Iowa lawmakers ask Supreme Court to overturn gay marriage ruling

This action by a judge in the state of Iowa - ruling against the stated laws under which the people of Iowa live - demonstrates the power of the judiciary over the people of the state. It is time to take a look at this imbalance in the electorate.

Ruth wrote:

This action by a judge in the state of Iowa - ruling against the stated laws under which the people of Iowa live - demonstrates the power of the judiciary over the people of the state. It is time to take a look at this imbalance in the electorate.

Sorry Ruth, despite the fact that you do not like his ruling, this is simply an example of what a judge is supposed to do in how our system of checks and balances has been set up. When a law passed by the legislature is in violation of the state constitution it is the duty of the judiciary to strike that law down. Constitutionally guaranteed rights are not subject to the whims of either the majority of the people or a majority in the legislature. The judiciary in this country has been set up to act as a check against anti-constitutional action by the legislative branch and to balance them in what is allowed or not allowed under law. This judge found that the state DOMA law violated the rights of equality and due process of the couples who had sued to overturn it. The legislators that asking the state Supreme Court to overturn this decision have the right to do so, but what they do not have the power, authority or the right to do is pass laws that violate the constitutional rights of the citizens and it is now up to the court to decide if that is exactly what they've done as was found by this lower court judge. What you see as an imbalance is actually how are system has been designed to work since it was first established. To check the authority of the courts to rule on the constitutionality of legislative action is a dangerous road to go down, because you can never be quite sure when that legislative majority might turn against your own rights...

Ruth wrote:

This action by a judge in the state of Iowa - ruling against the stated laws under which the people of Iowa live - demonstrates the power of the judiciary over the people of the state. It is time to take a look at this imbalance in the electorate.

The gentleman outlining the system of checks and balances makes a great point. The voters and legislature of Iowa do also have a countering check that can be exercised on the judiciary here if the Supreme Court appeal fails - AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.

Balance of power achieved. Uproar overblown.

Why do people feel the need to deny gay people their rights as US citizens. If gay people want to be married then le it be. They pay taxes just like everyone else, and just because two men or two women would like to take marriage vows and have the same (equal) rights as those that are in hetrosexual marriages. Let them be married and just leave it alone. People need to mind their own business and not pry into others. It's marriage, not people running around shooting people, killing people, blowing up places etc. Come on people, get your priorities in order. I'd rather have gay marriage okayed then to have a bunch of child molesters moving into my community and have more rights than those that haven't commited any crimes. Duh!

Apparently you are not aware of our strict sex offender laws here in Iowa. I hope sincerely you are not comparing gay marriages to child molesters. It is not a U.S. right to be married to the same sex. I also know that it will affect my taxes when same sex couples are married and not even gay, just for tax purposes. As far as letting ppl do what they want, and stating that it doesn't effect others, think again. Marriage is sacred, meant to be between man and woman. I personally feel that marriage in this day and age seems to have no value to anyone and has practically been spit on. If you think for one minute this is a U.S. citizen right, then maybe I should apply for a marriage license to marry my dog. I mean, I am a U.S. citizen, I should be able to marry whomever or whatever I want. Marriage is sacred, again, between a man and woman. Read the Bible, that is what marriage is based on. A promise, a covenant with God.

Steph wrote:

Apparently you are not aware of our strict sex offender laws here in Iowa. I hope sincerely you are not comparing gay marriages to child molesters. It is not a U.S. right to be married to the same sex. I also know that it will affect my taxes when same sex couples are married and not even gay, just for tax purposes. As far as letting ppl do what they want, and stating that it doesn't effect others, think again. Marriage is sacred, meant to be between man and woman. I personally feel that marriage in this day and age seems to have no value to anyone and has practically been spit on. If you think for one minute this is a U.S. citizen right, then maybe I should apply for a marriage license to marry my dog. I mean, I am a U.S. citizen, I should be able to marry whomever or whatever I want. Marriage is sacred, again, between a man and woman. Read the Bible, that is what marriage is based on. A promise, a covenant with God.

