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 05:02:38 PM
Tomji
I am going against the flow here. Nothing worse then justices going against what has been enacted by voters.

Do you have any clue how checks and balances work in government? Example: when "the voters" pass laws that are unconstitutional, it's the job of the judicial branch to throw out those laws. That's not judicial activism. It's their farking job.


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.

That's because they're ignorant and bigoted. The truth hurts. It's also a belief based on their religious convictions and as such, should not be the law of the land.

Some Texan
Whine about why/who/how these judges got ousted, but it's the American voting system at work here.

The problem here is that their state supreme court justices are elected. That's farking stupid. They interpreted the law as they are supposed to do based on their state's constitution. One of their primary roles is to serve as a check against the tyranny of the majority. Putting them up for election destroys that role.

Their decision was unanimous. Some fundie bigots got pissed about it and raised millions of dollars to throw them out of the court. They want to deny rights to people who aren't like them, plain and simple.

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

Again that's the problem. The judicial branch is to act as a check on the tyranny of the majority on constitutional matters, not just follow the will of the majority. By putting their SC up for popular vote, Iowa destroys that check.
 
2010-11-03 05:03:08 PM
Thoguh: This text is now purple: So laws shouldn't be voted on?

Rights shouldn't be voted on.


You sound like one of those avacado eating pretentious douchebags that actually believes what is written in the constitution.
 
2010-11-03 05:03:30 PM
SandmanMS: And the gay rights groups couldn't do the same thing an organize a "Keep the judges of Iowa" group and do it for them. Apathy is not an excuse. And if you want to take the high road don't whine then if you get beat. Stay on the high road.

Actually the state Bar association, several former governors (both democractic and republican), and a variety of non-partisan groups spoke out on the issue, they just didn't have millions of dollars in out of state funds behind them.
 
2010-11-03 05:03:53 PM
Gay Community,

I am sorry, but it looks like you will have to wait until the baby boomer coonts die to get your rights.
 
2010-11-03 05:04:12 PM
Philip Francis Queeg: Sticky Hands: highrye:
And seeing as how you sound like a whiny biatch, why should they give one (1) shiat about you, or any one like you?

People like him grow our food and mine our resources.

I suppose would could just outsource that though it not like it's important like lawyering or computer programing. .

Yeah, and the food he grows and the resources he mines are going to be pretty damn useless without the people in the cities who process, refine, ship, buy and sell his products.


He can eat food.

I can't eat electrons.
 
2010-11-03 05:04:27 PM
SandmanMS: Thoguh: SandmanMS: 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.


It wasn't that they didn't think it was a big deal, it was that the judges said "We are independent and non-partisan, it would be wrong for us to raise campaign funds and respond to these attacks." In other words, they took the high road. Too bad Van Der Plaats and his ilk are bigoted morons and managed to scare a lot of people into thinking they were gong to be forced to gay marry people in their churches or something.

And the gay rights groups couldn't do the same thing an organize a "Keep the judges of Iowa" group and do it for them. Apathy is not an excuse. And if you want to take the high road don't whine then if you get beat. Stay on the high road.


Let me ask you this very simple question: should judges decide the law based upon the constitution and precedent, or upon the popularity of the decision?

If you think the judges should chose based on how popular the decision is then why have judges? We already have legislatures that base the laws on popularity. We need judges that can be independent of popular opinion, it guarantees that the law follows the constitutional basis and not just the popular one.
 
2010-11-03 05:04:31 PM
This text is now purple: miscreant: I just take pleasure in the fact that 20 or 30 years from now, the homophobes will be the racists of our generation. Trying to pretend that they weren't bigots and hiding their shame from their grandchildren.

In the 1850s, the Romantics were heralded.
In the 1880s through the mid-1960s, they were vilified as Luddites.
In the mid-1960s through the 1970s, they were heralded.
In the 1980s through the 1990s, they were vilified as Luddites.
In the 2000s, they were heralded.

History is rarely monotonic.


Are you comparing romantics to homophobes? 4/10. You'll get some bites.
 
2010-11-03 05:04:40 PM
Coconice: Wasn't official when last I checked, but it was/will be Pat Quinn, over the shrieking protests of 99% of the state's acreage if not people.

Also, you say this as if everyone in the rural areas of IL voted against Pat Quinn. Reality might shock you. Fortunately you don't live in reality, you live in bumblefark where you can safely live within your own reality.
 
2010-11-03 05:05:24 PM
Canned Tamales: the_han: I dont recall any churches in woodbury county making much of a yelp. I do recall alot of pissed off people that this measure wasnt voted on in the first place, so we exercised our voting power and removed some lib judges. Big deal, they passed alot of other crap we didn't like either.

You really are just an ignorant, semi-literate monkey-assed retard aren't you? You vote to remove judges when you don't even know what they do.

You should be hanging your head in shame for your ignorance, you turd, but instead you are proud of your stupidity. The future of conservative America!


Excuse me you Californian Farktard? You'r state banned gay marriage! And couldn't balance a budget to save its life! Don't worry my taxes are paying for you though. The other 49 states will clean up your mess. But your state banned gay marriage, we just threw out some judges. I'm not anti-gay marriage. Not at all. I'm all for exercising my voting rights though.
 
2010-11-03 05:05:28 PM
Thoguh: This text is now purple: So laws shouldn't be voted on?

Rights shouldn't be voted on.


Shame no one told these guys (new window).
 
2010-11-03 05:06:01 PM
NewportBarGuy: Electing judges has to be the dumbest idea ever invented.


I wouldn't go that far. It's great when the government is doing something grossly irresponsible and the people put judges into power that cut that shiat off. The trade-off is that sometimes the government and current legal trends have the right idea and fit our evolving society better, and the kind of old, bitter people with too much free time that can be mobilized into voting blocks often jealously block progress just because they had it hard growing up or something.
 
2010-11-03 05:07:24 PM
And people think I'm stupid for suggesting the Republicans appointed Catholics to the Supreme Court due to the fact the Pope could threaten the justices with ex-communication if their rulings reflected a pro-abortion stance.
 
2010-11-03 05:07:25 PM
Silenced is foo 2010-11-03 05:01:14 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.

How about bigoted and hateful.

A gay man stood at the best man at my (straight) wedding. One day I'd like to stand as the best man at his. Bigots get to be hateful because they don't have to see the people they hate - gay folks are a magical "other" they never have to meet. They never have to look somebody in the eye and say "you don't deserve the same rights as me". They just vote it.


you are leaving out a few facts, sparky.

1) marriage is a religious thing. in the eyes of the govt, its just a piece of paper that gives you perks that single folks dont have

2) every religion thats currently known to man shuns same-sex UNIONS. they are not marriages.

3) a person is NOT bigoted for subscribing to a religion that shuns homosexual unions.

get your panties out of your ass. if you dont like the way we run shiat, LEAVE.
 
2010-11-03 05:08:07 PM
This text is now purple: drewsclues: Because of this, you'll see the ABA, the ATLA, and lawyers everywhere pushing to remove an important check on CORRUPTION IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. farking retards don't get it. The result in Iowa hurts everyone.

It's only right when we do it!


You obviously can't read you partisan farkstick.
 
2010-11-03 05:08:37 PM
highrye: This text is now purple: miscreant: I just take pleasure in the fact that 20 or 30 years from now, the homophobes will be the racists of our generation. Trying to pretend that they weren't bigots and hiding their shame from their grandchildren.

In the 1850s, the Romantics were heralded.
In the 1880s through the mid-1960s, they were vilified as Luddites.
In the mid-1960s through the 1970s, they were heralded.
In the 1980s through the 1990s, they were vilified as Luddites.
In the 2000s, they were heralded.

History is rarely monotonic.

Are you comparing romantics to homophobes? 4/10. You'll get some bites.


You totally missed my point.

History is viewed through the lens of current politics. Our current impression of 1850s life is viewed from the perspective of American in 2010. Who knows how America in 2040 will view the same period?
 
2010-11-03 05:08:51 PM
bodyshots: Silenced is foo 2010-11-03 05:01:14 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.

How about bigoted and hateful.

A gay man stood at the best man at my (straight) wedding. One day I'd like to stand as the best man at his. Bigots get to be hateful because they don't have to see the people they hate - gay folks are a magical "other" they never have to meet. They never have to look somebody in the eye and say "you don't deserve the same rights as me". They just vote it.

you are leaving out a few facts, sparky.

1) marriage is a religious thing. in the eyes of the govt, its just a piece of paper that gives you perks that single folks dont have

2) every religion thats currently known to man shuns same-sex UNIONS. they are not marriages.

3) a person is NOT bigoted for subscribing to a religion that shuns homosexual unions.

get your panties out of your ass. if you dont like the way we run shiat, LEAVE.


0/10 Kinda Poe's Law, kinda too obvious.
 
2010-11-03 05:09:04 PM
Sticky Hands: Philip Francis Queeg: Sticky Hands: highrye:
And seeing as how you sound like a whiny biatch, why should they give one (1) shiat about you, or any one like you?

People like him grow our food and mine our resources.

I suppose would could just outsource that though it not like it's important like lawyering or computer programing. .

Yeah, and the food he grows and the resources he mines are going to be pretty damn useless without the people in the cities who process, refine, ship, buy and sell his products.

He can eat food.

I can't eat electrons.


And guess what? He's going to last about a day as a "farmer"
without fuel, electricity, fertilizer, spare parts for his tractor.....
 
2010-11-03 05:09:15 PM
This text is now purple: Thoguh: This text is now purple: So laws shouldn't be voted on?

Rights shouldn't be voted on.

Shame no one told these guys (new window).


www.wisdems.org
 
2010-11-03 05:09:39 PM
It's awfully entertaining to see people who think the judges were absolutely correct in exercising their power to thwart the will of the people (there is a law in Iowa called the Defense of Marriage Act) and impose a condition that should have been arrived at legislatively...but hey, the legislature, through the peoples' elected representatives did it "wrong" so these guys "righted" it.

And then those same people who think the judges were right in exercising their power find it absolutely abhorrent that the people exercise THEIR power and kick their asses off the bench. Forget that there isn't a mandate in Iowa to allow same sex marriage...yeah, if you can't do it via the ballot box, just circumvent that pesky political process and have a judge do it for you.

Listen, I support civil unions but you cannot on one side of yer yap cheer what the judges did and out of the other side boo what the voters did. It's the way the system is supposed to work and gays in Iowa have a process they can follow to get their way.

Same reason Gavin Newsome will one day be vilified as a freakin' idiot once the Cali Prop 8 case gets decided by the currently conservative SCOTUS. You gotta be collectively smarter than that to think you can pull judicial trickery over on a voting populace that already addressed the issue.
 
2010-11-03 05:09:49 PM
This text is now purple: In the 1850s, the Romantics were heralded.
In the 1880s through the mid-1960s, they were vilified as Luddites.
In the mid-1960s through the 1970s, they were heralded.
In the 1980s through the 1990s, they were vilified as Luddites.


Mostly, we were just tired of seeing What I Like About You on MTV.
 
2010-11-03 05:09:53 PM
SchlingFocker: So, let's not try and pretend that the majority of Iowans wanted these judges out. The majority didn't care.

A small minority of bigots wanted the judges out.


Well, unless they had 100% voter turnout we'll never know. Perhaps it was a few doing the 'dirty work' for the many. And if not, well, I guess Iowans just learned a lesson on why you need to vote.
 
2010-11-03 05:10:16 PM
bodyshots: 2) every religion thats currently known to man shuns same-sex UNIONS. they are not marriages.

3) a person is NOT bigoted for subscribing to a religion that shuns homosexual unions.


Really, every religion? You checked them all? Also, is a person also not bigoted for subscribing to a religion that encourages slavery? Or rape? Or mixed race marriage? Because religions have gotten behind all of those ideas.
 
2010-11-03 05:10:22 PM
NewportBarGuy: Electing judges has to be the dumbest idea ever invented.

I have an idea, let's let the fans vote on who gets to be an NFL Ref. That'll be fun!


This thread was over in 1.

Judges should be able to freely interpret the law without fearing the grandstanding of those who disagree with it. If the public doesn't like how a law is interpreted, the correct remedy is to elect a legislature that will change the law, not oust the judge who interpreted it.
 
2010-11-03 05:10:47 PM
TheShavingofOccam123: And people think I'm stupid for suggesting the Republicans appointed Catholics to the Supreme Court due to the fact the Pope could threaten the justices with ex-communication if their rulings reflected a pro-abortion stance.

You are stupid.

We've had one Catholic President; a Democrat. He spent more time being a good Irishman than being a good Catholic. The Pope also takes a dim view of trying to hit anything with an extra hole, but that didn't stop JFK.
 
2010-11-03 05:10:48 PM
LurkinFarker:

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


I don't disagree that there's probably more ignorant people in the country than there are educated. Among them; bigots, racists and extremists. Unfortunately we aren't allowed to filter out their votes. There was this little thing that happened in the 60's called the Civil Rights Movement that made it where EVERYONE got to vote. According to the bigots on the left, if the supposed tyrannical majority had their way, blacks, women and several others to this day wouldn't be allowed to vote. Now everyone gets to vote and we are better for it, even if it means delaying some groups from getting what they want. If enough people in our country believe it's the right thing to do, it will happen eventually.
 
2010-11-03 05:11:05 PM
Silenced is foo: How about bigoted and hateful.

I was pointing out that since this is a political issue, you might get better results if the message was presented some other way than "This is what we want, and if you don't agree you are an ignorant redneck".

But yeah thanks for making my point for me.
 
2010-11-03 05:11:15 PM
NewportBarGuy: Electing judges has to be the dumbest idea ever invented.

I have an idea, let's let the fans vote on who gets to be an NFL Ref. That'll be fun!


Thomas Jefferson, 1821: "...the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing it's noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. ...when all government... in little as in the great thing, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
 
2010-11-03 05:11:17 PM
bodyshots: you are leaving out a few facts, sparky.

1) marriage is a religious thing. in the eyes of the govt, its just a piece of paper that gives you perks that single folks dont have

2) every religion thats currently known to man shuns same-sex UNIONS. they are not marriages.

3) a person is NOT bigoted for subscribing to a religion that shuns homosexual unions.

get your panties out of your ass. if you dont like the way we run shiat, LEAVE.


Your definition of "fact" needs work.

miamiherald.typepad.com
 
2010-11-03 05:11:22 PM
bodyshots: Silenced is foo 2010-11-03 05:01:14 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.

How about bigoted and hateful.

A gay man stood at the best man at my (straight) wedding. One day I'd like to stand as the best man at his. Bigots get to be hateful because they don't have to see the people they hate - gay folks are a magical "other" they never have to meet. They never have to look somebody in the eye and say "you don't deserve the same rights as me". They just vote it.

you are leaving out a few facts, sparky.

1) marriage is a religious thing. in the eyes of the govt, its just a piece of paper that gives you perks that single folks dont have

2) every religion thats currently known to man shuns same-sex UNIONS. they are not marriages.

3) a person is NOT bigoted for subscribing to a religion that shuns homosexual unions.

get your panties out of your ass. if you dont like the way we run shiat, LEAVE.


The only problem I have with your statement is that making a law that says no same-sex marriages means that should a religious group wants to preform same-sex marriages the legislature has effectively limited its religious rights. Anyone advocating that legalizing same-sex marriage forces religions to preform is just plain wrong, just as legalizing pot doesn't mean you have to start smoking it.
 
2010-11-03 05:11:24 PM
Philip Francis Queeg: So, shall we put it up to a vote whether Christians shall be allowed to be married? Interracial couples? Couples beyond the age of child bearing?

If it were a real issue in this country and people were divided about it..........then why not? At what point do you take the power away from the people? What kind of country would we live in if politicians and judges were constantly going against the will of the people? We have a republic system that has failed because our politicians are so influenced by special interest groups and corporate lobbyists that they don't even pay attention to the wants of the people.
 
2010-11-03 05:11:37 PM
Thoguh: Actually the state Bar association, several former governors (both democractic and republican), and a variety of non-partisan groups spoke out on the issue, they just didn't have millions of dollars in out of state funds behind them.

The state bar, made up exclusive of one of the richest classes of workers in the nation, couldn't afford to campaign?

Seriously? These people *write the farking laws*.
 
2010-11-03 05:12:27 PM
bodyshots: 3) a person is NOT bigoted for subscribing to a religion that shuns homosexual unions.

Exactly.

That's why I joined the World Church of the Creator.

Now, I'm free to hate kikes, spics, and spear-chuckers without being a bigot. My religion says it's alright, which means it's alright.
 
2010-11-03 05:13:00 PM
Lost Thought 00: This country needs to go to war with Utah. They are the root of about 95% of the problems with this country. Mormons in general are the devil in sheeps clothing.

Not sure if persecuting one section of the populace is an effective way to insure that others aren't persecuted.
 
2010-11-03 05:13:18 PM
bodyshots: 2) every religion thats currently known to man shuns same-sex UNIONS. they are not marriages.

what's this? i don't even...


That's a mighty bold claim sparky.
The mainstream portions of the big 3 or 4 don't, but there are a shiat-ton of religions out there.

Just off the top of my head I seem to remember that many tribes the shamans (and their apprentices) were gay, in fact it was a requirement (i.e Only gays could be a shaman).
 
2010-11-03 05:13:56 PM
Al_Ed: I guess Iowans just learned a lesson on why you need to vote.


If the judges did something the majority of Iowans didn't want, I'd say it's a lesson they already know and the judges should learn.

/gay marriage in Iowa has never enjoyed majority support
//TMYK
 
2010-11-03 05:14:12 PM
NewportBarGuy: Electing judges has to be the dumbest idea ever invented.

It isn't that the judges weren't elected (they aren't anyway), they just weren't retained.

/IOWAN
 
2010-11-03 05:14:15 PM
impaler: funded by several million dollars from mostly out-of-state groups opposed to the same-sex marriage ruling

I just don't understand how full grown adults can be so concerned with what 2 other consenting adults do.


Sometimes I like to watch videos of two (or more) consenting adults.
 
2010-11-03 05:15:18 PM
Coconice: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

*last time I looked, there were 3 blue counties in SW IL that he took by a combined 582 votes. This farker couldn't even get 40% of the popular vote in Springfield.

http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/election-map-2010/#race=racesInPlay & pres=false&tab=governor&state=il

Yep, the downstaters votes should count more than the votes of the people who live in Cook County. I'd say a Cook County vote should count about 3/5ths of what a Down state vote should, sound about right to you?

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.


What you're arguing for is exactly what Philip Francis Queeg suggests. You want voters downstate to have a more valuable vote than voters who live in Cook and the surrounding counties.

41% of Illinoisians live in Cook County. 22% of us live in the City of Chicago, and if you count the Chicagoland metro area as a whole (excluding parts of the area that are in other states, obviously), you get 68% of Illinoisians living in the Chicago metropolitan area.

So, yeah. If a candidate carries Chicago, there's a good chance that'll carry for Illinois, because most of the residents of Illinois live in or near Chicago.

Obviously, Chicagoans don't vote as a solid bloc, but neither do the downstate counties. Most counties are somewhat purple, so pretending that every single person in rural Illinois voted the way you voted is arrogant and misguided.

You don't get extra points because your neighbors live further away from you.
 
2010-11-03 05:15:29 PM
craig328: Al_Ed: I guess Iowans just learned a lesson on why you need to vote.


If the judges did something the majority of Iowans didn't want, I'd say it's a lesson they already know and the judges should learn.

/gay marriage in Iowa has never enjoyed majority support
//TMYK


Thank god our country isn't solely run by majority vote. We'd be farked.
 
2010-11-03 05:15:47 PM
patrick767: That's because they're ignorant and bigoted. The truth hurts. It's also a belief based on their religious convictions and as such, should not be the law of the land.

And what about "thou shall not kill"? Your ignorance is selective, that's worse.
 
2010-11-03 05:16:24 PM
i actually told a coworker this morning to get the fark out of my cube after he revealed he voted against the justices.

farking asshat

/good thing i'm only here for another 2 weeks since i got a much better job in Washington State
//Hence I could get away with giving a coworker the middle finger.
 
2010-11-03 05:16:37 PM
ju66l3r: GAT_00: Ronaldo Vega: Bladel: Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....

Since Culver gets to appoint the replacements on his way out the door...I'd say these gay hatin' morons just bought themselves three more liberal activist judges.

Is he allowed to reappoint the same three judges? Because that would be hilarious.

That was my thought exactly.


Fired governor being urged to reappoint the same three judges the majority of Iowan voters just got rid of? Who's being spiteful again?
 
