[Meneldil]

Iowa Second State To Allow Gay Marriage - Family News Story - KCCI Des Moines

DesMoinesRegister.com

The judge already issued a stay on new licenses, but at least one couple got a waiver* and married legally.

*Iowa law normally requires 3 day wait for licenses.

I've lived overseas for four years now, but I grew up in Iowa. Honestly I expect it'll get reversed by a higher court, and even if it doesn't I don't have faith in my legislature to hold back another constitutional amendment. I'd like it if someday people realize the US isn't entirely Christian, that unelected judges exist for a reason, and I could feel welcome and secure in my future with a committed partner if I decided to return to my home.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Meneldil 

I'd like it if someday people realize the US isn't entirely Christian, that unelected judges exist for a reason, and I could feel welcome and secure in my future with a committed partner if I decided to return to my home.

Gay marriage will be legal within the next decade or two. Most of the "family values" groups who are fighting it are using the issue as a scapegoat, as the reasons for marriage are changing again, and the only way they know how to react to that is to make a huge issue out of something that's a politically expedient target; gays. When one considers that, seven years ago, there was absolutely no recognition of any same-sex union anywhere in the U. S., and now it's legal in one state, as well as civil unions being legal in several others and more and more companies granting same-sex employees equal benefits for their partners, the times they are a'changin'. Sadly, some will go down kicking and screaming, using the same old specious and silly slippery slope arguments, blathering on about how the end of the world is nigh if we allow gays to marry, and they will look foolish in history's rear view mirror, as those who've fought other losing social battles do today.

[Chuckit]

I'm all for gay rights, but I really wish judges would stop trying to be legislators.

[Meneldil]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm all for gay rights, but I really wish judges would stop trying to be legislators.

He wasn't trying to be a legislator. He was assigned to a case where a group of couples felt that state law and the state constitution conflicted. In our system of government, constitution wins, and that's the judicial branch's purpose in maintaining the checks and balances of government.

If the legislators wanted to make it stick, they have an option: amending the constitution. Then the judge wouldn't be able to do a thing as far as I know. That's how it's supposed to work.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm all for gay rights, but I really wish judges would stop trying to be legislators.

Sometimes judges have to upset the apple cart. It took until 1967 for the Supreme Court to decide that it was wrong to deny a white man the right to marry a black woman, in Loving vs. Virginia, despite a majority of the people of Virginia still believing that it was wrong. It took until 1971 for the Virginia Constitution to be amended to eliminate this obviously grievous mistake, despite over 70% of Virginians still believing that their Constitution shouldn't be amended to address this issue. There are always ignorant people who will fight an issue based on illogical, specious, and irrational arguments based on unfounded fears, who will go to their graves swearing that they are right, and that, given enough time, their projections will come true. They don't, but that doesn't stop them from trying. There are people today who still believe it is wrong for a black to marry a white, and after gays get the right to marry, there will still be those who preach that hell and damnation are coming.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Sometimes judges have to upset the apple cart.

Really? I'd always thought they were supposed to uphold our Constitution.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It took until 1967 for the Supreme Court to decide that it was wrong to deny a white man the right to marry a black woman, in Loving vs. Virginia, despite a majority of the people of Virginia still believing that it was wrong.

Their beliefs, not being law, legal precedent or the Constitution, were irrelevant — just as a judge's personal beliefs ought to be. From all I have seen, the Constitutional argument for gay marriage is much weaker than it is for racial equality.

[OldManMac]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but that isn't going to change the fact that it's going to happen, as it is the correct thing to do. No minorities can be disenfranchised, when their actions pose no threats to others. Despite setbacks, gay rights have have been enacted at the one of the fastest, if not the fastest rates, in this country's history. Seven years ago there was no protection for even civil unions anywhere in the U. S., yet despite states passing constitutional bans on gay marriage, gays are gaining rights faster than women did the right to vote, and blacks to be enfranchised. Polls of younger generations show that they, correctly, don't give a rat's ass about the relationships their neighbors have when it comes to sexual orientation. They're smart enough to realize that it's none of their business and that it doesn't affect them when Bob and Bill move in next door. The only people it affects are the ones that let it affect them, as they are typically people who'd rather remove the speck out of someone else's eye than the plank out of their own. This whole issue actually revolves around a relatively simple premise. The religious fundamentalist leaders feel that they're losing their grip on their flocks, so they have to find a boogeyman to scare the people back into "salvation," and what better target than a tiny minority of people who are easy to pick on. They conveniently forget to tell their flocks that fewer heterosexual couples are marrying today, for a number of reasons. Explaining those reasons to their flocks would be difficult at best, so you take a tiny fraction of the population, vilify, denigrate, and make them examples of all that's wrong with the world, to a fearful and gullible population, and presto; problem solved. You have something you can talk about in Sunday sermon incessantly, and everybody can proclaim their Hallelujahs and Amens and moan about how much better life would be if we just didn't have those sinners to contend with.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but that isn't going to change the fact that it's going to happen, as it is the correct thing to do.

So is it always correct for the government to ignore the Constitution, or only when they agree with you?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So is it always correct for the government to ignore the Constitution, or only when they agree with you?

Only when they agree with me. That's one of the problems here, isn't it? There are often different interpretations of the same words. Also, I don't recall anything in the Constitution banning gay marriage, except in those states where it was recently banned, which will eventually be overturned, as people realize they were wrong.