Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional
Associated Press ^ | April 3, 2009

Posted on 04/03/2009 7:10:08 AM PDT by Zakeet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-117 next last
To: Uncle Miltie

there is no need for a religious argument.

This is about society. The left is seeking to destroy the family unit and unity in existing families.

Marriage benefits society NOT the individual. Society rewards the institution not the individual.

Right now domestic relations law (divorce law) is transitioning to clauses which state children are just accessories to the marriage. IOW the issue of children is seperate from the divorce and child custody and support is decided as if the parties are not married. (thanks model law code)

Homosexual based marriage provides NOTHING to the benefit of society. ZIP nada. They cost, and do not contribute. This is why homosexuals use the anecdotal homosexuals with families every time a prop 8 comes to bear.

If it is true this was laughably decided on the federal constitution then those lawyers on the bench were trying to prevent a prop 8 scendario because they know their rulings day is numbered otherwise.

BTW a RECORD NUMBER OF LAW SCHOOLS NOW EXIST AND MORE (yes MORE) are SOON TO OPEN!!! (not a joke)


51 posted on 04/03/2009 8:16:52 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JAKraig
"Why is it that if the majority of people are against queer marriage (I refuse to call it gay) how is it that we put up with it."

Most people are not against legal protection for gays and some form of legal union. What people object to is that they want to strip the word marriage of it's Biblical meaning.

That is the entire point of the commies pushing this. They are basically trampling on the rights of Christians and other religions to determine what their scriptures mean.

The goal is to take away legitimacy from religion and place all authority in the hands of the state. They have to discredit faith in a higher power to do that and crush any organizations that might cause opposition.

52 posted on 04/03/2009 8:18:29 AM PDT by Earthdweller (Socialism makes you feel better about oppressing people.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JAKraig
Why is it that if the majority of people are against queer marriage (I refuse to call it gay) how is it that we put up with it.

All it takes is an amendment to the state constitution. But, with the both houses of the legislature and the governor being Democrats, that won't happen anytime soon.

Just like the rest of the USSA, Iowans are getting exactly what they voted for.

53 posted on 04/03/2009 8:19:59 AM PDT by newgeezer (It is [the people's] right and duty to be at all times armed. --Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

There are many arguments against gay marriage, and you and I have recited a couple of them.

To emphasize your point:

If you consider that liberals’ goal is the Destruction of Western Civilization, then every one of their acts makes sense, thereby proving the motive.


54 posted on 04/03/2009 8:23:16 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you are talking about Zimbabwe money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

I’ve known a couple of judges over the years. They are part of the club. Government employees, college educated dunces and egomaniacs both in and out of court.


55 posted on 04/03/2009 8:26:43 AM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: seatrout

I was just curious to see if you had been tracking things like this.


56 posted on 04/03/2009 8:27:14 AM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

This also increases the likelihood that the US will be a target of Muslim terrorism. The Muslims (correctly) see homosexuality as an abomination. They won’t take kindly to rulings like this.


57 posted on 04/03/2009 8:37:10 AM PDT by seatrout (I wouldn't know most "American Idol" winners if I tripped over them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Well, they can’t get what they want through the legislature, even when it’s controlled by Democrats, so they have to take it through the judiciary. The back door, if you will.


58 posted on 04/03/2009 8:47:09 AM PDT by xjcsa (Currently shouting "I told you so" about Michael Steele on my profile page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldArmy52

This entire mess illustrates why the concept of judicial review is a curse. Why do we tolerate a doctrine which impinges so cruelly upon the will of the masses; this will being the very foundation of a representative republic.


59 posted on 04/03/2009 8:57:29 AM PDT by seatrout (I wouldn't know most "American Idol" winners if I tripped over them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mquinn

As Iowa goes, so goes South Dakota.
But seriously, this ruling, and if the house and senate pass an open marriage law, will shame (or at least that’s the excuse they will give) Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota into similar laws. The dominoes are falling, the wolf is inside the gates, and I’m filling up my glass again. Ah, sweet vodka, where is thy sting?


