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

Skip to comments.

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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-140 next last
To: Maelstorm

agreed is there a movement to get their state constitution changed there?

Is there any chance of appeal and if so then the homo’s cannot marry legally , am I correct?


41 posted on 04/03/2009 9:05:30 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick MA,CT sham marriage end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Professor_Leonide

“What date did the U.S. die on?”

November 4, 2008.


42 posted on 04/03/2009 9:05:31 AM PDT by Lou Budvis (0bama Lied and the Market Died)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

To all good Iowans, you are welcome to come south to Missouri. Make sure you have a job, or can relocate your business here. Our tax BASE will then lower our overall taxes, and those who are left in Iowa will have what they want & Missouri’s economy will burgeon. I also share this info with residents of Neb. & Ks.


43 posted on 04/03/2009 9:06:46 AM PDT by ramjet50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Blind Eye Jones

Well, animals and children are not consenting adults capable of entering into a contract, so that’s a null argument.


44 posted on 04/03/2009 9:06:46 AM PDT by SlothDC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: seatrout

so they say the ban is unconstitutional
are these people in this world at all.

This now says that any kind of marriage can be legal, man and his sister, mother and her daughter, man with his dag, two or ten wives to a man.

what on earth is going on and why haven’;t they got this in their constitution like many of us down here


45 posted on 04/03/2009 9:07:25 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick MA,CT sham marriage end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

so what you are saying is that now the homo’s can marry legally?

If so why doesn’;t all sorts of weirdo’s go there and get their kind of marriage legal, after all the court has said that to ban this kind of marriage is unconstitutional


46 posted on 04/03/2009 9:09:04 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick MA,CT sham marriage end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

—It doesn’t matter what they think, we changed our constitution. —

Thank God for that.


47 posted on 04/03/2009 9:09:56 AM PDT by seatrout (I wouldn't know most "American Idol" winners if I tripped over them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

this is why the next election is more important and we have to take seats to stop this.

We have to go on the attack and we have to let the people know that the Dem party is for illegal,s homo’s handouts, high taxes

this is the problem wit the GOP they never get their message out


48 posted on 04/03/2009 9:10:37 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick MA,CT sham marriage end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Professor_Leonide

right now I feel that the south the midwest and AK should go it alone as this is pathetic.

we cannot have a small handful of people forcing their perverted sick lifestyles on to us and then saying they are normal anymore


49 posted on 04/03/2009 9:12:01 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick MA,CT sham marriage end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
You're going to hate this, and I know I am going to get bashed for saying it, but the only way to prevent the legality of "gay marriage" is to take the concept of "marriage" out of the purview of politicians and the courts and put it back in the hands of priest, ministers and rabbis.

Secular law is there to provide equal protection of its citizenry, and as long as the law has the ability to support "marriage as only between a man and a woman", it also has the ability to destroy that concept.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" -- all the the law should be concerned with is the legal aspect of a partnership -- ie domestic partnership (for all of us).

Let "marriage" stay where it belongs -- in the hands of the clergy who have a higher concept and purpose for it -- not in the hands of politicians and judges who have no such higher concept or purpose.

Frankly, unless all our States move toward "domestic partnerships" only for straights and gays, I think that we are going to see States fall prey to recognizing gay marraige, one by one, whether we like it or not.

I'm in California and I don't think Prop 8 (defining "marriage as only between a man and a woman") is going to hold up in the courts.

50 posted on 04/03/2009 9:13:44 AM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seatrout
In Michigan, any ballot initiative voted in by the majority is automatically part of our constitution.

We banned affirmative action the same way.

51 posted on 04/03/2009 9:13:50 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: seatrout
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.

Yes. Except for their rampant practice of homosexuality on the "down low" in many Islamic cultures.

52 posted on 04/03/2009 9:21:06 AM PDT by Ghengis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
The flaw is the court assumes marriage is a right, and therefore subject to equal protection. But marriage has never been a right. If it was, there would be no restrictions on bloodlines (i.e., cousins marrying), no requirement for blood tests, no requirements for waiting periods, no restrictions on marriage with one or two parties being mentally handicapped, etc.

Current Iowa law does not allow cousins to marry. I assume two cousins can enter into any other legal contract. The restriction of cousins marrying in Iowa assumes genetic reproduction, and therefore could not apply to same sex couples. So how could two gay cousins be prevented from marrying? I can't wait for those lawsuits to start.

Some states allow cousin marriage if both parties are past childbearing years, or if one party is sterile. If that is not a violation of equal protection, I do not know what is. But, if marriage is not a right, no violation of equal protection should exist.

If marriage is a right, and just like any other contract, there is no reason siblings cannot marry, or parents marry their own children.

In fact, if marriage is a right, why can't a widower marry his single daughter, therefore avoiding probate and estate issues?

53 posted on 04/03/2009 9:21:20 AM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Does Michigan have a movement to recognize these out-of-state gay marriages, or any lawsuits on the issue? I think the lefties want to avoid this type of lawsuit, maybe a conservative think tank should file one just to get the issue into the court system and up to the Supremes just as the 2010 election cycle unfolds.


54 posted on 04/03/2009 9:22:00 AM PDT by BlueStateBlues (Blue State for business, Red State at heart.........2012--can't come soon enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

The full 69 page opinion is at:”

Sometimes the jokes write themselves..............


55 posted on 04/03/2009 9:24:56 AM PDT by TheRobb7 (Has "Movement Conservatism" been reborn...or stillborn? It's up to us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ghengis

—Yes. Except for their rampant practice of homosexuality on the “down low” in many Islamic cultures—

Yes, young boys especially are notoriously “popular” in that subculture. Does seem that hypocrisy (something that Islam supposedly considers abominable) is at play here.


56 posted on 04/03/2009 9:26:11 AM PDT by seatrout (I wouldn't know most "American Idol" winners if I tripped over them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: seatrout

I agree! States have got to start taking a stand against the Federal judicial tyranny going on!


57 posted on 04/03/2009 9:26:54 AM PDT by boxlunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: boxlunch
True enough. But in this case (as with Mass.) it was state judicial tyranny.
58 posted on 04/03/2009 9:29:14 AM PDT by seatrout (I wouldn't know most "American Idol" winners if I tripped over them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: magellan
In fact, if marriage is a right, why can't a widower marry his single daughter, therefore avoiding probate and estate issues?

It's a shame you weren't on the legal team in Iowa trying to defend Marriage. Your point make more sense than they way they tried to argue.

If, as a society, we don't have the right to define "marriage" as between a man and a woman, then by what right can we define it at all?

It's open season now... I'm rather fond of my neighbor's spotted sheep. :-)

59 posted on 04/03/2009 9:29:59 AM PDT by SomeCallMeTim ( When you find yourself going through Hell, keep going!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Blind Eye Jones
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.”

Why limit it there? I want to marry my furniture so I can claim additional tax deductions. Who says I can't? It's not fair!

60 posted on 04/03/2009 9:31:14 AM PDT by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-140 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