Breaking news - Iowa Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage

[OCGuy]

So this confirms teh ghey is spreading......

I knew it!

 

[piasabird]

Hopefully all Gays will move to Iowa.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Anyway, I don't necessarily have a problem with the practical outcome of this, except for the process taken

Curious how you feel about what's going on in Vermont where the legislature passed marriage equality and one man, the governor, vetoed it. Is that a miscarriage of justice, that one man can throw out the will of the entire elected legislature?

Frankly I don't have a problem with governors vetoing legislation they disagree with, that's in their job description, but so is a court finding an unconstitutional law unconstitutional.

btw, the VT state senate just overrode his veto 23-5, but now it goes to the state House.

Uh, you obviously haven't a clue. A Gov using his VETO is part of his powers

Uh, he says that in his post.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Hopefully all Gays will move to Iowa.

And all blacks to Africa too, eh?

No one will have to move to Iowa or VT, or CT, or MA. Over the next several years blue state after blue state will be recognizing equal rights while the former slave states will continue to live in centuries past. The federal gov't will find this situation untenable and either the SC or Congress will act to unify the laws, and if you think the Feds are going to strip tens of thousands of married couples of their rights, your powers of prognostication are lacking. DOMA will be struck down or repealed.

Honestly, if the economy gets under control and Obama wins a second term, I can very easily seeing him taking on this issue (and DADT). In today's world, there's simply no valid arguments against it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Anyway, I don't necessarily have a problem with the practical outcome of this, except for the process taken

Curious how you feel about what's going on in Vermont where the legislature passed marriage equality and one man, the governor, vetoed it. Is that a miscarriage of justice, that one man can throw out the will of the entire elected legislature?

Frankly I don't have a problem with governors vetoing legislation they disagree with, that's in their job description, but so is a court finding an unconstitutional law unconstitutional.

btw, the VT state senate just overrode his veto 23-5, but now it goes to the state House.

Uh, you obviously haven't a clue. A Gov using his VETO is part of his powers

Uh, he says that in his post.

Hey look, it's the one liner guy who never seems to actually address the topic - just injects little quips.

Hey genius - the issue here is different - as in the courts injected their own legislation - which is not their job. It is part of the Gov's job to veto if he wants and there is nothing wrong with that- which he asked my thoughts on.. Try to actually think next time.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Hey look, it's the one liner guy who never seems to actually address the topic - just injects little quips.

Hey genius - the issue here is different - as in the courts injected their own legislation - which is not their job. It is part of the Gov's job to veto if he wants and there is nothing wrong with that- which he asked my thoughts on.. Try to actually think next time.

The governor doesn't have to give any reason at all for a veto. The court is tied by oath and to some extent by precedent. Granted we have seen courts abdicate their responsibilities to provide politically expedient answers in the past, but there is plenty of room in most constitutions to conclude that a right to gay marriage exists anywhee a right to marriage exists at all.

Courts deciding that a law is unconstitutional is not 'legislating from the bench' anymore than governors vetoing leislation is 'legislating from the mansion porch'. It is part of their job.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Hey look, it's the one liner guy who never seems to actually address the topic - just injects little quips.

Hey genius - the issue here is different - as in the courts injected their own legislation - which is not their job. It is part of the Gov's job to veto if he wants and there is nothing wrong with that- which he asked my thoughts on.. Try to actually think next time.

The governor doesn't have to give any reason at all for a veto. The court is tied by oath and to some extent by precedent. Granted we have seen courts abdicate their responsibilities to provide politically expedient answers in the past, but there is plenty of room in most constitutions to conclude that a right to gay marriage exists anywhee a right to marriage exists at all.

Courts deciding that a law is unconstitutional is not 'legislating from the bench' anymore than governors vetoing leislation is 'legislating from the mansion porch'. It is part of their job.

Might want to read the thread first, he doesn't disagree with anything you said.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Hey look, it's the one liner guy who never seems to actually address the topic - just injects little quips.

Hey genius - the issue here is different - as in the courts injected their own legislation - which is not their job. It is part of the Gov's job to veto if he wants and there is nothing wrong with that- which he asked my thoughts on.. Try to actually think next time.

The governor doesn't have to give any reason at all for a veto. The court is tied by oath and to some extent by precedent. Granted we have seen courts abdicate their responsibilities to provide politically expedient answers in the past, but there is plenty of room in most constitutions to conclude that a right to gay marriage exists anywhee a right to marriage exists at all.

Courts deciding that a law is unconstitutional is not 'legislating from the bench' anymore than governors vetoing leislation is 'legislating from the mansion porch'. It is part of their job.

Nowhere did I say it was "legislating from the bench" for them to strike down the statute. What IS outside their scope is rewriting/making law - which looks to be what happened here.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Hey look, it's the one liner guy who never seems to actually address the topic - just injects little quips.