Then remove all federal tax breaks and federal beenies from your "marriage". You can marry your dog for all I care in your "church". Hell why not "marry" a book in your "church"?

Here ya go mr "bible" give us (and I am married BTW) ANY examples of your statement:"I also know that it will affect my taxes when same sex couples are married and not even gay, just for tax purposes."

C'mon.. give us an example!... you can't! therefore your opinion is therefore invalid and garbage! You have to "substantiate" for your point to be even considered..

freakin thumpers I swear!

Ruth wrote:

This action by a judge in the state of Iowa - ruling against the stated laws under which the people of Iowa live - demonstrates the power of the judiciary over the people of the state. It is time to take a look at this imbalance in the electorate.

Ruth, you're wrong. Basic Constitutional Rights should not (theortically ARE NOT) subject to majority vote. By your line of resoning, one could have a "majority vote" to deny women equal pay, the right to drive a car, the right to own property, etc....

Why do so many people NOT believe in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill Of Rights ?! They GUARANTEE "EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW".

"Except for gay people and other people we are prejudice against" is NOT in the Constitution.

The judge is right.

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

<quoted text>
Ruth, you're wrong. Basic Constitutional Rights should not (theortically ARE NOT) subject to majority vote. By your line of resoning, one could have a "majority vote" to deny women equal pay, the right to drive a car, the right to own property, etc....
Why do so many people NOT believe in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill Of Rights ?! They GUARANTEE "EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW".
"Except for gay people and other people we are prejudice against" is NOT in the Constitution.
The judge is right.

Daniel.. it's because "they" think they are the "chosen" ones..

Thats what the constitution was created to keep nullified.. why do you think now there are so many attempts to change it? Because they refuse to see "they" aren't the only ones living here! It's elitism guaranteed by some goofy outerspace dude.

Ruth wrote:

This action by a judge in the state of Iowa - ruling against the stated laws under which the people of Iowa live - demonstrates the power of the judiciary over the people of the state. It is time to take a look at this imbalance in the electorate.

And if the situation was just the reverse, would you also say the judge was out of line???? Hummm?

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

...Why do so many people NOT believe in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill Of Rights ?! They GUARANTEE "EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW".
"Except for gay people and other people we are prejudice against" is NOT in the Constitution....

The right to same-sex "marriage" ALSO "is NOT in the [U.S.] Constitution"...nor is such a right EXPRESSLY in the Iowa constitution, either, since the trial court judge in question based his decision on his INTERPRETATION of the Iowa constitution and not on an explicit constitutional provision regarding same-sex marriage or even marriage generally.

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
The right to same-sex "marriage" ALSO "is NOT in the [U.S.] Constitution"...nor is such a right EXPRESSLY in the Iowa constitution, either, since the trial court judge in question based his decision on his INTERPRETATION of the Iowa constitution and not on an explicit constitutional provision regarding same-sex marriage or even marriage generally.

READING is FUNdamental.. he struck down a law BANNING, not instituting it... gawd? why are all your idiots ignorant and educated?

Steph wrote:

(snip)---Read the Bible, that is what marriage is based on. A promise, a covenant with God.

Ok. Now that you agree that a marriage is where the souls of two people become knit as one and they make a covenant with God as witness, check out this example found in the Bible:

Here is the account of same-sex marriage from the old testament (before Christianity):

1 Samuel 18:1>"the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul"

1 Samuel 18:3-4>"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt."

1 Samuel 20:41>"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together until David was erect."

2 Samuel 1:26>"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

Independent Citations:
http://www.rockhawk.com/david_and_johnathin.h...
http://epistle.us/hbarticles/jondave5.html

1noteasilyfooled wrote:

<quoted text>Daniel.. it's because "they" think they are the "chosen" ones......

With respect to civil marriage, heterosexuals ARE the "chosen" ones, because the essential purpose of civil marriage is -- and always has been -- to foster and to support responsible sexual reproduction; heterosexuals sexually reproduce naturally while homosexuals do not.

Support for the proposition that civil marriage was meant to be essentially a heterosexual institution is the fact that it always HAS been so.

Despite gay advocate claims that the percentage of homosexuals in the population has remained unchanged throughout human history, marriage has NEVER included same-sex relationships GENERALLY -- if the original intent was to GENERALLY include homosexuals in the marriage institution and if they represented the same proportion of the population then as now, marriage "equality" of same-sex relationships would have become a reality thousands of years ago.

But civil marriage is not, and has never been, essentially an institution for the purpose of equally accommodating each person's individual SEXUAL GENDER PREFERENCES.

can you marry a chicken??

when will you fight for that right??

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
With respect to civil marriage, heterosexuals ARE the "chosen" ones, because the essential purpose of civil marriage is -- and always has been -- to foster and to support responsible sexual reproduction; heterosexuals sexually reproduce naturally while homosexuals do not.
Support for the proposition that civil marriage was meant to be essentially a heterosexual institution is the fact that it always HAS been so.
Despite gay advocate claims that the percentage of homosexuals in the population has remained unchanged throughout human history, marriage has NEVER included same-sex relationships GENERALLY -- if the original intent was to GENERALLY include homosexuals in the marriage institution and if they represented the same proportion of the population then as now, marriage "equality" of same-sex relationships would have become a reality thousands of years ago.
But civil marriage is not, and has never been, essentially an institution for the purpose of equally accommodating each person's individual SEXUAL GENDER PREFERENCES.

are the offspring of hitler? You sound just like him.. you have been chosen by me to represent the foulest, most disgusting example of heterosexuality and humans in general.

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
With respect to civil marriage, heterosexuals ARE the "chosen" ones, because the essential purpose of civil marriage is -- and always has been -- to foster and to support responsible sexual reproduction; heterosexuals sexually reproduce naturally while homosexuals do not.
Support for the proposition that civil marriage was meant to be essentially a heterosexual institution is the fact that it always HAS been so.
Despite gay advocate claims that the percentage of homosexuals in the population has remained unchanged throughout human history, marriage has NEVER included same-sex relationships GENERALLY -- if the original intent was to GENERALLY include homosexuals in the marriage institution and if they represented the same proportion of the population then as now, marriage "equality" of same-sex relationships would have become a reality thousands of years ago.
But civil marriage is not, and has never been, essentially an institution for the purpose of equally accommodating each person's individual SEXUAL GENDER PREFERENCES.

Oh BTW the "civil" marriage is where the war lies.. it WILL be won. You can take your bible and wipe my rear with it for all I care.

(and YES, I am a heterosexual married father of children)Former church goer and retired military.. care to lump me into a "group"?

jim wrote:

can you marry a chicken??
when will you fight for that right??

ask the religious nuts! they're the ones fighting for "sanctity".

well, gee, I don't know...... why are all your idiots ignorant and uneducated??
maybe they can't write a coherent sentence.

1noteasilyfooled wrote:

<quoted text>READING is FUNdamental.. he struck down a law BANNING, not instituting it... gawd? why are all your idiots ignorant and educated?

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
W to foster and to support responsible sexual reproduction; heterosexuals sexually reproduce naturally while homosexuals do not.

hmmmmmmm I sure know alot of gay men who "father" children just like heteros do.. ever been down to the sperm banks? Those weren't designed for the gay folks hello...

Also know alot of gay women who give birth all the time! hello..

freakin thumpers I swear.

Ralph wrote:

<quoted text>
And if the situation was just the reverse, would you also say the judge was out of line???? Hummm?

I'll bet you often have problems clearly expressing what you really mean.

Because "if the situation was just the reverse", an opposite-sex marriage supporter like the poster would NOT "also say the judge was out of line" -- that is, IF what you mean by the situation being "reverse" is that the judge ruled in FAVOR of the constitutionality of the statute banning same-sex marriage rather than ruling AGAINST the statute.

I suspect though that what you mean by "if the situation was just the reverse" is that the issue before the judge was the constitutionality of a statute banning traditional OPPOSITE-SEX marriage -- in which case, the judge would be bound to observe the supreme law of the land, which is the US Supreme Court's determination in numerous decisions that traditional marriage is a right protected by the US Constitution.

I hope that you can appreciate the distinctions.