60 posted on 04/03/2009 9:11:51 AM PDT by BlueStateBlues (Blue State for business, Red State at heart.........2012--can't come soon enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sloth

“Was this based on the state or federal constitution?”

In theory this can’t be based on the Federal Constitution since marriage is strictly a state issue. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. On the other hand, far be it from leftwing judges to find rights in the Constitution that don’t exist.

Ironically, the right to license is the right to deny. If a license can be had by anyone who wants it, then there is no purpose to a license. I bet you can’t get a plumbers license in Iowa unless you are a plumber. Isn’t that discrimination against non-plumbers who want to lay pipe?


61 posted on 04/03/2009 9:22:10 AM PDT by yazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yazoo
On the other hand, far be it from leftwing judges to find rights in the Constitution that don’t exist.

A number of SCOTUS rulings have recognized marriage as a "fundamental right"

Loving v. Virginia (unanimous)
Zablocki v. Redhail (8-1)
Turner v. Safley (the concur/dissent was split by different sections of the ruling)

62 posted on 04/03/2009 9:33:16 AM PDT by MissMillie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: cspackler
>The black robe mafia just ruled it unconstitutional and

That does not make sense.

An amendment to a Constitution CANNOT be Constitutional until it is ratified, in this case, by the voters..

If we amend the US Constitution to allow slavery, it cannot be ruled “unconstitutional.”

Amendments change things - now it may have ruled that the method of garnering those votes or the method of placing the issue before the voters was unconstitutional, but not the ratified will of the voters.

63 posted on 04/03/2009 9:48:01 AM PDT by bill1952 (Power is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Of course he isn’t, why have facts and figures when you can just make crap up!


64 posted on 04/03/2009 9:49:27 AM PDT by paranoidpj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

When I lived close to the Iowa boarder in Illinois, we had an acronym for people from Iowa, Idiots Out Wondering Around.


65 posted on 04/03/2009 10:04:46 AM PDT by RatsDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
The Iowa Supreme Court says the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples

Gay and Lesbian is a state of mind, not a gender.

Bisexual people are discriminated against too because they can't have a spouse of "each" gender.

66 posted on 04/03/2009 10:04:59 AM PDT by a fool in paradise ( “Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause.”NYTimes Bill Kell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

Our Supreme Courts are not elected. You’ve got trouble in Rivr City with a capital T and that rhymes with G and that stands for gay marriage.


67 posted on 04/03/2009 10:22:25 AM PDT by gallaxyglue (Have we lost our civilization as we know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

>>To make matters worse, the Dems control the state
>>legislature and will likely block any vote on a
>>constitutional amendment.

Hmmm....if they voted the DemocRats in, then maybe Iowa deserves this.


68 posted on 04/03/2009 10:44:39 AM PDT by excalibur1701
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: excalibur1701
Hmmm....if they voted the DemocRats in, then maybe Iowa deserves this.

I keep saying it - we get what we vote for.

69 posted on 04/03/2009 11:09:00 AM PDT by xjcsa (Currently shouting "I told you so" about Michael Steele on my profile page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

This is actually going to be easy to reverse. Just like in California, it will be easy to get a huge majority of voters to agree to change the State Constitution to ban homosexual ‘marriage’. This won’t even last a month.


70 posted on 04/03/2009 11:10:07 AM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; george76; ...

Press release: Iowa Supreme Court Rules in Marriage Case
Iowa Supreme Court | 04/03/2009 | Iowa Supreme Court
Posted on 04/03/2009 8:01:29 AM PDT by iowamark
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2221548/posts


71 posted on 04/03/2009 12:12:41 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
That is what happens when Iowa has governors like Vilsack and Culver appointing the Supreme Court. Iowa was the second state to have gay marriage, after Massachusetts. Both were imposed by the courts.

Third. Don't forget Connecticut.

72 posted on 04/03/2009 12:29:09 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: manc
could the people of that state do a constitutional amendment like we did here in FL and would that reverse this judges ruling which is pathetic

Don't count on it - the state is run by liberal dems, and getting more liberal. They won't buck their party's platform. I'm not sure what Iowa's law is regarding citizen initiatives.

73 posted on 04/03/2009 1:10:30 PM PDT by fwdude ("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; AliVeritas; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; BabaOreally; ...
Several threads have been posted about the Iowa court decision. Check the "homosexualagenda" keyword for relevant articles.

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com


74 posted on 04/03/2009 1:10:32 PM PDT by DirtyHarryY2K (The Tree of Liberty is long overdue for its natural manure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seatrout

Kind of a perfect storm here in Iowa.

Population getting older. Votes medicare plain and simple.
Population contains farmers. Votes for subsidization.
Larger cities in East are full of minorities and union members.

I don’t think the old folk like the marriage issue. But they made their bed.

Time to amend Iowa’s constitution.


75 posted on 04/03/2009 1:23:10 PM PDT by TomHarkinIsNotFromIowa (Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Kenya.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mquinn

Not to worry. Steve King said that there are no gay marriages in Iowa, and he’s one of their representatives.”Unicorns, leprechauns, gay marriages in Iowa — these are all things you will never find because they just don’t exist.”

So don’t expect gay people to be beating down the doors at City Hall anytime soon.


76 posted on 04/03/2009 1:37:24 PM PDT by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

People have vote liberal for so long that there are consequences. Even when they voted for Reagan, they mostly stuck with liberals in Congress, even “Republican” ones like Robert Stafford and Arlen Specter.


77 posted on 04/03/2009 1:37:31 PM PDT by Theodore R. (GWB is gone: Now the American sheeple can sleep at night!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

People have vote liberal for so long that there are consequences. Even when they voted for Reagan, they mostly stuck with liberals in Congress, even “Republican” ones like Robert Stafford and Arlen Specter.


78 posted on 04/03/2009 1:37:32 PM PDT by Theodore R. (GWB is gone: Now the American sheeple can sleep at night!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #79 Removed by Moderator

To: USS Alaska

They have one good politician from IA — Steve King; the rest are practically useless.


80 posted on 04/03/2009 1:38:13 PM PDT by Theodore R. (GWB is gone: Now the American sheeple can sleep at night!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

The American people are so liberal now that liberalism is all they know and appreciate.


81 posted on 04/03/2009 1:39:43 PM PDT by Theodore R. (GWB is gone: Now the American sheeple can sleep at night!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Welcome to the land of judicial tyranny. Soon to be the land of legislative and executive tyranny as well.


82 posted on 04/03/2009 1:51:12 PM PDT by Antoninus (Now accepting apologies from repentant Mittens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cspackler
There was one. The black robe mafia just ruled it unconstitutional and threw it out.

No, judges can't rule that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.
83 posted on 04/03/2009 1:52:22 PM PDT by Antoninus (Now accepting apologies from repentant Mittens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive
HELLO Constitutional Amendment!

This issue will only ever be resolved with a federal constitutional amendment enshrining one man, one woman as the definition of marriage in the USA.
84 posted on 04/03/2009 1:54:44 PM PDT by Antoninus (Now accepting apologies from repentant Mittens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: seatrout
The Iowa governor and legislature should tell the Iowa Supreme Court, in effect, “go to hell, we’re not doing a damn thing to make same-sex marriage legal”.

EXACTLY.

85 posted on 04/03/2009 2:15:24 PM PDT by TheFourthMagi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

Gay civil unions... endorsed and enforced by the government... guarantee gay marriage.


86 posted on 04/03/2009 2:17:27 PM PDT by TheFourthMagi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

>>The Polk County attorney’s office claimed that Judge Robert Hanson’s ruling violated the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.<<

Well that’s not gonna work because of the Loving v. Virginia federal precedent.

>>Gay marriage opponents have no other legal options to appeal the case to the state or federal level because they were not parties to the lawsuit, and there is no federal issue raised in the case, Sarcone said. <<

And that’s makes for a heck of a conundrum -

>>Todd Pettys, a University of Iowa law professor, said the state’s equal protection clause on which Friday’s ruling was based is worded slightly differently than the U.S. Constitution. But Iowa’s language means almost “exactly the same thing.”

