Iowa Gay Marriage Ruling
Tweet
Is getting the usual moderate and calm reaction from the religious right.
People getting married: clearly the worst thing in the world. If they’re gay.
Come on.
54 Responses to “Iowa Gay Marriage Ruling”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Ah shit, get ready Iowa. Here comes the crazy party.
reason > imaginary friend
So the Supreme Court obeyed the supreme law of the land, the constitution, and the right are attacking them for it.
No real surprise there.
Ed Whelan (at OW’s second link):
“Lawless judicial attack”?
Priceless.
cue the usual suspects to bitch and moan that this was yet another case of judicial activism – never mind that the justices did exactly what they are supposed to, namely interpreting the constitution of the state of Iowa.
Iowans, as is well known, are typically level-headed, fair-minded people. The great majority will know just what to think of the eruption of insane asshattery that’s being triggered by this ruling. It will only increase the level of sympathy for the court’s decision.
A unanimous decision – we could not get that in Maryland, we could not even get a win in Maryland, for our shame. Congratulations to the people of Iowa. Somebody has to give Fred Phelps a call in sort-of nearby Kansas, maybe he will have a heart attack or perhaps kill himself.
Can’t remember where, but someone pointed out that in less than 20 years gay marriage will be a non-issue and conservatives will say they were always for it and that “if you think about it, it’s really a conservative issue.” Take notes, people, the people fighting tooth and nail against marriage equality are essentially the same who fought against Civil Rights in the 1950s and 1960s (in many cases, exactly the same). Team Obama would do itself a favor by making a run at overturning DADT and/or DOMA, the sooner the better, from a political (and obviously a policy) standpoint.
the free republic threads on this are priceless.
This is a civil rights issue. More here. Sorry for the blogwhoring.
Get ready for “Harvey Milk was really a conservative” in 20 years.
Iowa has been changing on this issue for a long time. A lesbian couple I know told me they’ve noticed more tolerance and acceptance even since last year at bridal shows and bridal shops. They stopped in a bridal shop in a small Iowa town (not a liberal college town) earlier this year, and the owner’s main reaction seemed to be, “Cha-ching! Two dresses!”
Get ready for “Harvey Milk was really a conservative” in 20 years.
LOL, awesome.
What I don’t get is how this is unconstitutional? Everybody has the same rights for marriage. A man can marry any consenting woman as long as they meet the age requirements. What the courts are doing is creating a right for homosexuals. This was clearly defined in law that the state passed. The next thing will go is that I can marry my dog because it’s my constitutional right. Or to have more than one wife. Not very hard to just make up rights and vaguely point to the constitution.
“Cha-ching! Two dresses!”
A friend of mine has been suggesting to all of his GLBT brethren to flock to Iowa immediately and spend the equivalent of a small nation’s operating budget wheresoever in Iowa they decide to settle.
He’s not wrong…nothing has the power to sway even the holiest of rollers from their crusades like the realization that somebody somewhere is making more money than you.
“Cha-ching! Two dresses!”
Exactly. I’ve always thought that opposition to gay marriage will blow over the minute that the business community realizes how much extra money they can make.
Wedding are big economically. Florists, caterers, dress makers, hall rental, wine and spirits, music, celebrant, and wedding planner. That’s a lot of businesses in a community, many of them small businesses.
Any small town dress maker that turned down a lesbian couple’s request for dresses, for example, is shooting themselves in the foot. They lose that sale, and get a reputation for being an asshole in the local community. Many straight couples would pass them over, further driving them under.
Even many of the religious will come around when the priests realize “more celebrant fees in pocket == good”.
538 has more on the predictable future of this:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html
Good news for the good guys. Bad news for right wing dittohead assholes. Huzzah!
WellsMedication in 1959:
“What I don’t get is how this is unconstitutional? Everybody has the same rights for marriage. A white man can marry any consenting white woman as long as they meet the age requirements. Likewise, a colored man can marry any consenting colored woman. What the courts are doing is creating a right for miscenegationists. This was clearly defined in laws that many states have passed. The next thing will go is that I can marry another man because it’s my constitutional right. Or to have interracial couples adopting white children. Not very hard to just make up rights and vaguely point to the constitution.”
When my husband’s parents and my parents got married, it would have been illegal for my father to marry his mother in many states. Anyone seriously suggesting today that such marriages be made illegal would look like a crank at best. I look forward to our sons telling their children, years from now, “Yeah, if you can believe it, when we were born, Granddad and Poppa weren’t legally married – because they COULDN’T be.”
Um, because nobody out there is asking to marry their dog?
Marriage is a legal arrangement between two of-age consenting adults. The government has no business beyond that in trying to determine who it is you get to marry.
As fully 50% of all marriages fail, the ‘attack’ on marriage is clearly from the act of marriage itself.
And since virtually all sanctioned marriages are among heterosexuals, they are clearly the ones launching the ‘attacks.’
How do compassionate Conservative Christians answer that?
‘The next thing will go is that I can marry my dog because it’s my constitutional right. Or to have more than one wife. Not very hard to just make up rights and vaguely point to the constitution.’
So the concept of bestiality is a direct result of the last 10 years of gay rights activism?
The same lame ass argument that said if interracial marriage were sanctioned, the children of those unions would be more simian than human.
I can think of plenty of dogs that I would rather marry than any intolerant, ignorant Right wing asshole.
What the courts are doing is creating a right for homosexuals.
Well guess what: some people are gay. They should have rights too. Get over it. Bigot.
Also, what Robert said.
Everybody has the same rights for marriage. A man can marry any consenting woman as long as they meet the age requirements.
You’re a real romantic, Wellsy.
The next thing will go is that I can marry my dog because it’s my constitutional right.
No, because an animal cannot enter into a legal contract. That’s what civil marriage is, you doofus, a legal contract that grants civil privileges to married couples.
Religious marriage is a private affair, and as such it is left up to the individual denominations to decide how to approach gay marriage. Some already allow gays to marry within their rites, some will never do so. But the Iowa constitution is clear: civil rights inherent in the marriage contract cannot be denied to a certain class of consenting adult couples just because you think it’s icky.
WellsMedication, you do realize that a dog (or any other animal) cannot consent to being married, don’t you? A animal-human marriage is quite literally impossible since consent cannot possibly be obtained from the latter.
Shorty Wells: “Teh gays buttered this slippery slope, and that’s why I’m balls deep in the family Doberman”
I’m sorry,but gay marriage -> man-on-dog is only a serious argument with the ultra-christian conservative nutbags (as is the only slightly less ridiculous gay marriage -> polygamy). The judges actually address all this quite thoroughly in their decision. Basically, they deem that stating homosexuals have the right to marry member of the opposite sex is as undesirable as allowing heterosexuals to only marry members of the same sex; ie, allowing gays to only marry those they do not wish to marry is no right at all.
The arguments for same sex marriage are not complicated at all, the arguments against are illogical and largely comical.
What I don’t get is how this is unconstitutional?
You wouldn’t.
Everybody has the same rights for marriage. A man can marry any consenting woman as long as they meet the age requirements.
By that logic, you would be fine with Christianity and Judaism being outlawed. After all, everyone would still have the right to join the Church of Scientology.
What the courts are doing is creating a right for homosexuals.
Oh noez!
So, if gay marriage is so popularly acceptable, why has it yet to pass legislatively in a single state? Why has it always come about by judges suddenly discovering that the state’s Constitution has been woefully misinterpreted for all these years? Why has it failed every single time it’s come up through a democratic process — legislative action or ballot initiative?
That’s how it’s being pushed currently here in New Hampshire, and my only concern is that the backers didn’t mention it at all in the last round of elections — but suddenly it’s a top priority. They ran on everything BUT gay marriage, but once they got elected, it’s the biggest concern they all have.
I’d be proud if New Hampshire was the first state do legalize gay marriage the RIGHT way — with the consent of the people through their elected representatives. It’d be a good example for the rest of the nation.
J.
Conservatives are incapable of understanding the reasons a person would want to marry a specific other person. After all, there’s no chance in hell anyone will ever love them, or that they will ever love another person. For them a marriage based on lies is the ideal.
It would be sad if you sick fuckers didn’t constantly equate love with raping animals and small children. Given that inevitable reaction, though, I just want to make sure my cat is never alone in the same room with a Conservative.
J.G.Thayer: “So, if gay marriage is so popularly acceptable, why has it yet to pass legislatively in a single state?”
Did you know it wasn’t till the mid 1990s before the majority of Americans accepted interracial marriage. That’s nearly 30 years after Loving v. Virginia.
Would you have supported waiting all of those years to overturn the racist Anti-miscegenation laws?
“I’d be proud if New Hampshire was the first state do legalize gay marriage the RIGHT way — with the consent of the people through their elected representatives.”
So I guess you think the United States government has one branch too many. Because that is what it sounds like.
Hey, they had to do something to get tourist trade.
“So, if gay marriage is so popularly acceptable, why has it yet to pass legislatively in a single state?”
The legislation of Iowa had a crack at this issue. In response to this issue, the legislation wrote a bad law. Per the system of checks and balances, the Supreme Court reviewed the badly written law and said “Hey, legislation. You wrote a bad law that doesn’t jive with the foundation of all of our laws. Per our function, we decree the law void.”
If only legislation could reverse their bad laws, some bad laws might never be reversed. This moment has been brought to you by the intelligent men of the Founding Fathers.
Jay, blacks and women haven’t always been granted equal protection under the law, in spite of the Constitution. Should those groups have been content to wait until state legislatures got around to granting them such protections as well?
I think it’s called “The Judicial Branch.” Look it up.
I see we’re going to need some basic Civics here…
There are three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial.
The legislative MAKES the laws.
The executive ENFORCES the laws.
The judiciary INTERPRETS the laws.
If a “right” doesn’t exist, then it needs a law spelling it out. It is the duty and authority of the legislative branch to do that.
It is NOT the place of the courts to go “discovering” new rights tucked away in the penumbras of Constitutions and laws. That is making law, and that is the province of the legislative.
Quaker, for a long time women and blacks were treated as inferior because such was spelled out in the US Constitution. That’s why it took amendments to get that situation corrected. In the case of Jews and other groups, it took enough people of good conscience to realize that the law was clear — but being deliberately misinterpreted.
I repeat: here in New Hampshire, we’re doing it (mostly) right. A gay marriage bill (successor to the civil unions law passed about two years ago) is working its way through the legislature. I don’t care for how it was done, as it was not cited by any of the backers as a top priority yet it suddenly became one after the elections, but I can live with that — and support the measure.
Those other states who are doing it by judicial fiat… speaking purely on a pragmatic basis, it’s a bad move. Look at the backlash and outrage generated by the move of bypassing the public’s ability to express their own opinions on such a fundamental issue. It will, in the long term, hurt gay marriage more than it will help.
J.
Shorter Jay: Loving v. Virginia was the worst thing that ever happened.
The executive ENFORCES the laws.
Unless he includes a “signing statement” saying he won’t and nobody can make him. Where is that in the Constitution?
JT, I find the idea that people’s rights have to wait for acceptance by the public at large reprehensible. Our rights are clear in the constitution; there is sometimes a need for the courts to spell them out. Have you read the Iowa SC decision? Care to tell me what you find illogical or unreasonable?
Legislatures and referendums will always lag behind courts, since the people are always a little slow to accept reason (and even good legislatures, should they exist, are fearful of an unreasonable voting populace). I do agree it would be ideal if people voted gay marriage rights into law (and it will happen, soon), but that’s not the way it’s generally worked in this country. Perhaps you can clue me in to where popular vote has given rights to an underprivileged subset, because I don’t recall that happening.
Personally, I’m really looking forward to 20-30 yrs from now when conservatives will argue that they always supported full marriage rights for all, but they were held back by President Obama.
Everybody has the same rights for marriage. A man can marry any consenting woman as long as they meet the age requirements.
Let me just point out to the troller that “Get the fuck off me!” does not count as consent.
If only legislation could reverse their bad laws, some bad laws might never be reversed.
Did you know blowjobs are illegal in Rhode Island?
Breakin’ the law
Breakin’ the law..
The judiciary INTERPRETS the laws.
Jay Tea, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld a previous court ruling which found that the state’s law banning same-sex marriage violated Iowa’s own state Constitution.
This is exactly what the courts are intended to do.
I’m curious, has the equal-marriage-rights issue ever come up before a court where they ruled against gay marriage?
If not, that’s kind of interesting.
The legislative MAKES the laws.
The executive ENFORCES the laws.
The judiciary INTERPRETS the laws.
This is typical wingnut logic, take something modestly complicated, dumb it down to brain-dead simple by ignoring all detail, then use the stupid oversimplification as FACT (caps required). Of course the detail is that laws overlap and conflict, and a constitution takes precedence, etc, etc. More importantly, even if the law is absolute, the realization that homosexuality is not a mental illness, not a lifestyle choice, but an innate feature in a percentage of the population necessitates according them the rights they were denied before. That these rights have been previously been denied due to general ignorance does not preclude the court from correcting this error.
Does this count as Jay Tea lying again? Courts say YES!
So I guess you think the United States government has one branch too many. Because that is what it sounds like.
But of course. What do conservatives hate more than justice?
If a “right” doesn’t exist, then it needs a law spelling it out. It is the duty and authority of the legislative branch to do that.
10th Amendment
Did you know blowjobs are illegal in Rhode Island?
I guess I won’t be coming there any time soon.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think that all 50 state legislatures passed laws legalizing “miscegenation” after Loving v. Virginia. The ruling invalidated those laws, so there was no need to do so. I’m pretty sure Mississippi never did.
Quaker, for a long time women and blacks were treated as inferior because such was spelled out in the US Constitution.
Jay Tea, please quote or cite the passage or passages where the “inferiority” of women was specifically “spelled out” in the Constitution.
I guess I won’t be coming there any time soon.
I hate you forever.
J.G.Thayer: “I see we’re going to need some basic Civics here…”
Clearly we are.
“The legislative MAKES the laws.”
“The judiciary INTERPRETS the laws.”
Part of the job of the judiciary is to make sure the legislative branch doesn’t MAKE laws that are unconstitutional.
This is what they did here.
“It is NOT the place of the courts to go ‘discovering’ new rights tucked away in the penumbras of Constitutions and laws.”
So Iowa does NOT have equal protection under the law? Wow. That’s an extreme claim. Care to back it up? I’m sure you have a better grasp of the Iowa constitution than the member of the Iowa supreme court do, so let’s see your evidence.
“It is NOT the place of the courts to go ‘discovering’ new rights tucked away in the penumbras of Constitutions and laws.”
One more time. The Iowa courts did not discover a new right, they struck down a law that specifically denied one.
J.G.Thayer: “I see we’re going to need some basic Civics here…”
Another hit and run, this time by Mr.Thayer?
Yeah, it’s funny how when Jay Tea says something completely wrong he disappears completely.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment IX