldn’t just let that go. 😉
At this post I left the following comment:
It will be very interesting to see how Burroway, Tim Kincaid, and the loyal BTB readers respond to my, uh, ‘heresy.’
CLDavid, I hope you’re not expecting logic from them. Nearly every comment to this post (note, I say nearly) has been emotional, if not wildly so. . . .
DING DING DING: Here it is, right here, codified by the Supreme Court of Iowa…this is ALL about validation:
This decision is one of the biggest loads of liberal crap I have ever read. They cite books by the extremely liberal partisan hack Cass Sunstein, but cant bother to even mention Baker v Nelson in which the equal protection issue has already been settled and upheld by SCOTUS.
Congratulations Iowa, you no longer rule yourselves.
Oh calm down “patriot.” Under Iowa law, it takes 3 years before an amendment can even be proposed.
I did. Not my problem if you choose to persist with sloppy reasoning.
Yet the US Constitution does guarantee equal protection. Again, why are McLaughlin and Loving constitutional while Pace is not? Now this case in Iowa was decided upon that State’s constitution which in Section 6 has a far more encompassing text on this matter than even the US 14th Amendment.
Really? Or are you talking out of your ass again in complete ignorance of the Iowa Constitution and legal precedence in that state? Finding it difficult to move past the talking points and actually deal with the facts of this particular case? A cursory reading of Article I Sections 1 & 6 finds language with enough ways for interpretation that a jurist would have quite a chore arriving at a good decision.
Indeed. Of course anything Justice Scalia has to say on this or other matters involving the Iowa Constitution have no legal standing whatsoever.
One that also guarantees equal protection as well, which Congress lacks the competence to abrogate.
So John,
If “[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.†led the court to embrace Islamic law as the standards of the generation, you’d be the first to line up to be crushed?
CLDave’s right, you’re trading validation for freedom.
No, because the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision would be tossed out by SCOTUS due to its violating the US 1st Amendment. You forget, I find this line from the ISC’s ruling to be specious at best for constitutional justification even if some precedence can be found there. How else do you explain why Plessy is unconstitutional now, while Brown is okay?
Instead of dealing with the very real issues of irresponsibility, promiscuity, and narcissistic behavior that cause the vast majority of problems for gay people, the gay community has instead tried to blame them on the absence of marriage, which is neither defensible or psychologically advisable. Furthermore, when gays who are used to promiscuity and casual adulterous behavior try to live within the confines of marriage, either they will have to change…
NDT, I know you like to dismiss me as a gay sex liberal (which you’ll just have to take my word is not true) but this was a thoughtful post from you and I wanted to respond in kind. (Your response concerning the Heller decision was similarly reasoned, and I appreciate it and recognize the distinction you were drawing even if I disagree with the fundamental point.) So, let me say with respect, it sounds to me that you have a very negative view of gay men and that leads to some pretty broad and sweeping generalizations. However, like most generalizations, yours are rooted in some truth. As I’ve said, I know the types of men you are referring to and I won’t pretend they don’t exist or even that they aren’t a sizable portion of the “community”. But, speaking only for myself, my partner and I have been in a monogomous relationship for almost five years now. We’ve been “married” (under Massachusetts law) for more than 1.5 of those years. We don’t go to sex parties, we don’t bring guys home for threesomes, we don’t cheat on each other, etc. So, when I hear you say stuff like this, I can only assume you’re trying to lump people like my partner and me into the same category, and that’s when I think rational discussion starts to break down. We are not used to promiscuity or casual adulterous behavior, and we don’t have to change. However, the arguments you and others make here to me refer to a subset of the gay community that, frankly, does not want to get married… they don’t want to destroy the institution, they don’t care about it. The ones who care — speaking only from my personal experience, friends and acquaintances — are already in long-term monogomous relationships. That’s it.
This is what gay activists are doing when they sue for same-sex marriage in court. People who believe that governments obtain their just authority from the consent of the governed shouldn’t cheer these activist — and their tunnel-vision — on.