Hey genius - the issue here is different - as in the courts injected their own legislation - which is not their job. It is part of the Gov's job to veto if he wants and there is nothing wrong with that- which he asked my thoughts on.. Try to actually think next time.

The governor doesn't have to give any reason at all for a veto. The court is tied by oath and to some extent by precedent. Granted we have seen courts abdicate their responsibilities to provide politically expedient answers in the past, but there is plenty of room in most constitutions to conclude that a right to gay marriage exists anywhee a right to marriage exists at all.

Courts deciding that a law is unconstitutional is not 'legislating from the bench' anymore than governors vetoing leislation is 'legislating from the mansion porch'. It is part of their job.

Might want to read the thread first, he doesn't disagree with anything you said.

:beer:

 

[RabidMongoose]

What kind of legislation did the courts 'inject'?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Hey look, it's the one liner guy who never seems to actually address the topic - just injects little quips.

Hey genius - the issue here is different - as in the courts injected their own legislation - which is not their job. It is part of the Gov's job to veto if he wants and there is nothing wrong with that- which he asked my thoughts on.. Try to actually think next time.

The governor doesn't have to give any reason at all for a veto. The court is tied by oath and to some extent by precedent. Granted we have seen courts abdicate their responsibilities to provide politically expedient answers in the past, but there is plenty of room in most constitutions to conclude that a right to gay marriage exists anywhee a right to marriage exists at all.

Courts deciding that a law is unconstitutional is not 'legislating from the bench' anymore than governors vetoing leislation is 'legislating from the mansion porch'. It is part of their job.

Might want to read the thread first, he doesn't disagree with anything you said.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Hey look, it's the one liner guy who never seems to actually address the topic - just injects little quips.

Hey genius - the issue here is different - as in the courts injected their own legislation - which is not their job. It is part of the Gov's job to veto if he wants and there is nothing wrong with that- which he asked my thoughts on.. Try to actually think next time.

The governor doesn't have to give any reason at all for a veto. The court is tied by oath and to some extent by precedent. Granted we have seen courts abdicate their responsibilities to provide politically expedient answers in the past, but there is plenty of room in most constitutions to conclude that a right to gay marriage exists anywhee a right to marriage exists at all.

Courts deciding that a law is unconstitutional is not 'legislating from the bench' anymore than governors vetoing leislation is 'legislating from the mansion porch'. It is part of their job.

Nowhere did I say it was "legislating from the bench" for them to strike down the statute. What IS outside their scope is rewriting/making law - which looks to be what happened here.

I'm not sure I get it - you're saying they should not give the opinion that any equivalent statute would also be unconstitutional?

I may have apologized too soon, because it looks like we *might* disagree on one part here (the part that made me post in the first place).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
What kind of legislation did the courts 'inject'?

It further directs that the remaining statutory
language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian
people full access to the institution of civil marriage.

The above was from a summary put out by a court communication officer which seems to indicate they went beyond just ruling on the statute and delved into the realm of legislation.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
What IS outside their scope is rewriting/making law - which looks to be what happened here.

did we suddenly switch from the common law system to the civil law system?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
What kind of legislation did the courts 'inject'?

It further directs that the remaining statutory
language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian
people full access to the institution of civil marriage.

The above was from a summary put out by a court communication officer which seems to indicate they went beyond just ruling on the statute and delved into the realm of legislation.

How is that 'legislating'?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
What kind of legislation did the courts 'inject'?

It further directs that the remaining statutory
language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian
people full access to the institution of civil marriage.

The above was from a summary put out by a court communication officer which seems to indicate they went beyond just ruling on the statute and delved into the realm of legislation.

How is that 'legislating'?

It isn't really, by striking down the statute there really is only one remedy. Courts must fashion a remedy for a victorious plaintiff. In this case Pl solely sought entry into civil marriage. The court notes that other courts in such cases have either granted similarly situated couples the right to enter civil marriage, or they have allowed the state legislatures to create parallel institutions (civil unions.) What the IA court does is preclude millions of dollars in wasted tax revenue and years of legislative debate and effort by stating that a civil union law based on sex orientation would also fall before the constitution's equal protection requirements.

"[The law we just struck down] is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficut to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution. This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective. Consequently, the language in [Iowa's law] limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage."

Sure, the court could have said "We rule the law unconstitutional, and direct the legislature to rewrite a law that doesn't violate equal protection. P.S. A civil union law based on sexual orientation would also violate equal protection." This approach simply saves the citizens of IA a few million in wasted tax dollars and court fees.

 

[sportage]

all hell is breaking out today...

http://www.desmoinesregister.c...20090409/NEWS/90409012

 

[sportage]

Are things getting this nutz in Vermont too ???

http://www.desmoinesregister.c...20090409/NEWS/90409048