If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   In an effort to "take the country back," three high court justices that gave gays equal protection under the law are going back to private practice. The first instance of removing a judge since the option existed in 1962   (cnn.com) divider line 495
    More: Sad, Iowa Supreme Court, judicial activisms, Code of Iowa, same-sex marriages, The Des Moines Register, rights of women, iowans, midterm elections  
•       •       •

23346 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Nov 2010 at 4:05 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



495 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-11-03 04:33:09 PM
Orgasmatron138: As an Iowa resident, I'm ashamed at this whole thing. I was really proud to say that I live in a state that recognized equal protection under the law.

I feel really bad for gay people. Sorry, guys. We're not all ignorant hicks.


But you're still all hicks, right?
 
2010-11-03 04:33:12 PM
I'm kinda getting tired of living in a country full of backward minded hicks.
 
2010-11-03 04:33:49 PM
Phaid: You keep calling people "ignorant" because they believe marriage is between one man and one woman, and this is what's going to happen.

^^ Wise words.
 
2010-11-03 04:34:39 PM
teh_d00d: So let me get this straight, Iowa For Freedom is an activist group protesting activist judges who are taking away their freedom by granting gays the freedom to marry.

I never got how this somehow takes away from people's right to marry. It's a farking governmental designation anyway, there's nothing 'sacred' about it. If it helps you sleep at night you can still think they're going to hell and yadda yadda yadda
 
2010-11-03 04:34:55 PM
Coconice: Not sure if serious.

I do not like our set up in Illinois, though. What is good for Cook County is not usually the same as what is good for the rest of this land mass.

So, Cook County can select a governor that rest of the state would rather not have.

So, Cook County can cast electoral votes on a president that the rest of the state would rather not have.

It makes voting feel quite useless, and those of us out here growing your food get very little representation.


There's a few more people here in Cook County than elsewhere in Illinois. Why should you get a louder say than me?
 
2010-11-03 04:35:06 PM
Hey Iowans, still wanna go on about how progressive your state really is and how we all have the wrong opinion about it? Yeah, I thought not.

Gays to the stockades! Don't let them near the cornfields, they could give the corn the AIDS.
 
2010-11-03 04:35:37 PM
Never knew Iowa was so bigoted. How very sad for them.
 
2010-11-03 04:36:14 PM
Coconice: Back to the gay thing, though, I can understand a church refusing to acknowledge same sex marriage. I can in no way understand the problem with civil unions.

The Civil Union thing exposes the lie. When gay marriage is being discussed, opponents often say the real issue is the word marriage and its traditional definition as a bond between a man and a woman. "Oh, it's not about hating gay people", they say. "Civil Unions would be fine", they say. Then they go and oppose Civil Unions, and I spend about .00045 seconds being surprised.
 
2010-11-03 04:36:54 PM
Walker: Hey Iowans, still wanna go on about how progressive your state really is and how we all have the wrong opinion about it? Yeah, I thought not.

Gays to the stockades! Don't let them near the cornfields, they could give the corn the AIDS.


Um, how many states allow gay marriage again?

4/3/09: The Iowa Supreme Court made history on April 3, 2009 with a unanimous ruling, making Iowa the 3rd state to allow same-sex marriages. The state county attorney has stated that he will not seek a rehearing.

I think Iowa is still a bit further than most of the rest of the states in terms of gay rights.
 
2010-11-03 04:37:00 PM
ancker: I keep trying to figure out why everyone seems to hate the fact that when you have a democracy, majority wins. Isn't the whole point to put the issues to the people and find out what a majority of them think?

Why does everyone love democracy until they're on the losing side and cry that it should be illegal vote people out for not following the wishes of the majority.


If the majority voted that it should be legal to capture and enslave individuals of 'X' background, you would be ok with that and think that it would be improper for a judge to strike down that law?
 
2010-11-03 04:37:00 PM
ancker: Bladel:
Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....

It might not, but it sends the message that what the previous judges did didn't mesh well with the voters.

--
I keep trying to figure out why everyone seems to hate the fact that when you have a democracy, majority wins. Isn't the whole point to put the issues to the people and find out what a majority of them think?

Why does everyone love democracy until they're on the losing side and cry that it should be illegal vote people out for not following the wishes of the majority.

--
I don't really give a crap about the issue at hand, but obviously the voters spoke loudly. Is it always "right", of course not. But if you don't like the fact that the voters occasionally get a say, move somewhere where you don't even get the right to vote.


I don't like when all Americans aren't granted the equal protections under the law that they are entitled too, whether by action of a court, or by a vote of the majority.
 
2010-11-03 04:38:03 PM
Also noteworthy:

The same-sex marriage decision was unanimous, so the anti-gay crowd will have to wait a few more election cycles to completely "purge" those responsible. Not that the replacement judges would rule any differently.

The fact that they also voted down a call for a state-wide constitutional convention means the decision is pretty much untouchable at this point.

So, like the Right Wing in general, they are making a lot of noise and claiming victory, but ultimately it means zilch.
 
2010-11-03 04:38:09 PM
lennavan: Coconice: Not sure if serious.

I do not like our set up in Illinois, though. What is good for Cook County is not usually the same as what is good for the rest of this land mass.

So, Cook County can select a governor that rest of the state would rather not have.

So, Cook County can cast electoral votes on a president that the rest of the state would rather not have.

It makes voting feel quite useless, and those of us out here growing your food get very little representation.

There's a few more people here in Cook County than elsewhere in Illinois. Why should you get a louder say than me?


I do know the population breakdown.

It is just the fact that any pro-urban, anti-rural jagbag can get elected by you guys.

As long as a politician is taking care of Cook County, the rest of the state can fark off.

Why should you people care if a politician is good or helpful to the remainder of the state? Probably you shouldn't. It wouldn't be in your best interest.

The problem is that we are unable, by weight of the numbers, to get a politician that gives 1/10 of one (1) shiat about our particular demograph.
 
2010-11-03 04:38:10 PM
Bladel: The "toss the judges" movement was led by churches & religious groups, and was entirely, 100% based on the Iowa S.C.'s ruling on gay marriage.

while that is entirely likely, this isn't really their fault; if it was such an organized effort, then why didn't everyone else vote on it?

There was a *substantial* vote against any incumbent, but a massive number of people. That it affected even the judicial appointments can't be denied. So yes, the votes to keep the judges would have had to overcome both those wanting to remove all incumbent anything, and those who were specifically after those judges for the rulings they made. Most people, in most elections, don't know what the hell is going on in elected position or proposition beyond just a few on the ballot; make them care, if you expect them to care. It's the apathy of the alternate side that lost this, just as much as the...whatever the right term is...of those who were actively targeting the judges.
 
2010-11-03 04:38:34 PM
zodar99: STOP BEING ASSHOLES

It's difficult, they're religious.
 
2010-11-03 04:39:05 PM
MDGeist: Never knew Iowa was so bigoted. How very sad for them.

It wasn't even a majority of voters who supported voting "No" on retention, it was that a large percentage of people didn't bother to vote on retention at all.
 
2010-11-03 04:39:10 PM
I'm confused. Did gays just lose their right to live?
 
2010-11-03 04:39:14 PM
MDGeist: Never knew Iowa was so bigoted. How very sad for them.

They probably aren't. It is just that people probably didn't realize the need to vote for a judge when only one candidate appeared on the ballot. Voting for them probably seemed like an insignificant detail.

/ Very sad for those Iowans that are that bigoted though.
 
2010-11-03 04:39:17 PM
Barakku: "If the Iowa Supreme Court will do this to marriage, every one of our freedoms, including gun rights and private property, is in danger of being usurped by activist judges who are unelected officials," Vander Plaats' group says on its website.

They'll protect our rights to marriage, guns and private property? That sounds awesome


Or destroy them.
 
2010-11-03 04:39:51 PM
I know it's been said a million times, but why don't 'conservatives' get the extreme hypocrisy of heralding "small government" while championing the most extreme forms of govt. intrusion? I mean, the idea of having the government define who can legally profess their love and loyalty to one another is pretty damned extreme, if you ask me. And then there's the laundry list of personal choices that 'conservatives' feel should be made for me via government mandate.

And yet Republicans whine that Dems want the government to control every aspect of our lives? STFU, man.
 
2010-11-03 04:39:52 PM
Wytchone: Phaid: You keep calling people "ignorant" because they believe marriage is between one man and one woman, and this is what's going to happen.

^^ Wise words.


A rose by any other name...
 
2010-11-03 04:39:56 PM
This is hardly a victory anyway...any future attempts at recreating this law will just get kicked out anyway. The ruling invalidating the law was unanimous, and there is still a majority left. Looks like one of them may come up for "re-election" next year, but the other three will be on for a while.

Branstad is going to have a heck of a time finding 3 justices who will overturn that law.

So get back to the farm fields, hicks.
 
2010-11-03 04:39:57 PM
Part of the problem was that the ruling by the judges said that they were ruling this way because of 'un-imagined rights'... so instead of interpretting the law - they were creating it... or at least that is what the commercials said...
 
2010-11-03 04:40:25 PM
OMG, the end of the world is here.

Hate.

Rage.
 
2010-11-03 04:40:34 PM
FTFA: "Iowa law wisely allows for a check and balance of the Supreme Court through a retention vote by you, the citizens. In April of 2009, we all witnessed blatant judicial activism by the Iowa Supreme Court," the group's website said, referring to the decision by the court that Iowa's law restricting marriage to one man and one woman violated the state's constitution.

You mean, they did their job? Judging a law against the constitution and issuing a ruling based on that judgment? Is that it? Also, people are neither a check nor a balance. They elect their legislators and executives.

"The court legislated from the bench ... they governed from the bench ... and, they even attempted to amend our constitution from the bench as they declared Iowa a 'Same Sex' marriage state. This is not their role. The Legislature makes the law. The Governor executes the law. And, only 'we the people' can amend our constitution."

This shiat makes me want to scream. How is it that so many people don't understand the role of the judicial branch of government? "Legislating from the bench" is patently impossible. And while it's true that state constitutions are amended (in part) by popular vote, the justices were judging a law against the constitution, which is exactly their job.

blogs.discovermagazine.com
 
2010-11-03 04:40:43 PM
Some Texan:
//I do believe the majority shall rule


Have you forgotten your lessons from 8th grade social studies on why there is a judicial branch of government in the first place?

/something something tyranny of the majority
 
2010-11-03 04:40:49 PM
The Why Not Guy: Coconice: Back to the gay thing, though, I can understand a church refusing to acknowledge same sex marriage. I can in no way understand the problem with civil unions.

The Civil Union thing exposes the lie. When gay marriage is being discussed, opponents often say the real issue is the word marriage and its traditional definition as a bond between a man and a woman. "Oh, it's not about hating gay people", they say. "Civil Unions would be fine", they say. Then they go and oppose Civil Unions, and I spend about .00045 seconds being surprised.


The real issue I see is treating gays differently. If you're for civil unions by the state, then everyone gets a "civil union" including heterosexual people. There are churches that will marry gay people, so both gays and straight people can get their civil union from the government and their marriage from their favorite church that is willing. Done and done.

I can in no way understand why anyone would disagree with this.
 
2010-11-03 04:41:09 PM
tyranny of the majority.
 
2010-11-03 04:41:12 PM
Coconice: As long as a politician is taking care of Cook County, the rest of the state can fark off.

Why should you people care if a politician is good or helpful to the remainder of the state? Probably you shouldn't. It wouldn't be in your best interest.

The problem is that we are unable, by weight of the numbers, to get a politician that gives 1/10 of one (1) shiat about our particular demograph.


This right here is just a smaller scale of why the US is a federal republic rather than a true democracy, and why people calling to get rid of the electoral college, or to switch to proportional representation of parties in congress, haven't thought things all the way through.
 
2010-11-03 04:41:29 PM
Coconice: lennavan: Coconice: Not sure if serious.

I do not like our set up in Illinois, though. What is good for Cook County is not usually the same as what is good for the rest of this land mass.

So, Cook County can select a governor that rest of the state would rather not have.

So, Cook County can cast electoral votes on a president that the rest of the state would rather not have.

It makes voting feel quite useless, and those of us out here growing your food get very little representation.

There's a few more people here in Cook County than elsewhere in Illinois. Why should you get a louder say than me?

I do know the population breakdown.

It is just the fact that any pro-urban, anti-rural jagbag can get elected by you guys.

As long as a politician is taking care of Cook County, the rest of the state can fark off.

Why should you people care if a politician is good or helpful to the remainder of the state? Probably you shouldn't. It wouldn't be in your best interest.

The problem is that we are unable, by weight of the numbers, to get a politician that gives 1/10 of one (1) shiat about our particular demograph.


And seeing as how you sound like a whiny biatch, why should they give one (1) shiat about you, or any one like you?
 
2010-11-03 04:41:45 PM
Tomji: I am going against the flow here. Nothing worse then justices going against what has been enacted by voters. It's going so far that little things have to be added to the constitution clogging it up with small issues that ought to be part of the law.

That's kind of their job.... you can't take away rights from certain groups guaranteed by the constitution, even in popular vote, unless you go by popular vote to get rid of the entire freedom. If the general population or the politicians step out of line, constitutionally, then the judges are there to snap them back.

That's kind of the whole point of judges, to make people apply the constitution/bill of rights to all people equally, whether they want to or not.
 
2010-11-03 04:41:45 PM
Coconice: I don't agree with ousting these judges, but isn't this the whole purpose of having elections? If most people vote for something, isn't that how it should be?

I'm generally a Republican and I'm from Illinois. I loathe the fact that Pat Quinn can lose every county but Cook* and still be governor of the whole state.

But, if that's how most people vote, I guess that's how it works.


No, that's not how it works.
 
2010-11-03 04:41:51 PM
Coconice: I do know the population breakdown.

It is just the fact that any pro-urban, anti-rural jagbag can get elected by you guys.

As long as a politician is taking care of Cook County, the rest of the state can fark off.

Why should you people care if a politician is good or helpful to the remainder of the state? Probably you shouldn't. It wouldn't be in your best interest.

The problem is that we are unable, by weight of the numbers, to get a politician that gives 1/10 of one (1) shiat about our particular demograph.


Who was elected governor of IL yesterday?
 
2010-11-03 04:41:58 PM
IamAwake:

while that is entirely likely, this isn't really their fault; if it was such an organized effort, then why didn't everyone else vote on it?

There was a *substantial* vote against any incumbent, but a massive number of people. That it affected even the judicial appointments can't be denied. So yes, the votes to keep the judges would have had to overcome both those wanting to remove all incumbent anything, and those who were specifically after those judges for the rulings they made. Most people, in most elections, don't know what the hell is going on in elected position or proposition beyond just a few on the ballot; make them care, if you expect them to care. It's the apathy of the alternate side that lost this, just as much as the...whatever the right term is...of those who were actively targeting the judges.


Activism is the word you were looking for.
 
2010-11-03 04:42:00 PM
Is this where we can hate on the Tea Party? I'm not sure if I'm in the right thread...
 
2010-11-03 04:42:35 PM
The Why Not Guy: Coconice: Back to the gay thing, though, I can understand a church refusing to acknowledge same sex marriage. I can in no way understand the problem with civil unions.

The Civil Union thing exposes the lie. When gay marriage is being discussed, opponents often say the real issue is the word marriage and its traditional definition as a bond between a man and a woman. "Oh, it's not about hating gay people", they say. "Civil Unions would be fine", they say. Then they go and oppose Civil Unions, and I spend about .00045 seconds being surprised.


I cannot come up with one reason to oppose civil unions.

In my brain, marriage is of the church, civil union is of the state/county.

Maybe the two should really be seperated. Everyone that wants, legally, to be considered a couple should go to the courthouse for their civil union documents and get registered.

Then, everyone who also wants to be married should do so at the religious/spritual/sports venue of their choice, assuming that venue will have them.

Again, I have no problem with a church refusing to join a couple in "holy" wedlock for any reason.
 
2010-11-03 04:42:36 PM
I live in Iowa, and am "pro" gay marriage (though I'm not gay). Like almost everyone I know under 50.

Let me tell you, if the new (well, old) governor tries to repeal the gay marriage laws, you will see young liberal Iowans organize like you have NEVER seen them organize before. It will be a complete catastrophe for the Republican morons in this state. Nothing pisses off liberals more than seeing the Christian right *take away* rights based on their religious beliefs.

I *triple dog dare* them to try and repeal it.
 
2010-11-03 04:42:47 PM
Does this mean that if a law comes up for review in Iowa, banning same sex marriage, that it would most likely pass?
 
2010-11-03 04:42:49 PM
Tomji: I am going against the flow here. Nothing worse then justices going against what has been enacted by voters. It's going so far that little things have to be added to the constitution clogging it up with small issues that ought to be part of the law.

Nothing worse than illiterate bigots who can't fathom the idea that liberty only for some is the same as no liberty at all.

Hateful, crybaby control-freak douchebags is all that American conservatives will ever be. Voting themselves into theocratic tyranny one election at a time, like the paranoid little amateur dictators that they are.
 
2010-11-03 04:42:52 PM
That Vander Plaats guy is just farked up in his sick little head.
 
2010-11-03 04:43:06 PM
coderitr: Blasphemous Knave: I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

THIS


B-O-O-H-O-O!

Life is hard! There is stupidity all around us!

And you two want to give up?!? Don't just farking hand your opponents the victory!

Stand the fark back up and fight on!
 
2010-11-03 04:44:34 PM
Coconice: lennavan: Coconice: Not sure if serious.

I do not like our set up in Illinois, though. What is good for Cook County is not usually the same as what is good for the rest of this land mass.

So, Cook County can select a governor that rest of the state would rather not have.

So, Cook County can cast electoral votes on a president that the rest of the state would rather not have.

It makes voting feel quite useless, and those of us out here growing your food get very little representation.

There's a few more people here in Cook County than elsewhere in Illinois. Why should you get a louder say than me?

I do know the population breakdown.

It is just the fact that any pro-urban, anti-rural jagbag can get elected by you guys.

As long as a politician is taking care of Cook County, the rest of the state can fark off.

Why should you people care if a politician is good or helpful to the remainder of the state? Probably you shouldn't. It wouldn't be in your best interest.

The problem is that we are unable, by weight of the numbers, to get a politician that gives 1/10 of one (1) shiat about our particular demograph.


That's how "One man, One vote" works. Would you prefer another system?
 
2010-11-03 04:44:48 PM
I'm confused. Does this mean buggery is now legal?
 
2010-11-03 04:44:58 PM
Let's recap:

- Judges ruled in favor of "same-sex marriage"
- Electorate did not agree
- Judges voted out of office

This is how the system works. Substitute practically any damn thing in for "same sex marriage" and no one gives a shiat.

Dry your tears, grab a cup of Fair Trade coffee, kick off your Birkenstocks and you'll feel better in the morning.
 
2010-11-03 04:45:01 PM
Blasphemous Knave: I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Remember: down, not across.
 
2010-11-03 04:45:15 PM
PraetorJoseph:
This shiat makes me want to scream. How is it that so many people don't understand the role of the judicial branch of government? "Legislating from the bench" is patently impossible. And while it's true that state constitutions are amended (in part) by popular vote, the justices were judging a law against the constitution, which is exactly their job.


Three words: Fox Farking News.
 
2010-11-03 04:45:23 PM
Walker: Hey Iowans, still wanna go on about how progressive your state really is and how we all have the wrong opinion about it? Yeah, I thought not.

Gays to the stockades! Don't let them near the cornfields, they could give the corn the AIDS.


Says the guy from VA? Give me a break. Gay marriage in Iowa is still legal, and as Bladel has pointed out, it will take a lot more than this to change it.

/ still proud to call Iowa home for the last 10 years
// though not as much today
 
2010-11-03 04:45:43 PM
Doesn't make a difference. Private Practice makes more for them anyways, and future judges will probably vote the same way as these same judges will, if the argument presented to them is valid. So nothing changes except the faces.
 
2010-11-03 04:45:45 PM
Coconice: It is just the fact that any pro-urban, anti-rural jagbag can get elected by you guys.

As long as a politician is taking care of Cook County, the rest of the state can fark off.

Why should you people care if a politician is good or helpful to the remainder of the state? Probably you shouldn't. It wouldn't be in your best interest.


Also, It's hard to have a discussion with you using such blanket statements "anti-rural" and "pro-urban." Can you give specifics for either of those for any of the races in IL?
 
2010-11-03 04:45:46 PM
So my understanding here is that the people voted out a judge according to the law. The judges didn't think it was going to be a big deal so they didn't bother doing any sort of campaigning or even sending out a message to everyone. And now reading the comments here it's sounds like well most people probably didn't even answer the question whereas the ones who want them out all did.

Guess what then? Stop whining. Next time vote completely. Ignorance of the law is not a reason for whining. If this was something that was out of your control maybe you can get a bit upset about it. But this was completely in the hands of the voters and apparently the ones who wanted them retained had a gigantic brain fart and failed miserably. And I'm laughing because they're the ones calling the people who voted the judges out ignorant and such. Really sounds like the pot calling the kettle black on this one

And it's just as much the judges fault. They knew this was going on so they should've sent out at least one ad like "Hey. Don't forget to vote Yes or No on the judge retention question" to make sure people did it.

/If gays want to make a huge mistake and get married like the rest of us more power to them
//If you don't understand the ballot, ask questions
///If you don't read it all, fark you
 
Displayed 50 of 495 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report