Good lord. This is what passes for “logic” on rightwing sites? Under this logic, why would anyone go to court to redress anything when they should — again by this logic — simply petition the government for “just authority”? I’ve asked this question at least 3 times on this thread — what do you people see as the role of the Judiciary? You don’t like the ruling, I get it, but this is simply a ruling — and from a bi-partisan (the Iowa SC has conservative and liberal members) perspective, the obvious one to make.
So if, in 10 years, the supreme court of Iowa revisits this decision and reverses it, you’ll be cool with that Jay?
Damnation, hit send too soon.
And the court did not rule on what the constitution said. It ruled on what it felt like.
As was pointed out earlier, and not refuted, one could argue this makes abortion, or heck a C-section, unconstitutional, as it can’t be proved equally.
And John, it’s not a specious arguement. SCOTUS has ruled that the first ammendment doens’t protect politival speech (McCain Feingold) that one can declare something cruel and unusual by ‘a consensus of states’ that doesn’t exist (LA Death Penalty) and that we should review international law to make decisions. (various Ginsburg opinions)
So, since we have courts that look at everything but the constitution, your relying on them ruling in your favour, rather than what the constitution says.
CLDave hit it on the nose.
How do you know? Are you an expert now on the Iowa Constitution and Iowa legal precedents? This decision was based on those items, not the US Constitution.
Under the Iowa Constitution or Iowa legal precedents? Perhaps, but perhaps not since I haven’t a clue myself and I doubt you do either.
Yes, the same court which once ruled that blacks had no legal standing whatsoever (Dred Scott), that the 14th Amendment permitted segregation (Plessy) and bans on interracial marriage (Pace), that American citizens without trial can be detained against their will indefinitely (Korematsu), that contrary to the Takings Clause of the 4th Amendment Americans could lose their property for just about any reason (Kelo), etc. What I called specious was the Iowa SC’s wording about how equal protection apparently is decided upon the more’s of the day instead of constitutional scrutiny.
No, actually he ducked the same questions you and NDT did: why is Plessy unconstitutional now while Brown isn’t? Why is Pace unconstitutional now while Loving isn’t? Etc.
I’ll put to you the same question I put to Jay then. Would you cheer the court on, in 10 years, if it chages its mind?
And this might come as a novel concept to you, so I’ll aswer your question slowly the court gets things wrong They did in Dred Scott, they did in Komestsu, and the IA court did here.
That’s why a republic doesn’t rely on men in black robes to make law.
Obviously not. Of course, neither your opinion on these matters nor mine mean squat in legal proceedings – especially as both of us are non-Iowans so lack even a remote semblance of standing in this case.
Yet on what basis do you claim any of these, or the others I cited, are unconstitutional? Again, why is Pace unconstitutional now while Loving passes muster? Both rely upon interpretation of the 14th Amendment and I guarantee you that Pace is more in line with the “original intent” of the authors. Why the dichotomy here?
Of course not. We rely upon men and women in black robes to interpret laws and rule on the constitutionality of legislation and actions of the executive. This includes ensuring that the minority’s constitutional rights are not being trampled upon by the majority.
So if, in 10 years, the supreme court of Iowa revisits this decision and reverses it, you’ll be cool with that Jay?
No. But what does that have to do with anything? The U.S. Supreme Court often rules in a way I’m disappointed with, but I don’t question their standing to decide the constitutionality of the issues before them.
And the Iowa S.C. might even have a reason to revisit this decision within the framework of the Iowa Constitution (although I truly doubt it) — but even if they did and I disagreed with them overturning an earlier decision, this kind of thing happens and it’s entirely within their rights as a court.
That said, it doesn’t take a legal scholar to understand the language or the logic of their decision, even if you disagree with it. Indeed, it seems plainly obvious why they ruled the way they did, unanimously. They believed the ban was unconstitutional. This is entirely within their job description and entirely defensible.
So what’s your point? That Dred Scott was a bad decision? That courts aren’t infallible? Do you think I’m somehow arguing to the contrary? So far here, the host has mocked “constitutional scholars” without once actually contradicting a constitutional point (while accusing us of over emoting) and not countering my point about Massachusetts even after asking for an example (which was “Massachusetts”), you somehow conflate my support for judicial review for some kind of papal infallibility, someone else thinks such a thing is unprecedented in the annals of Western Civilization (talk about dramatic) even though Canadian courts forced the Legislature to pass pro-gay marriage laws and I get called dishonest by a guy who thinks homosexuality is a crime against God and nature.
It’s been fun.
MinnesotaGuy said:
“if protecting traditional marriage makes a person a homophobe, does taking a stand against a Christian make one a Christianphobe? If someone disagrees with a liberal point of view they are always targeted with some orwellian term in an attempt to silence them. Instead of protector of traditional marriage it is homophobe.”
Actually, you want to exclude all same-sex couples. That’s an entire group of people that, without knowing them personally, you want to deny the joy and security of marriage, which the US Supreme Court described as a fundamental right. If you took a similar stand against all Christians, or all obese people, exactly how do you think others would perceive your views of those groups? Love?
Going back to high-school civics class:
1) the purpose of the judicial branch is to keep the legislative and executive branches in check.
2) the constitution is the ultimate law of the land
3) no act of the legislative branch can negate or contradict the constitution.
In Varnum v. Brien, the Iowa Supreme Court was asked to perform its duty to the republic and determine if Iowa’s 1998 statute limiting marriage was constitutional. If you have not done so, please take the time to read the full decision and pay attention to the process involved in reaching the decision. Based on the arguments provided, the court determined that the 1998 statute was unconstitutional by violating the equal protection clause. This is not judicial activism – because the judiciary did not perform the duties of the legislature or the executive branch – rather, the Iowa Supreme Court exercised the power granted to them by the Iowa Constitution (article V section 4) to “correct errors at law.” Is the jugement progressive? Absolutely. Is it judicial activism? No. The net effect of this decision is that the 1998 statute is repealed, which is well within the judiciary’s prescribed powers. It would only be legislating from the bench if the court created new legislation, which they did not do.
When reading the full decision, also pay attention to the discussion relating to legislative classifications and the equal protection clause. You wouldn’t be able to legalize theft because thieves wouldn’t meet the criteria for a legislative classification allowed equal protection.
Regarding the excerpt from the jugement that “[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation”: The standard of this generation has been defined in Iowa by the legislature granting sexual orientation as a protected class.
Personally, I believe Professor Hutchinson does an exemplary job of discussing the rhetoric of judicial activism:
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/04/reply-to-empty-argument-that-iowa.html
Chad, it is judicial activism because the court made a public policy decision and overturned a statute which is based on generations, millennia even of human history and common law.
Such social changes are best left to the judiciary.
And if you’ll look at the all the landmark Supreme Court decisions,
they have their roots in the clear intention of the authors of various Constitutional Amendments and federal statutes.
Perhaps, as in Massachusetts, you’ll find that when the Iowa legislature passed the non-discrimination law, they made clear they did mean to mandate gay marriage (as the minority in Goodridge pointed out). But, unless the intent of the legislators, in creating a protected class for gay people, said this meant marriage, then the court clear overreached.
I mean, isn’t the 1998 statute a law as well, so the Court is then picking and choosing which laws to enforce and which to overturn?
A slippery slope there. And one that deeply troubles me.
Equal protection itself is a concept that overturns millenia of human history and common law. Well, until at least the rudminetary beginnings of this concept with Magna Carta. We have a constitution for a reason and tradition isn’t a sufficient reason to suppress the rights guaranteed to everyone.
I assume you mean the legislature here, which I would agree with you on. However, the judiciary has a role in this as well which our system of government establishes.
No they didn’t. How can you argue with a straight face that Brown and Loving did? The authors of the 14th Amendment did NOT have interracial marriage in mind and never would have been able to get the votes to pass this if they tried. That’s as much a misreading of our history as the “Noble First American” nonsense from the Left.
