Posted on 04/03/2009 8:01:29 AM PDT by iowamark
So why limit that version of marriage to just two people? How about a menage a trois?
Looks like a few of the arguments in favor of the ban were pretty crappy itself, like the children argument.
While a good point, it’s a crappy legal case.
No doubt that contributed to the court’s ruling.
This is why all judges should be elected by the people. We need control, consequences, and accountability, or we need to get rid of these black-robed tyrants.
So does this mean that we no longer can limit a marriage to A man and A woman, with 'A' being singular, that would imply we can have multiple partners in marriage?
Yeah, how about marriage to animals and to siblings and children? People who want that have rights. Why should the state intervene on someones “love.”
This is a clear misinterpretation by the Courts. It is hard to believe this is coming out of Iowa. We need a movement to get the state constitution amended. Marriage is by definition a union between a man and a woman. No one is being excluded they are excluding themselves by not meeting the criteria. This court is just another example of how illogical and unreasoned our courts have become. Is a person being unfairly excluded from driving because they fail to meet the minimum requirements to obtain a license? The state has a the right to define licensing requirements for any number of things. This is court ruling is a sham and shameful. These judges should be removed.
Why bother getting married at all, when marriage is undefined?
All this time gay marriage shoulda been legal! Who'd a thunk?
Why didn't the folks who wrote the equal protection clause just specifically say it established gay marriage?
What an embarrassing oversight.
Two points:
1. This is scary. Unlike Massachusetts, Iowa is an agricultural breadbasket. Watch crop yields plumett now. God takes His revenge in many ways. Just ask those people burned out of their homes (or had their crops dry up from drought) in California. Russia’s crop yields plummeted too, once she became an atheistic nation in 1922.
2. 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”, just like old Andy Jackson did with the SCOTUS regarding the Cherokee. The Iowa Supreme Court has no “divisions”, so it cannot enforce its decrees if no one goes along.
New Use for those extra cobs from the Corn State.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010
I doubt that it does, but does Iowa allow for popular referenda? You guys need a Prop 8 like... dare I say it... California’s.
So far:
Yes 64% (3304 votes)
No 36% (1838 votes)
The lefties must be swarming the site. The real people will vote later.
In Iowa, an amendment to the state Constitution has to be proposed by 2 successive legislatures before it goes to a referendum. This means that a referendum cannot happen until 2011 at the earliest. To make matters worse, the Dems control the state legislature and will likely block any vote on such a constitutional amendment.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010
“”“I’m off the wall,” said Democratic Sen. Matt McCoy of Des Moines, who is openly gay. “I’m very pleased to be an Iowan.”
Then, as he saw a stream of grim-faced activists from the Supreme Court passing through security at the Iowa Capitol, he said: “The God squad’s coming in the door now.”””
This is insane. What they have ruled is that the concept of marriage is a nullity.
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.