Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Marriage Ban

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2009

Making it right.

No...making it different. Then we legalized abortions.

punked · April 4, 2009

No...making it different. Then we legalized abortions.

Different? All are equal just some are more equal right?

No see abortions were legal, the supreme court does not make laws it interprets them, so when Roe vs Wade happened they said the law said it was legal. So it was legal, or it was the law and no one had ruled on it the right way until then. Like in Iowa.

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2009

Different? All are equal just some are more equal right?

No...the concept that was adjudicated was called "separate but equal".....I thought you said you were an American?

No see abortions were legal, the supreme court does not make laws it interprets them, so when Roe vs Wade happened they said the law said it was legal. So it was legal, or it was the law and no one had ruled on it the right way until then. Like in Iowa.

Abortions were decidely illegal in the US (and Canada for that matter) for a very long time.

punked · April 4, 2009

No...the concept that was adjudicated was called "separate but equal".....I thought you said you were an American?
Abortions were decidely illegal in the US (and Canada for that matter) for a very long time.

No they weren't illegal in the US, their were laws against them but almost all of those laws violated a constitutional right to privacy given to one by the Fourteenth Amendment. So in effect those laws were not laws. I thought you were American? Don't know how the constitution works?

Separate but equal is ridiculous, and that was why the Iowa court struct down the law in the first place. Go read the ruling, which BTW has no dissenting opinion yet..........I wonder why that is.

Edited April 4, 2009 by punked

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2009

No they weren't illegal in the US, their were laws against them but almost all of those laws violated a constitutional right to privacy given to one by the Fourteenth Amendment. So in effect those laws were not laws. I thought you were American? Don't know how the constitution works?

Keep your day job.......and find out what "illegal" means.

Edited April 4, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

punked · April 4, 2009

Keep your day job.......and find out what "illegal" means.

Read the constitution please.

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2009

Read the constitution please.

So all those gender based marriage laws are "illegal" huh?

And pot smoking too!

Edited April 4, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

punked · April 4, 2009

So all those gender based marriage laws are "illegal" huh?
And pot smoking too!

Not what I said at all, it depends state to state on the gender based marriage laws. In California it was a Constitutional amendment so I think equal protection doesn't apply, although their are plenty who would have a case to argue differently. In other states it isn't in their State Constitution so equal protection can be argued. Do I think it is right, is a different question.

Pot smoking, or the possession there of is a Federal crime, and often a state crime, if it isn't a state crime it is still a Federal one so that is clearly illegal.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear, courts don't make laws that is up to the people and their representatives. Courts interpret laws. This means if their was no new law making abortion legal and the supreme court ruled it so, it must have always been legal becuase they have no right to make new laws. Unless something changes in the law it is either legal or illegal.

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2009

....Maybe I haven't made myself clear, courts don't make laws that is up to the people and their representatives. Courts interpret laws. This means if their was no new law making abortion legal and the supreme court ruled it so, it must have always been legal becuase they have no right to make new laws. Unless something changes in the law it is either legal or illegal.

Nope...not very clear at all. This is not a game of deduction.

punked · April 4, 2009

Nope...not very clear at all. This is not a game of deduction.

Courts don't make laws, thus they can not make something legal or illegal. They only enforce laws which already exist.

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2009

Courts don't make laws, thus they can not make something legal or illegal. They only enforce laws which already exist.

Legislating from the bench is not new....not even for marriage bans (e.g. Loving v. Virginia).

punked · April 4, 2009

Legislating from the bench is not new....not even for marriage bans (e.g. Loving v. Virginia).

Seems to me that if the Supreme court had the ability to "legislate from the bench" then the court which had six Republican-appointed at the time would have ruled another way. I agree sometime it does happen, I wouldn't agree it happened in the case of Roe you can blame the Constitution for that.

Edited April 4, 2009 by punked

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2009

Seems to me that if the Supreme court had the ability to "legislate from the bench" then the court which had six Republican-appointed at the time would have ruled another way. I agree sometime it does happen, I wouldn't agree it happened in the case of Roe you can blame the Constitution for that.

Does everything revolve around Democrats and Republicans for you? Sometimes there are other things to consider, and courts can get it "wrong" too.

punked · April 4, 2009

Does everything revolve around Democrats and Republicans for you? Sometimes there are other things to consider, and courts can get it "wrong" too.

Yes they can as Roe proved, the courts in States all over the country ignored the 14th Amendment and were WRONG to up hold laws making abortion illegal. Honestly the only way you are going to change this is to pass a Constitutional Amendment and it wont fly.

We can go with Conservative and Liberal if you want but it wont help your cause becuase the court was more Conservative at the time then Republican at the time.

Edited April 4, 2009 by punked

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2009

Yes they can as Roe proved, the courts in States all over the country ignored the 14th Amendment and were WRONG to up hold laws making abortion illegal. Honestly the only way you are going to change this is to pass a Constitutional Amendment and it wont fly.

I don't want to change anything.....let 'em fight it out.

We can go with Conservative and Liberal if you want but it wont help your cause becuase the court was more Conservative at the time then Republican at the time.

Irrelevant for jurisprudence.

Edited April 4, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

Shady · April 4, 2009

Why don't we give gays marriage and let hetrosexuals have civil unions or trade off every year. If there is nothing wrong with them why don't they trade? In Iowa the law was shoot down under equal protection. That means you treat everyone the same.

Everyone already has the right to get married, however, unions between people of the same sex doesn't constitute marriage. I'd totally agree with you about giving heterosexuals civil unions, if marriage was defined as a union between two people of the same gender. But it isn't. As I've already stated, same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. The fact that you need to use an adjective to describe marriage (same-sex) proves my point. You can all a car a dog, but it doesn't mean it's really a dog.

Civil Unions give gays and lesbians all the rights that heterosexual couples enjoy under marriage. If this issue was only about equal rights, it'd be settled already. But it isn't about equal rights, it's about pushing the gay agenda.

punked · April 4, 2009

Everyone already has the right to get married, however, unions between people of the same sex doesn't constitute marriage. I'd totally agree with you about giving heterosexuals civil unions, if marriage was defined as a union between two people of the same gender. But it isn't. As I've already stated, same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. The fact that you need to use an adjective to describe marriage (same-sex) proves my point. You can all a car a dog, but it doesn't mean it's really a dog.
Civil Unions give gays and lesbians all the rights that heterosexual couples enjoy under marriage. If this issue was only about equal rights, it'd be settled already. But it isn't about equal rights, it's about pushing the gay agenda.

Wont fly equal protection makes just so everyone has equal protection under the law. There is a simple solution which one is willing to go with, get ride of marriage. Make it a religious ceremony which comes with no government perks and be done with it.

If a Civil Union is the same as marriage why not just call it a marriage. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it must be a "winged billed bird" call it a f*&%ing a duck.

Edited April 4, 2009 by punked

punked · April 4, 2009

Irrelevant for jurisprudence.

I agree I think the court interpreted the Constitution and did not let there own beliefs get in the way they made the right call given the legal system.

Shady · April 4, 2009

If a Civil Union is the same as marriage why not just call it a marriage.

I didn't say it was the same as marriage. I said that it provides the same rights and priviledges. Civil unions can't be exactly the same as marriage because marriage is between a man and a woman.

punked · April 4, 2009

I didn't say it was the same as marriage. I said that it provides the same rights and priviledges. Civil unions can't be exactly the same as marriage because marriage is between a man and a woman.

How so? How is a marriage between a man and a women. At one time a marriage was only between a Man and a Women of the same race, why did that arbitrary rule change? It is like you drew some line in the sand and said "that is the line we can't move it even though we moved it 10 times already."

punked · April 8, 2009

Vermont and DC today, how is holding the line going BC?

Edited April 8, 2009 by punked

tango · April 8, 2009

How so? How is a marriage between a man and a women. At one time a marriage was only between a Man and a Women of the same race, why did that arbitrary rule change? It is like you drew some line in the sand and said "that is the line we can't move it even though we moved it 10 times already."

I just wish people would get over this and not think about it so uselessly.

Then I can get back to not reading people's disparagement of other's bedroom behaviour. I'm really not interested in ANY one else's bedroom bedroom behaviour.

And same sex parents of faith want to be married. Big deal.

What a non issue.