Gay Patriot – You are wrong and Chad is right. The state ratified an “equal protection” clause in its constitution. This is a democratic provision that serves as the basis for the court’s ruling. If courts cannot strike down laws, then why have courts? If laws must trump constitutional principles, why have constitutions? Your arguments make courts and constitutions absolutely unecessary. Whatever the “legislature” says is “the law.”
Your arguments would also justify things like gender discrimination and racial segregation — which continued to exist by statute and court doctrine long after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, your argument would negate the need for a clause discussing how to amend the constitution. If “legislation” is the last word, then why have an amendment process?
Question: since “equal protection” means that you cannot stop people from getting married, why then, are the courts not overturning bans on plural marriage, incestuous marriage, child marriage, and bestial marriage as “unequal”?
Answer: because “equal protection” is simply an out used by leftist judges who want to make law and need a “constitutional” provision to do it. When they say “equal”, they don’t really mean “equal”; they mean, “whatever is socially and politically popular at the moment”.
The ludicrousness of the Iowa justices continues to amaze me. They have established that the primary judgment of whether or not a marriage ban violates equal protection is the inconvenience of the person who wants to marry whatever, and that whether or not a person finds marriage restrictions “unappealing” should be the grounds for whether or not they’re constitutional. Nothing in there is said about society’s right to make its own rules and judge what it considers acceptable. Indeed, this decision can easily be rewritten as follows:
“Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person over the age of 18 is as unappealing to a pedophile or ephebophile as civil marriage with a person under the age of 18 is to a non-pedophile or ephebophile. Thus, the right of a pedophile or ephebophile under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with an individual over the age of 18 is no right at all.â€
If laws must trump constitutional principles, why have constitutions?
But, as I pointed out, insisting that “equal protection” requires marriage for gay couples while denying it for other citizens of various sexual proclivities totally contradicts the meaning of the word “equal”. Indeed, since not all heterosexual couples are allowed to get married under Iowa state law, the court is inconsistently applying its doctrine — which is patently UNEQUAL.
Whatever else you can say about those oh so activist judges, NDT, you cannot claim that they were enforcing what is “socially and politically popular at the moment.” By the testimony of all the grand and glorious conservatives that so selflessly save us from ourselves, same sex marriage is anything but popular these days.
And again and again, you seem to have this weird idea that marriage is something you do TO someone else, a child, a beast, a lover, maybe a tree, who knows. It always seems to come down to one party wanting something out of some selfish desire and an evil group of judges handing over someone else to satisfy that urge. You never seem to think of it in terms of two adults doing something with each other. Why is that?
North Dallas Forty (#102 & #103) –
This is getting to be nothing more than fear-mongering. Take your argument from #102 regarding pedophila. IF a case similar to Varnum v Brien were brought before the court, the state could argue that legislation against pedophila (and a legislative classification identifying pedophiles) were necessary and substantially related to the achievement of the governmental objective of protecting children. In that situation, the governmental objective and the corresponding legislative classification would undoubtedly pass intermediate scrutiny (as explained in the full judgment), in which case such an appellate challenge would fail.
#103 The court only decides on the issues presented by the cases it hears. As a result, the court only decided on the issue of gay marriage, since that was the core issue in Varnum v Brien. Therefore it is fully possible for there to be an inconsistency in the laws at a given point in time. The court cannot act on legislation that has not been challenged by a plaintiff. Since Varnum v Brien only challenged the constitutionality of one statute. I find i highly ironic that you have derided so-called ‘judicial activism’ and legislating from the bench in one breath, then deride the court for NOT legislating from the bench to provide consistency across the legislative record based on their current decision. Obviously talking in circles just for the sake of sustaining an argument.
Could this decision have implications on heterosexual civil marriage? Potentially. That’s why citizens have the option for going to the courts to seek redress. It is very possible that the government could provide viable arguments why denying something like polygamy substantially advances governmental objectives and thus uphold that law.
Constitutional law provides its own set of checks and balances in determining the validity of the argument at hand. Just because the state could not provide a viable argument on why prohibiting same-sex marriage was substantially necessary to further the specified governmental objectives in Varnum v Brien, does not mean they would be unable to do so if a similar contest arose regarding polygamy, as that could very well be related to different governmental objectives, not to mention that the legislative classification of polygamists would have to be evaluated separately to determine if such a grouping is substantially related to the governmental objectives.
Little Boots, are you a fan of the third Roman Emperor?
No, Black Gay Patriot, my arguments would not justify things like racial segregation. go back and follow the debates over the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Recall that Congress passed Civil Rights Acts in 1866, 1870, 1871 and 1875, all of them (the constitutional amendments and legislation) ignored by the Supreme Court in one of its worst rulings ever, Plessy v. Ferguson.
In my comment, I’m making reference to the court’s using one statute to invalidate another.
They overreached this time. As did the MA court which, as I noted, the minority noted ignored the legislators’ understanding of the limitations of the statute they cited in their ruling.
IF a case similar to Varnum v Brien were brought before the court, the state could argue that legislation against pedophila (and a legislative classification identifying pedophiles) were necessary and substantially related to the achievement of the governmental objective of protecting children.
Unfortunately for that argument, Chad, the Iowa Supreme Court has already established that the sexual needs of the parties involved outweigh any other government consideration. If they had wished to make that distinction, they would not have tried to argue that “intimacy” was relevant, or get into their discussion about whether or not something was sexually “appealing”.
The simple fact of the matter is that the Court needed to invent a right to marry whatever was sexually appealing to you in order to inactivate the established statute. It did so, very stupidly.
You never seem to think of it in terms of two adults doing something with each other. Why is that?
Because marriage is not a matter of just two adults; it is a matter of society extending benefits and privileges to those two adults. What those two adults do in private may be their own business, but if they demand that society give them favors for it, society should be and is empowered to put conditions on what behavior it will reward.
Furthermore, by your logic, bans on incestuous and plural marriage should be unconstitutional; after all, those are “two adults”.
So, let me say with respect, it sounds to me that you have a very negative view of gay men and that leads to some pretty broad and sweeping generalizations.
Not really. Gay men are one thing; the behavior and culture that the gay community supports, endorses, and pushes is quite another.
I’m quite aware of the fact that gay men can be committed. I’m even more aware of the fact that these gay people are mocked as “foolish”, “patriarchal”, and “assimiliationist” by the gay community.
Finally, I’m also aware of the fact that there are gay men who seemingly have managed to make perfectly good committed relationships without marriage. Since that’s the case, there is no imperative to provide it, and the discussion should then shift to what other things society might see fit to provide to gay men who make such a choice.
I’m sorry North Dallas Forty – but you’re wrong.
The Iowa Supreme Court has not determined that the sexual needs outweigh any governmental consideration. The court decided that the law denying civil marriage did not substantially achieve the governmental objectives offered by the Polk County attorney’s office – that is a big difference. Yes the court mentioned the notion of intimacy (exactly ONCE) in its 69 page ruling. *IF* the Polk County attorney’s office could have provided a governmental objective that was substantially achieved by limiting same sex marriage, the court would have ruled differently. But the Polk County attorney’s office couldn’t – because there aren’t any.
“Finally, I’m also aware of the fact that there are gay men who seemingly have managed to make perfectly good committed relationships without marriage. Since that’s the case, there is no imperative to provide it…”
Since there are also heterosexual couples who have seemingly managed to make perfectly good committed relationships without marriage, it is then obvious that heterosexual couples do not need marriage either, so the natural conclusion is to do away with civil marriage altogether . . . :^)
Little Boots, are you a fan of the third Roman Emperor?
That’s a little grand for Dick Cheney. But at any rate, no.
Looks like a lot of you don’t understand Judicial Review. The Supreme Court’s whole job is to hold up the Iowa Constitution, hold up the law, and see if the law violates the constitution. If it does, the law is gone. Poof.