Still, he said, it’s difficult to predict whether the U.S. Supreme Court would view the issue the same way as the Iowa justices. <<

Before today I would have said that’s what it will come to - will the U.S. supreme court apply a similar interpretation like they did in Loving.

But this is state case only and fill faith and credit is not gonna leave much choice - other states are are almost going to have to honor these gay marriages the same way they honor contracts from other states.


87 posted on 04/03/2009 2:43:21 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
"We live in a Judicial Tyranny."

The folks in IA and CA do anyway.

88 posted on 04/03/2009 2:59:39 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cspackler
Re: "could the people of that state do a constitutional amendment like we did here in FL and would that reverse this judges ruling which is pathetic

" There was one. The black robe mafia just ruled it unconstitutional and threw it out. "

The constitution, or any element of it, can not be declared unconstitutional.

89 posted on 04/03/2009 3:02:49 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
At least in this case, it was based upon the state constitution.

The decision usurped the elected legislature. As in MA and VT, it was based on the feelings of the judges. No legislature or people when given the chance have supported faggot marriage.

90 posted on 04/03/2009 3:06:18 PM PDT by Jacquerie (American public education is a form of child abuse - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
The good people of Iowa should tell the court to go pound sand, and then get their own initiative started. They should disobey the court order when its ramifications butt up against individual rights - which it will soon militantly do. Then, the state/federal executives will have to send it troops to enforce the “law.”

This is how revolutions get started.

91 posted on 04/03/2009 3:35:03 PM PDT by fwdude ("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Alright Iowans time to assert your power and get to work on amending the state constitution.


92 posted on 04/03/2009 4:19:15 PM PDT by LayoutGuru2 (Know the difference between honoring diversity and honoring perversity? No? You must be a liberal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

The original District court ruling and the first homosexual marriages predated Connecticut.


93 posted on 04/03/2009 5:00:31 PM PDT by iowamark (certified by Michael Steele as "ugly and incendiary")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Pietro

No kidding. “It should be left up to the states!” And, when the will of the people of the states can so easily be set aside by robed tyrants? It’s a nice sentiment and the way things ought to be, but it’s not where we live and won’t be until we figure out how to get the courts under control.


94 posted on 04/03/2009 5:04:42 PM PDT by Rastus (Jedi mind tricks would work on Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

What the hell.

Let’em get married.

Why should they be any happier than the rest of us.


95 posted on 04/03/2009 5:41:04 PM PDT by OpeEdMunkey (We seem to have reached a critical mass of stupid people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Heh heh. You said butt. Heh heh.


96 posted on 04/03/2009 5:42:20 PM PDT by OpeEdMunkey (We seem to have reached a critical mass of stupid people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

Comment #97 Removed by Moderator

Comment #98 Removed by Moderator

To: codex

Its a violation of civil rights.

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. In this case, the Court redefined the religious sacrament of marriage.

Notice that the Left which regularly supports the Separation of Church and State is delighted that the State breached the Wall and usurped the Church’s role in defining marriage.

The Wall Separating Church and State is merely an offensive launching point for the Left to attack Christianity.

The Church never wins these supposed disputes between the church and state.

Where is the Free exercise of religion at the end of the day? More limited than ever.


99 posted on 04/03/2009 8:51:55 PM PDT by lonestar67 ("I love my country a lot more than I love politics," President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade
Just like in California, it will be easy to get a huge majority of voters to agree to change the State Constitution to ban homosexual ‘marriage’. This won’t even last a month

Nope, getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot in CA is far easier than getting one passed in Iowa. It will be quite a few years before one can possibly be adopted, and there are reasons to believe that it just won't happen.

We have thirty states with anti-gay marriage provisions in their constitutions. As for the remaining twenty, they just haven't gotten around to legalizing gay marriage yet, but their supreme courts are taking them down that path. We might even see it happen by a legislature and an executive that is not willing to veto. That almost happened in Vermont, and if they get a Dem in as governor, it most assuredly will happen.

100 posted on 04/03/2009 8:55:55 PM PDT by hunter112 (SHRUG - Stop Hussein's Radical Utopian Gameplan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-117 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson