Should Iowa vote on constitutional amendment defining marriage?
Related Stories
Iowa Supreme Court justice David Wiggins was retained by 54.4 percent of Iowa voters, according to unofficial ballot results Wednesday. Wiggins had received 666,470 “Yes” votes to 556,071 “No” votes, with about 98 percent of the state’s precincts reporting, according to the Iowa Secretary of State’s website.
Justices Edward Mansfield, Bruce Zager and Thomas Waterman also were retained, each gaining about 74 percent of the votes.
Conservative activist Bob Vander Plaats and special interest groups launched an aggressive campaign to oust Wiggins for his part in the 2009 Varnum decison, which led to legalizing same-sex marriage in Iowa. Three justices lost their retention vote in 2010 over the ruling.
In the wake of Wiggins’ retention vote, do you think legislators should give voters a chance to weigh in on a constitutional amendment defining marriage?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
“In the wake of Wiggins’ retention vote, do you think legislators should give voters a chance to weigh in on a constitutional amendment defining marriage?”
Absolutely not!
Why would the voters have any say in the laws they live by?
The voters just “had their say” with the results of said vote reflected in the people who will be returning to the statehouse this coming January. It was the collective will of the voter to preserve (albeit slightly diminished) the GOP majority in the Iowa House and the Democrat majority (slightly increased) in the state Senate. To me, the fact that the House will likely continue to agitate for a specific SSM-prohibition amendment only to be rebuffed by the state Senate is a perfect embodiment of the Will of the People, which is not of one mind on this issue but which tends toward caution when it comes to codifying discrimination.
As has been noted elsewhere, any state actions could be rendered moot by a US Supreme Court decision; so why bother? Having SSM in Iowa for the past 2.5 years hasn’t led to death, dismemberment, moral rot, drug use, child abuse, or an increase in violent crime attributable to it, and it is not likely to before the SCOTUS makes a definitive ruling on the matter.
So in other words Iowans should only be allowed to vote on issues you agree with and know you can win. You want a dictatorship. Got it.
Iowans should be allowed to vote on what their elected representatives agree to put before them, not random issues that are directly brought to the fore by special interest groups. That’s just not how our lawmaking process works- by constitutional fiat, not “dictatorship” or any other inflammatory description you care to sling at it.
There’s a state that has the type of direct-vote lawmaking that you apparently favor: it’s called “California”. And we all know what a shining model of rational government that it, and how it is highly regarded as a bastion of conservative principles. (Sarcasm mode … off now)
“So in other words Iowans should only be allowed to vote on issues you agree with and know you can win. You want a dictatorship. Got it.”
No David, Jack and I are not describing a dictatorship, we are describing is a republic. Got it? We the voters, as a collective, elect delegates to decide on issues for us. We are not a direct democracy where individual voters are allowed to vote on every issue- never have been and hopefully never will be. Our founding fathers did not want it to be that way because there is very big danger allowing common voters to make these types of decisions.
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” – Thomas Jefferson
“Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths… A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.” – James Madison
At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 Benjamin Franklin was asked by a lady in a crowd, “Dr Franklin, sir, what kind of a government have you given us?!” Ben Franklin responded, “A Republic, madam, if you can keep it!”
Please see this video. Pay special attention at the 4:55 mark to 8:20. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE
A Bannana Repulblic.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+banana+republic&qpvt=definition+banana+republic&FORM=DTPDIA
Must we continue beating this dead horse? Public sentiment seems to have spoken, Wiggins might not be the brightest star on the Supreme Court bench, but he did nothing wrong. Maryland, Maine and Washington passed laws to allow gay marriage and Minnesota did not over turn their laws that allow for gay marriage, doesn’t that say the argument is over and done with?
In the interests of accuracy MN voted against a proposal to amend the MN Constitution to define marriage as man-woman.
The issue of same sex marriage will, almost certainly, be taken up by the US Supreme Court. Their ruling will over ride any state law or state constitution. Any effort to address this issue at the state level will be a waste of time and money.
In a week when the first openly gay Senator was elected, 3 states ratified same sex unions and one rejected a conservative definition of marriage, it is impossible not to think how much Harvey Milk would have loved this.
Anne Kronenberg, his final campaign manager, wrote of him: “What set Harvey apart from you or me was that he was a visionary. He imagined a righteous world inside his head and then he set about to create it for real, for all of us.”