And I love how you’re picking apart ONE paragraph when the decision, and a well written one, is 69 pages long. Just from quotes I’ve read on other websites, I know that paragraph isn’t the central logic to their argument. Way to pick the weakest bit of reasoning from 69 pages and take it apart. This is the intellectual equivalent of a grown man beating up little old lady. How Gay, how patriotic. How about someone actually deal with, you know, the actual decision. I doubt you all are experts on Iowa’s Constitution, how about trying to back up your claims with something new and interesting: Facts.
Since there are also heterosexual couples who have seemingly managed to make perfectly good committed relationships without marriage, it is then obvious that heterosexual couples do not need marriage either, so the natural conclusion is to do away with civil marriage altogether . . . :^)
Not really. Society has found that heterosexual marriage, especially when it comes to the production and raising of children, manages quite nicely several of the issues that come up around procreation and, to top it off, encourages societal stability. Committed couples do OK; married couples do better at this vital and important action.
Since gay couples are completely incapable of natural procreation, that means two things: one, the societal impacts of gay sex relationships are different, and two, that heterosexual and homosexual couplings are different. Since they are different, the state may treat them differently without the issue of equal protection.
Again – wrong.
You can’t use procreation to defend the heterosexual marriage without procreating being a requirement for all heterosexual marriage. I’m sure that’s a minor change most religion’s would be OK with – procreate first, then you can get married :^) Of course, this doesn’t consider that there are heterosexual married couples who are equally incapable of procreating, and perfectly fertile heterosexual couples who choose not to procreate.
Go ahead and throw out the next weak, unsupported, illogical argument . . . I can be here as long as necessary :^)
No, I don’t expect calm logic from the crowd at BTB.
The point of my post script was to warn them that I expect passion instead of reason from them. They are on notice that I will dismiss any argument that doesn’t attempt to demonstrate the correct nature of the Iowa ruling (and similar rulings) from proper judicial principles.
When I’ve checked out the responses, I’ll give you a report.
Of course, this doesn’t consider that there are heterosexual married couples who are equally incapable of procreating, and perfectly fertile heterosexual couples who choose not to procreate.
And of course that argument is a rather transparent and clumsy attempt to avoid the fact that no homosexual couple, regardless of the condition of their genitals, their reproductive system, their choice, or any other factor, is capable of procreating.
But of course, admitting that would mean that Chad would have to admit that heterosexual and homosexual couples are different, and that would completely undercut his whining about “equal protection”. Chad can’t rationalize away the difference, so he tries to pretend that children and procreation are meaningless. He is willing to denigrate and put down the most basic portion and valuable reason for why society esteems and privileges heterosexual marriage as unimportant because it ruins his argument for getting it.
That’s redefining marriage. What comes next?
LOL.
Nice try on differentiating between heterosexual and homosexual couples and procreation. But Equal Protection applies to individuals – not couples. We are talking about an individual’s right to civil marriage.
There will always be differences between individuals – the Iowa Supreme Court also addresses this in their ruling in discussing Equal Protection. But again – as has been stated previously, the government must demonstrate how legislation that targets a certain group substantially achieves a governmental objective – and the court found that there was no governmental objective that was substantially achieved by denying same sex marriages. Let’s keep with the procreation argument. What governmental objective is there regarding procreation? The government could want to increase procreation, decrease procreation, maintain the current level of procreation, etc. Since same sex couples cannot naturally procreate, they have no affect on any governmental objective regarding procreation. Allowing same sex couples to marry would neither increase nor decrease the number of children born. The only way you could legally use the fact that same sex couples cannot procreate as basis for denying same sex marriage would be if there was a legal requirement for all civil marriages to produce offspring. But even then, the state couldn’t legally limit the scope of legislation denying civil marriage to just same sex couples – the state would have to deny civil marriage to all couples incapable of natural procreation, including sterile heterosexual couples.
No one has been able to demonstrate what governmental objective is substantially achieved by denying same sex marriage.
What right to civil marriage? Where is it, Chad? Please find it for me. Is it in penumbras of illuminations of shadows of stabs of light of the plain language of the constitution?
Ha ha ha ha! You bigots lost!