Iowa approves same sex marriage

[Agnapostate]

Do we really have to go through basic political theory again?

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gunny]

heh, your "dumb pig farmers" must care more about the civil rights of Americans than you bozos do. That is a good thing, imo.

If they did support it, this would be a different story. There is no evidence to support that they do.

 

[Ravi]

DES MOINES, Iowa -- The Iowa Supreme Court announced its ruling in a landmark same-sex marriage case Friday morning.
The court's written ruling was to be issued on the Iowa Supreme Court's Web site, but traffic to the site crashed the server and took down the Web site.
The court ruled in favor of six same-sex couples who sought to get marriage licenses, but were denied. The ruling means same-sex couples in Iowa can now get married under state law.


BREAKING NEWS: Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage OK - Des Moines News Story - KCCI Des Moines

So, Iowa, as in the majority of voters, didn't approve anything. The law was backdoored via the judiciary.

Very democratic.

Since when have we been a true democracy anyway?

Never. But in our type of democracy, the courts are allowed to decide if something is constitutional or not...a point Gunny loves to forget.

 

[KittenKoder]

So, Iowa, as in the majority of voters, didn't approve anything. The law was backdoored via the judiciary.

Very democratic.

Since when have we been a true democracy anyway?

Never. But in our type of democracy, the courts are allowed to decide if something is constitutional or not...a point Gunny loves to forget.

... (replace Gunny with "a lot of conservatives") unless they can use it for their own laws.

 

[Gunny]

So what I'm seeing here is that IOWA didn't approve it. Rather, Iowa had it forced on them by a handful of lawyers in robes who think their moral superiority trumps the law and the will of every other person living in the state.

They'd have been better off with the dumb pig farmers than the even dumber and monstrously arrogant elitists.

Um ... yeah ... no, they just saw the flaw in making marriage a religious matter most likely and decided that it is now a legal matter, and legal matters are not suppose to be influenced by religious ideals.

There's no "no". She is correct. The people of Iowa didn't approve anything.

If legal matters are not supposed to be influenced by religious ideals, why is the Supreme Court discussing marriage at all?

 

[KittenKoder]

So what I'm seeing here is that IOWA didn't approve it. Rather, Iowa had it forced on them by a handful of lawyers in robes who think their moral superiority trumps the law and the will of every other person living in the state.

They'd have been better off with the dumb pig farmers than the even dumber and monstrously arrogant elitists.

Um ... yeah ... no, they just saw the flaw in making marriage a religious matter most likely and decided that it is now a legal matter, and legal matters are not suppose to be influenced by religious ideals.

There's no "no". She is correct. The people of Iowa didn't approve anything.

If legal matters are not supposed to be influenced by religious ideals, why is the Supreme Court discussing marriage at all?

Because marriage is a legal contract the courts are charged with upholding.

 

[Gunny]

So what I'm seeing here is that IOWA didn't approve it. Rather, Iowa had it forced on them by a handful of lawyers in robes who think their moral superiority trumps the law and the will of every other person living in the state.

They'd have been better off with the dumb pig farmers than the even dumber and monstrously arrogant elitists.

I take it some of us are unfamiliar with even basic concepts of political theory? Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*yawn* Worn out. What about tyranny of the minority? You idiots don't seem to mind THAT kind of tyranny if it suits your stupid causes.

 

[Agnapostate]

*yawn* Worn out. What about tyranny of the minority? You idiots don't seem to mind THAT kind of tyranny if it suits your stupid causes.

You'd have to offer something substantive detailing the "tyrannical" nature of gay marriage legalization, elaborating on how it was more authoritarian an imposition than the prohibition.

 

[KittenKoder]

*yawn* Worn out. What about tyranny of the minority? You idiots don't seem to mind THAT kind of tyranny if it suits your stupid causes.

You'd have to offer something substantive detailing the "tyrannical" nature of gay marriage legalization, elaborating on how it was more authoritarian an imposition than the prohibition.

Sorry Agna ... but a majority ruling is not tyranny, it is polar to tyranny. Oppressive perhaps, but the rule of the minority over the majority is tyranny, so this angle won't win anything.

 

[Agnapostate]

Sorry Agna ... but a majority ruling is not tyranny, it is polar to tyranny. Oppressive perhaps, but the rule of the minority over the majority is tyranny, so this angle won't win anything.

How's that, considering it's an effective authoritarian imposition against a minority?

 

[Gunny]

Do we really have to go through basic political theory again?

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope. You can quite being an idiot shut up right now.

 

[Agnapostate]

Nope. You can quite being an idiot shut up right now.

Pretty impressive, Guppy. A lesser critic would have detailed specific arguments and objections. You sure showed them!

 

[Gunny]

So, Iowa, as in the majority of voters, didn't approve anything. The law was backdoored via the judiciary.

Very democratic.

Since when have we been a true democracy anyway?

Never. But in our type of democracy, the courts are allowed to decide if something is constitutional or not...a point Gunny loves to forget.

I haven't forgotten anything. I knew this lameass defense for backdooring the legislature and will of the people via the judiciary was coming next. That ploy has nothing to do with the intent of the law and everything to do with forcing the will of the minority on the majority.

 

[Gunny]

Nope. You can quite being an idiot shut up right now.

Pretty impressive, Guppy. A lesser critic would have detailed specific arguments and objections. You sure showed them!

What part of "shut" and "up" didn't you get, punk? If I want to argue with a moron, I'll go find sillyblahblah. He's at least funny.

