Pet zebra, macaw found in truck outside Dubuque bar
Obama visiting wind energy plant in Newton Thursday
Firefighters locate drowning victim on Cedar River
Police called 18 times regarding Isaiah Sweet’s behavior towards grandparents, records show
Local family fitness programs aim to combat rise in teen diabetes, prediabetes
Officials critical of inconsistent alcohol laws for boats and motor vehicles
 Todd DormanTodd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007. |
|
California ruling, Iowa impact
Multimedia
Photo: Gay Marriage Liz Martin
Photo: 450px-Iowa_this_ones_for_you_california
(Liz Martin/SourceMedia Group)
So a 2-1 majority on a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals says it’s unconstitutional to rescind a constitutionally granted right through a referendum without a legitimate reason to do so.
The ruling is all about California. But I’m thinking of Iowa.
Tuesday’s ruling that California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional received muted fanfare. It’s very narrowly crafted, scores of analysts said, to apply to California circumstances. The court did not endorse a sweeping right to marriage. It did not, with the stroke of a pen, make gay marriages legal west of the Rockies. And here I thought this was a court so radical and dangerous that it should be abolished by President Gingrich. Go figure.
Its ruling applies in a specific case where a state court ruled that same-sex marriage is a constitutionally protected right before voters then approved an amendment erasing that right. California is the lone place where that’s happened.
But could happen beyond California. And that brings us back home.
If the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the ruling and affirms it, the action could swiftly halt the ongoing misguided drive to amend marriage discrimination into Iowa’s constitution. Such an amendment, like California’s, would clearly be unconstitutional.
“The same reasoning would apply in Iowa as in California,” said Camilla Taylor, an attorney with Lambda Legal who led the legal team that won Iowa’s court fight over marriage equality.
If the Supreme Court overturns the California ruling, the fight here in Iowa likely continues.
But even if the high court declines to weigh in, as some have suggested it might, Tuesday’s ruling stands as a strong legal precedent against the notion that Iowa can turn back the clock on civil rights.
The 9th Circuit panel found that none of the reasons given by backers of Prop. 8 could be considered compelling enough to justify yanking away previously granted marriage rights. And the reasons given there are roughly the same as those peddled by culture warriors in Iowa — protecting tradition, advancing procreation, stabilizing families, protecting religious liberty, etc.
The panel ruled that Prop. 8 really did none of those things. Its real effect was to “lessen the status and human dignity” of its intended targets. Its true purpose, according to the court, was “to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority’s private disapproval of their relationships.”
The panel majority also found it “implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of a family headed by one man and one woman.”
The very same can be said of the weak and spiteful case for a ban being pushed in Iowa under the deceptive “let us vote” banner.
It’s just more writing on the wall that the tide has turned. I wish our so-called “family leaders” would heed it, get the hint and start focusing on actually helping Iowa families, instead of working overtime to tear them apart.
Charlie Manson was a “family leader”, too. Right, Bob?
Succinctly stated, Todd. Opponents of same-sex marriage can only invoke inertia, fear, and hate.
Time to give it up, guys…
Opponents of same-sex marriage can only invoke inertia, fear, and hate.
Look in the mirror Jeff.
This isn’t an argument, Gary, it’s an adolescent taunt. You’re trolling again…
Funny Jeff, I oppose redefining an institution that predates the law, but I’m not afraid of it, nor to I tell others to be afraid. And I certainly don’t hate anyone.
Perhaps you were looking in the mirror during your description?
Let’s see, the “institution” you speak of once allowed a man plural wives. Women became property of their husbands in your “tradition,” and a woman could be compelled to marry her rapist, or be stoned to death for adulterating her marriage. Age of consent? Bah, we’ll marry women off as young as eleven or twelve!
Your “institution” has been changed to accommodate more civilized views on women, Joel. I note, once again, your failure to provide a cogent response. You simply cannot make any kind of logical argument against same-sex marriage.
Good heavens Jeff, you’re missing the point! Even in every case you have listed, you’re still talking about a man and a woman! I don’t agree with any of those circumstances, but you just proved what I am saying and that is that marriage is an institution predating the law and has never including people of the same gender.
You get your panties in a bunch so tight I think the oxygen doesn’t flow or something. Quit running away from the point. I understand your passion on the topic, but you’re clouding what everyone is saying because you go off on tangents. Keep it simple pal and take time to actually comprehend what is being said.
One more time: Marriage, as an institution, has always been and should always be a union between one man and one woman.
I’m still curious how same-sex marriage harms your own marriage, Joel!
He can’t answer that Julie, because it doesn’t.
“marriage is an institution predating the law and has never including people of the same gender.”
Your ‘predating law’ argument is laughable. Law predates any religious institution in the world. Try again. Also, Greek and Roman history disagrees with your assertion that marriage never included those of the same gender. You have no basis in fact or history, You simply have a ridiculous world view gained from a book written by farmers that had no factual knowledge of the world they resided in.
I should have said any Judeo-Christian/Monotheistic religious institution.
What’s probably even scarier to people like Joel is the fact that homosexuality also exists among animals.
It fundamentally redefines it! How hard is this concept? And I’ve never said or implied it’s doing harm to my marriage. Those are yours and your liberal friends’ words. I’m simply against redefining an institution that predates the law. I’m not opposed to civil unions or any other title that grants same sex couples all of the same rights as heterosexual couples. But that’s not what the liberals are after. They don’t want equal rights! They want their agenda and viewpoints crammed down everyone’s throats. It’s very simple. Put rights, emotions, and everything else aside and look: A man married to a man is not the same thing as a man married to a woman and should not be called as such. No more, no less.
LOL! Not a very convincing arguement, Joel. I sure wish Conservatives would cough up a copy of the gay “agenda” that they’re SO convinced is going to be the downfall of civilization as we know it. Oooh, those scary gays! They might obtain rights that YOU don’t want them to have. That’s really what this pearl-clutching paranois is all about.
Two words Kirby…”reading comprehension”. I JUST finished saying I’m not opposed to gays obtaining the rights granted under marriage. Plain and simple. And no one ever said anything about being scared. Again, your words.
The agenda is simple. You and other libacrats want everyone to accept what you want. Period. We believe homosexual marriage is wrong. It’s as simple as that.
“You and other fundiegelicals want everyone to accept what you want.”
I can play that game, too, Joel. It doesn’t serve any purpose, though, does it?
Your beliefs and the beliefs held by all religions are why the laws in this country must be and are secularly based, Joel.
Deal with it, Joel: marriage is being redefined so it includes same-sex couples. I will defer to the Iowa Supreme Court, which ruled that you cannot legally deny civil marriage rights to same-sex couples.
You are hyperventilating over your arbitrary, abstract definition of marriage. As I said, the concept is being redefined even as we write. You can blabber all you want about “an institution which predates law,” but all you are actually doing is projecting your opposition to same-sex marriage backwards onto the past. True, Alexander the Great didn’t “marry” any of his Companion cavalry, but why do you think he selected that name for his elite troops?
It is a good, necessary act of social progress that your “timeless” institution is being redefined. You’re not presenting any kind of cogent argument here, you’re just offering as normative a restrictive definition of marriage, while ignoring the very real changes that have been made, and are being made, to what a “marriage” is.
Read Klinzman. Never said I wanted to deny rights. Civil unions would include all of the same rights.
Go ahead though, you and Kirby. You can keep it up and call the sky purple while you’re at it.
Nope, “separate but equal is inherently unequal,” Joel. Deal with it: we’re redefining marriage, and you are helpless to stop that process.
So, learn to live with “same-sex marriage.”
“Deal with it: we’re redefining marriage, and you are helpless to stop that process.”
I hope everyone reads your post Jeff so they understand that you admit you support tyranny.
I hope everyone reads your post Jeff so they understand that opponents of same sex marriage support tyranny.”
Fixed it for ya, Gary.
Funny how you see “tyranny” in extending equal protection under the law to a group of Americans you have been programmed to hate, Gary.
Oh, and you’re still trolling…
Purple sky
http://www.scenicreflections.com/ithumbs/Purple_Sky_Purple_Lake_Wallpaper__yvt2.jpg
Check out this video, Joel. It’s quite powerful. And then you can explain why this woman (a Republican) is wrong in her thinking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbmbdWK6338&feature=player_embedded
“How could I deny anyone to have that incredible bond (of marriage)?”
That pretty much says it all, Julie.
Yes, it surely does.
I saw that clip on television earlier Julie.
Powerful, indeed.
Very well said, Jeff.
Ah, but Joel, “marriage” has been redefined (or defined differently in different circumstances) since it’s very beginning. Even “Traditional” or “Biblical” marriage has been redefined in the Bible itself. The various types contained therein include One-Man+One-Woman, One-Man+Many-Women, One-Man+Dead+Brother’s-Widow, and several other types. See the link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl0.htm
Of course, the concept of marriage in one form or another not only predates the Bible but also all other religions/mythologies. http://en wikipedia org wiki marriage
Sorry, Joel, but your argument has no basis in fact, no foundation. but merely the *beliefs* you hold but which have no standing outside of your own small world view.
“I’m not opposed to civil unions or any other title that grants same sex couples all of the same rights as heterosexual couples.”
See Brown v. Board
“They want their agenda and viewpoints crammed down everyone’s throats.”
But, that isn’t what you are doing by attempting to force your religious world view on the rest of the country?
I don’t care one way or another, but… in the liberal land of Calif., the citizens voted against gay marriage. In Iowa the citizens voted out the justices that voted for gay marriage. That should tell ya something.
Citizens voted against emancipation, voter rights for women and blacks, and interracial marriage. That should tell you something, too.
What your “point” tells me is that “non-profit” tax-free religious institutions funnel huge amounts of money into campaigns against minorities. It also tells me that discrimination will always exist and be supported by the most bigoted amongst us.
Sue, SCOIA didn’t “vote” for gay marriage. They did, however, find that a law passed by a bunch of bigots didn’t pass Constitutional muster. Pretty simple.
May I ask a simple question…what, exactly, is *your* reason for opposing Civil Rights on this specific issue?
(seek first to understand…)
Sue, majorities are quite frequently wrong on the issue of civil rights for minorities. Oh, and did you see where the Washington state legislature voted for same-sex marriage? And I have to ask why you insist on applying your bigoted epithet “liberal” to an entire state, and why you support a mistaken vote which was stoked by one of the most hated men in Iowa, Bob Vander Plotz?
“Sue and Plotzy sitting in a tree,
K-I-S-S-I-N-G…”
The California ruling is simply another example of judges and courts out of control making political rather than legal decisions. There is still hope that the US Supreme Court can actually read and understand the California State Constitution and rule accordingly.
The US Constitution says, “We the People” it doesn’t say “Whatever the judges decide.”
Actually, Gary, if you read the ruling and knew anything about Constitutional Law you’d understand that the US Constitution doesn’t allow for discrimination as you would like to see it. I have no idea why you are opposed to marriage between two consenting adults, but I’ve yet to hear an argument that didn’t involve someone’s sky fairy or invisible friend, and those arguments are only applicable to those who also share the same mythology. You have no Right to impose your mythology on me any more than I have the right to impose my mythology on you. Given that, persons are subject to the Constitution, not doctrine.
How many times do you need to have this explained to you, Gary?
http://news.yahoo.com/war-religion-no-self-defense-205600923.html
“Infinity” is the correct answer to your question…