The world is changing and some people are not yet but as my wife and my marriage was illegal in the south in the so not long ago past. and probably would be still illegal if it had been put up to a vote of the people down south, some times the courts have to rule on what is constitutional and what is not, because some people want their freedoms but would like to restrict others.
Did you mean “Should Iowans be allowed to vote on a . . . ” ?
I can’t argue against Iowans right to amend the Constitution even though everyone in my family would be strongly against such an amendment.
But I think the question is moot considering how long it would take to go through the process and the unlikelihood it would then pass. Time, effort, and money could be better spent.
Sure put it up for a vote and while we’re at it, let’s add polygamy in there too. I mean if we’re going to approve one, why not the other, we don’t dare trample on the rights of those in a polygamist relationship.
So you are suggesting an amendment that would define marriage as a union between 1 or more men and 1 or more women, is that correct ? I would think that would be even less likely to pass than a definition of 1 and 1 but you can certainly push for it. I wouldn’t advocate trampling on your right to do so.
Your comment does not make sense in the context of this discussion.
Same-sex marriage is currently legal. The “vote” would be pertaining to a constitutional amendment which would specfically make it illegal.
Polygamy is currently illegal and that law’s status has never been successfully contested (and cannot be under the legal rationale of the Varnum ruling); therefore a constitutional amendment is not needed to proscribe it.
If a SSM constitutional amendment is pursued, it will be a single-issue amendment- cluttering it up with phantom issues would confuse people and torpedo its chances for success, which are presently small if the recent election results are viewed as a referendum on the matter.
Is polygamy legal??? If it is then most definetly try to get it changed. If it’s not, well try to get it changed if you truly want to be in a relationship like that.
The Bill of Rights are not subject to a vote. Equal Rights have always been the law of the land. Just because some people want to deprive others of their rights does not make this a new issue. Marriage is a legal contract between people for legal purposes and has nothing to do with religion or Nature. As in the last words of the ceremony “now by the powers vested in me by the State of Iowa”. Find something else to work on.
Sometimes constitutional amendments apply to technical issues of little consequence. Other amendments secure important rights for citizens. There is only one example that I can think up (at the federal level) where an amendment took rights away (amendment 18 – prohibition). That amendment was reversed by amendment 19.
An amendment to deny same sex couples the right to marry would be another amendment designed to take rights away.
Oooops
Amendment XIX gave women the right to vote
Amendment XX repealed Amendment XVIII
Interesting side note, Amendment XVI (Income tax) paved the way for Amendment XVIII (Prohibition).
Prohibition was the result of several decades of efforts on the part of Progressives to get all male legislatures to pay attention to widespread problems of domestic abuse and abandonment. It seems nobody in a position to actually do anything cared about women being beaten half to death by their husbands or left to the mercy of the county poor farm when their husbands abandoned them (divorce was hard to get in those days). The common denominator was alcohol and drug abuse with one out of three adults an alcoholic or drug addict or both.
Seems it was easier to convince those in power to ban the sale of addictive drugs and alcohol than it was to convince them to ban the beating of women and children.
So, what does the Income Tax have to do with Prohibition? Simple. Prior to Amendment XVI, federal taxes on alcohol were the most important source of income for the federal government and had been since the Revolutionary War. Assuring he federal government of a steady source of income paved the way for the prohibition of alcohol
In a way, Amendment XVIII wasn’t a roll back of rights. It was an attempt to expand rights for women and children.That it followed an indirect and ultimately failed route was a sign of a time when women and children were considered property. The intention was good. It just didn’t work.
But it reinforces your point. We’ve not had an amendment at the federal level where the intent was to roll back rights
The last thing a majority of Americans will give a crap about is same-sex marriage. They will be scratching each other’s eye balls when this administration drops the coming fiscal bombs! The same people who voted for Obama will be screaming the loudest. I am going to LMAO when those Bush Tax cuts expire and the full brunt of Omacare kicks in! Won’t be long before all the fiscal lies come home to roost.
https://snt002.mail.live.com/default.aspx?id=64855&rru=inbox#n=2019657905&rru=inbox&fid=1&mid=98cf4994-29cc-11e2-b570-00215ad6a1d2&fv=1
No, not under any circumstance. A constitutional amendment to relegate a group of people to a lower status is not acceptable.