Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by chrmjenkins, Apr 3, 2009.
I just might tune into local Des Moines talk-radio later today. Should be interesting to say the least!
Stories from the local news:
And if you want to listen to a blowhard (Steve Deace) who will undoubtedly be spouting some very hurtful things this afternoon, tune in here at 3:00 (or 4:00??) Central Time this afternoon: http://www.whoradio.com/main.html
I am so happy for Iowa! My husband and I are still in limbo here in California over the CA supreme court decision over prop 8, but we're keeping up hope. Hopefully, with more states adopting marriage equality, we will be having federal marriage equality soon.
I'm sure this will go up for a popular vote and get overturned. Wouldn't want teh gays to ruin everything, would we?
I could be wrong, but I don't think Iowa has a referendum process for its constitution like California does.
Even if it does, it probably has a higher threshold than a simple majority.
Either way, 3 down, 47 to go.
Go Iowa! You've just made Joe the Plumber cry.
Pulled this off a blog, not sure of the validity of it:
It's probably true. Either way, it'll probably be hard for the bigots to get it onto the ballot in Iowa. The Democrats control both chambers (and the Senate by a very large margin) so it'll be an uphill battle for the "Defense of Marriage" people. Plus, by 2012, I can guarantee that most Iowans won't care one bit about who gets married. The transition process is what makes people uncertain, but once same-sex couples get married for three years, it will be normalized.
Congratulations Iowa! Who would have thought, Iowa? Maybe this will influence the CA supreme court to change their mind, since it seems obvious they seem to be ready to uphold Prop. 8.
Here's a PDF of the decision, in anyone cares to read it, I haven't yet, it's 69 pages! http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20090403/07-1499.pdf
On balance probably not, but it will probably help Vermont and New Hampshire along as they both have same-sex marriage bills in their legislatures being discussed right now.
It might also help New York get moving on its same-sex marriage bill. Rhode Island and Hawaii aren't too far behind either.
69 is short (and a tad suggestive )! The California Supreme Court ruling in In Re Marriage Cases was 172 pages!
On a side note, I went through the Iowa ruling quickly and counted 8 citations of In Re Marriage Cases; at least the CA Supreme Court is still helping the cause passively.
Soon enough every state (minus the southern states) will allow same sex marriage, which will be great IMO. I would really love to be able to get married some day, to someone that I really love, even though that person is going to be another guy. Maybe the feds will come to their senses and do the right thing soon, wouldn't that be nice.
Makes you want to rush right out and support the conservative agenda (and lifestyle, perhaps?), doesn't it?
I think that this is a reflection of a serious shift in American thinking. In some ways, I think it's good that California wasn't the first to offer gay marriage. Small, even if they are liberal east coast states have been the first to change but once the "heartland" starts to change, the ball will keep rolling until all 50 states offer the same rights.
I classify myself as a Log Cabin Republican. I agree with conservatives and Republicans on all points except GLBT rights. Just because I'm gay doesn't mean that I have to love Obama, and think Nancy Pelosi is a goddess.
Let me guess... you used to support conservatives and Republicans on the GLBT issue as well? Until it personally affected you?
I'm well aware of that particular subset of GoOPers. It is always somewhat amusing to watch someone willingly vote to be discriminated against, and even to have their lovemaking deemed illegal, but to each their own...
And despite what you may believe, I am not in love with Obama, nor do I view Pelosi as any kind of deity. I don't, in fact, believe in deities at all.
It's like Jews voting for Hitler and saying "But I agree with his fiscal policy!"
Now only 47 to go.
Come on guys, this thread shouldn't be about you assailing the ideals of someone else. There's plenty of positive stuff to talk about.
Do you agree with ALL of Obama's policies?
Well a ballet measure would have to get through a majority vote in 2 general assemblies, which means the earliest it could even come up to a ballet measure is 2011, and even that seems unlikely, as the current general assembly have said they have no intention of passing a ballet measure if one were brought to vote.
As I said before, hopefully this will influence other states, this section of the ruling I think sums up perfectly why this shouldn't even be an issue. This is what the courts are for, I just wish the CA supreme court would have some guts, and actually uphold their decision.
Read the bold print CA!!!!
Do you agree with ALL of Paul's policies?
The issue is far more complicated when it comes to Prop 8. Since Prop 8 amended the Constitution of California, the Court has to find a reason to strike it down on a procedural basis. It can't declare Prop 8 unconstitutional because it is in fact a part of the California Constitution.
However, I also hope that the California Supreme Court has the courage to give itself some teeth; without an ability to uphold its decisions, it becomes a powerless body that anyone can undercut with a few thousand signatures and an effective media campaign that uses scare tactics. Alas that probably won't happen and Prop 8 will probably be upheld.
I'm not too hot on the American legal system but can't they just take it to the Supreme Court and override the Californian court decision?
They could, but they would likely lose at this point in time.
The US Supreme Court has 4 very conservative justices, 1 moderate justice, and 4 moderately liberal justices. There's no guarantee that the moderate, or even all the liberal justices, feel that marriage is necessarily required.
The US Supreme Court has a tendency to follow other state courts and Circuit courts before it makes a drastic change like this. That's why victories like Iowa this year, Massachusetts 5 years ago, and California and Connecticut last year are so important. They establish a legal pattern the US Supreme Court can get behind after they see it successfully applied.
Only if its a constitutional issue...Although this is a States Rights issue the Supreme Court will have to get involved as what is legal in Iowa may not be legal in Florida and visa versa..So as soon as the majority of the citizens of Iowa ban it, it will then be on its way to the SC...and eventual a U.S. Constitutional amendment banning it altogether which will then remove all doubt...Despite the "Change" in the atmosphere this is still a Judeo/Christian climate and the two concepts are not compatible..Even the most tolerant of the worlds religions (Islam) does not permit it..