 

[KittenKoder]

Sorry Agna ... but a majority ruling is not tyranny, it is polar to tyranny. Oppressive perhaps, but the rule of the minority over the majority is tyranny, so this angle won't win anything.

How's that, considering it's an effective authoritarian imposition against a minority?

Majority ruling is Democracy, though we are not a true Democracy here (only about 50%), calling the ruling by majority tyranny is not a valid argument. As I said, it's oppressive, but not tyranny in any way. This is a great example of why wiki-crapedia is well ... crap.

Though those who are complaining about the SCs decision are also wrong, this angle you are taking will only harm it, and has in many situations. Freedom comes from the majority more often than the minority, usually when the majority is made of of many walks of life. In this case their SC put it in the hands of the people to decide what contracts they want to make instead of ruling that any are more valid than the others. The really sad part is that this particular contract still needs a third party to initiate, thus it's still in the hands of "valid" ministers in the area (being Iowa I would not doubt that the majority there are christian wingnuts) so it would be rare that they would have to face the issue at all. However, their ruling simply makes a clear distinction between the religious portion and the legal portion of the contract, vowing to uphold the legal portion regardless of the limited ideological morals of those who oppose it. Taking all the weight off those who oppose it, in reality, so that they do not have to betray their personal "morals", since their morals are contradictory in this respect anyway.

 

[Agnapostate]

What part of "shut" and "up" didn't you get, punk? If I want to argue with a moron, I'll go find sillyblahblah. He's at least funny.

There a reason you can't? Broke that mirror again?

Wake me up when you have something intelligent to say...looks like I'm going for a Rip Van Winkle session here...

 

[Gunny]

*yawn* Worn out. What about tyranny of the minority? You idiots don't seem to mind THAT kind of tyranny if it suits your stupid causes.

You'd have to offer something substantive detailing the "tyrannical" nature of gay marriage legalization, elaborating on how it was more authoritarian an imposition than the prohibition.

I don't have to offer anything about gay marriage. I'm not discussing gay marriage. Guess that was a little too hard for that sharp-as-a-tack mind of yours to figure out, huh?

My argument is against the tyranny of the minority over the majority. If you need a definition, feel free to read KK's post as many times as is necessary until you think you get it.

 

[roomy]

probably doesn't tell as many lies as Agnes as well.

 

[Gunny]

What part of "shut" and "up" didn't you get, punk? If I want to argue with a moron, I'll go find sillyblahblah. He's at least funny.

There a reason you can't? Broke that mirror again?

Wake me up when you have something intelligent to say...looks like I'm going for a Rip Van Winkle session here...

If you NEVER wake up, I promise it won't be me that misses you. Feel free to fall off the Earth any time.

 

[Valerie]

First of all thanks.

Two consenting adults may do what these please to/for one another as a personal choice. It does not mean others have to approve of it/make/change laws to suit them.

Why not compare whatever may offend anyone out there?

Heck why not just make laws that curtail anything being an offence of any kind to anyone? BTW, that is surely coming by the looks of things.

Society can force or could attempt to force everyone to think the same in order to prevent any discourse among the masses.

What you may call love others have the same right to call or consider a sickness.

You may not like the comparison used but heck some people think the smell of cow shit is pleasant. I don't but to each his own but don't try to tell another they have to accept it (or else).

Nobody is forcing anybody to think anything.

Homosexual couples already exist with or without your approval and acceptance, no matter what you might "think" of them.

And amazingly enoughk, no one cares, or thinks anything of them. That's what activists fail to grasp, is that homosexuals and their private relationships really aren't of any interest to the rest of us whatsoever . . . until you drag them into the public arena and try to make them public policy.

The law provides special privileges to couples who are "married" and there is no legitimate reason to exclude certain couples from the rights of legal partnership. There is no real harm whatsoever, so your cow dung and your pig farm aren't exactly analogous.

It's very funny to me that marriage is viewed as a "privilege", instead of the set of recognized restrictions it really is. It tells me that a lot of people really don't understand the institution at all.

"No legitimate reason"? THAT tells me that you're just listening to no one but yourself and people who agree with you, so why bother talking to you at all?

Cecilie, I don't think of posting in a thread like this as responding to an individual as much as responding to the subject at hand. I've read all of your posts on this subject and if you notice, I haven't bothered to respond to one of them, so don't sweat wanting to talk to me. Just post a legitimate reason or don't. Can you demonstrate the harm?

What you fail to grasp is that the activists who crusaded across the country "in defense of marriage" are the ones who brought this issue "in your face" to begin with. Gay people didn't "drag themselves into the public arena", they are equal citizens of this country who are part of the public arena just like anybody else seeking public policy to protect their interests. The establishment of DOMA forced them to respond in kind, state by state.

BTW, talk about funny, you see marriage as a set of recognized restrictions?

The legal issues of marriage involve rights and privileges, the rest of your rants are nothing more than your emotional response to something that you find personally offensive. You have that right Cecilie, good for you, rant away.

Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. It should be noted that these rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female married couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman and thus bars same-sex couples from receiving any federal recognition of same sex marriage or conveyance of marriage benefits to same sex couples through federal marriage law.

Prior to the enactment of DOMA, the General Accounting Office (as the GAO was then called) identified 1,049[2] federal statutory provisions in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor. An update was published in 2004 by the GAO covering the period between September 21, 1996 (when DOMA was signed into law) and December 31, 2003. The update identified 120 new statutory provisions involving marital status, and 31 statutory provisions involving marital status repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor.

See below for a partial list of these provisions of federal law.
Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia