Last week, I was extremely heartened to see this article:The judge has since stayed his order, thus prohibiting masses of gay people from around the country to get married in Iowa. But this couple, picture courtesy of CBS News, made it and got married.
I think the judge made a smart move though, because, hey, this is Iowa after all! I'm sure the cry of "activitist judges" will be heard long and loud for the next few weeks but to me it comes down to the letter of the law in the state. You can't discriminate against someone based on their race, sex, or creed. Gay people don't have the same rights as straight people. Period. There is no way around this fact.
All I know is that it if it can happened in Iowa, for cripes sake, it can happen anywhere. I guess it's time for me to stop with the Iowa jokes as they are one step ahead Minnesota on this one.
All I know is that it if it can happened in Iowa, for cripes sake, it can happen anywhere. I guess it's time for me to stop with the Iowa jokes as they are one step ahead Minnesota on this one.
12 comments:
Activist judges...yeah, what a laugh that is. More like "judges who don't agree with my beliefs so we will now blackball them."
What a load of crap. Judges interpret the law, which the last time I checked, held that all people were equal.
Looks like someone just handed the GOP a major issue that favors them. I'm sure they are thankful. This must be a conservative plot.
So it comes down to the "letter of the law"? I thought laws were made by our elected lawmakers.
Notice I'm not "crying", I'm just asking a question.
Yes, the laws were made by elected lawmakers. Judge Hansen ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Legislature passed in 1998, contradicts previous court rulings regarding civil rights and should be struck down. It is in violation of the Iowa Constitution. Here is the first sentence in said document:
Rights of persons. SECTION 1. All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights--among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
I don't see an asterisk there that excludes homosexuals.
I also don't see an asterisk that states that it is anybody's "right" to be married. You are perpetuating the fallacy that a person's rights (equal access, power of attorney, etc.) are inexorably interwined with marriage. But if judges aren't bright enough to understand that, I guess we can't expect anybody else to be, either.
Then by your logic all marriage could be banned then?
Absolutely, at the discretion of the body under whose purview the marriage is to be sanctioned. It already happens today due to factors that have nothing to do with homosexuality.
Well, as I see it, the body, in this case, is the state of Iowa. Under Iowa law, all people should be treated equally. So, again, that is why the judge interpreted it the way he did. It is the law, actually, not a right.
"acquiring, possessing and protecting property" is the part of the law that I think really allows for gay people to be married. If one is not married but has a partner, it is virtually impossible to legally acquire shared property.
But that's exactly what I'm saying. People spend so much time worrying about what the law intended, how it's interpreted, etc., when really the most effective solution is take marriage out of the equation. The rights for which people are fighting are not intrinsically tied to marriage. They are equated to marriage only because of laws that were enacted based on an outdated mode of thinking.
The question of whether gay people can be married is one entirely for the churches to decide. The question of whether all people should have equal rights is one that has already been answered in this country.
Fix the flawed law. Don't push for a flawed resolution.
I still say the preemptive mention of Activist Judges made by Markadelphia is proof that he knows that this is indeed an activist judge.
I mentioned the activist judges thing because I wanted to illustrate how the right is fed propaganda and told how to think.
PL, I agree. Fixed the flawed law and then the marriage thing goes away. I wonder if either side knows of what I will now refer to as Big Pat's Problem Solver (BPPS).
How to think? I wonder how many lefties you can get to agree with the Florida Supreme courts decision in the 2000 election. After all, they just interpret the law right?
Looks like there is only 1 person on this blog who has an idea about the subject on gay marriage that doesn't involve leveling accusations of Discrimination, Intolerance, bigotry, racism, hatred, etc toward other people. Yeah, the left are the true "thinkers" in our society. What BS.
Judging by his posts, said person ain't no liberal.
Another couple liberals in another thread said that Larry Craig should resign SIMPLY because he is a liar and a hypocrite. Assuming the cop's accounting is correct -- that is, that Craig made a gesture with his foot and hand typically used to solicit sex -- why is that disorderly conduct? Adults in public places solicit sex from one another, directly and indirectly, by word and by gesture, ten million times a day. If money was exchanged then a solicitation charge may be in order but that wasn't the case. if the sex had actually occurred then I would think the charge would hold up.
Maybe I'm becoming more libertarian in my old age, but I have to think that a police officer should have better things to do than hang out in the men's room at an airport waiting for the Larry Craig's of the world.
Well, there's no denying that a police officer does have better things to do. And I still feel sorry for Larry Craig.
Post a Comment