2010-11-03 05:17:01 PM
bodyshots: 2) every religion thats currently known to man shuns same-sex UNIONS. they are not marriages.

*rage level rises*

From bodyshots's profile: "why yes, yes i am a long-term alt account"

Oh, carry on, I guess.
 
2010-11-03 05:17:10 PM
The "religious right" is fighting a losing war on this one. Just think how far acceptance of homosexuality has come over the last 20-30 years.
 
2010-11-03 05:17:33 PM
I wonder what it will be that will finally radicalize the gays....will it be this? What other knife in the back will gays take before the protests of the 80's and the White Night Riots come back?
 
2010-11-03 05:17:33 PM
BrotherThaddeus: SandmanMS: Thoguh: SandmanMS: 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.


It wasn't that they didn't think it was a big deal, it was that the judges said "We are independent and non-partisan, it would be wrong for us to raise campaign funds and respond to these attacks." In other words, they took the high road. Too bad Van Der Plaats and his ilk are bigoted morons and managed to scare a lot of people into thinking they were gong to be forced to gay marry people in their churches or something.

And the gay rights groups couldn't do the same thing an organize a "Keep the judges of Iowa" group and do it for them. Apathy is not an excuse. And if you want to take the high road don't whine then if you get beat. Stay on the high road.

Let me ask you this very simple question: should judges decide the law based upon the constitution and precedent, or upon the popularity of the decision?

If you think the judges should chose based on how popular the decision is then why have judges? We already have legislatures that base the laws on popularity. We need judges that can be independent of popular opinion, it guarantees that the law follows the constitutional basis and not just the popular one.


Well that's not really relevant to the discussion because that is not how the law is written in Iowa. Plus it is a retention vote. They get 8 years to make decisions based on the law and then the people get to decide if they stay or if they were a complete wackjob and didn't properly interpret the people's intent for the laws. Plus it's not like these judges are being killed. I'm sure they will have very cushy private practices and be taken care of.
 
2010-11-03 05:17:41 PM
Richard Flaccid: Philip Francis Queeg: So, shall we put it up to a vote whether Christians shall be allowed to be married? Interracial couples? Couples beyond the age of child bearing?

If it were a real issue in this country and people were divided about it..........then why not? At what point do you take the power away from the people? What kind of country would we live in if politicians and judges were constantly going against the will of the people? We have a republic system that has failed because our politicians are so influenced by special interest groups and corporate lobbyists that they don't even pay attention to the wants of the people.


I want to take the power away from the people when the people are not giving every citizen the equal protections of the law. I want to take the power away from the people when they want segregated schools. I want to take the power away from the people when they want to deny voting rights based on the color of your skin. You have no right to violate the rights of others. I have no right to deny you every right I maintain for myself.
 
2010-11-03 05:18:22 PM
coderitr: Blasphemous Knave: I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

THIS


img215.imageshack.us
 
2010-11-03 05:19:28 PM
Sticky Hands:

what's this? i don't even...


That's a mighty bold claim sparky.
The mainstream portions of the big 3 or 4 don't, but there are a shiat-ton of religions out there.

Just off the top of my head I seem to remember that many tribes the shamans (and their apprentices) were gay, in fact it was a requirement (i.e Only gays could be a shaman).


Just out of curiosity, do their shamans get married?
 
2010-11-03 05:19:30 PM
bodyshots: Silenced is foo 2010-11-03 05:01:14 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.

How about bigoted and hateful.

A gay man stood at the best man at my (straight) wedding. One day I'd like to stand as the best man at his. Bigots get to be hateful because they don't have to see the people they hate - gay folks are a magical "other" they never have to meet. They never have to look somebody in the eye and say "you don't deserve the same rights as me". They just vote it.

you are leaving out a few facts, sparky.

1) marriage is a religious thing. in the eyes of the govt, its just a piece of paper that gives you perks that single folks dont have

2) every religion thats currently known to man shuns same-sex UNIONS. they are not marriages.

3) a person is NOT bigoted for subscribing to a religion that shuns homosexual unions.

get your panties out of your ass. if you dont like the way we run shiat, LEAVE.


Sigh, I know you're trolling but,

On point 1, marriage gives people more rights in the eyes of the government than "civil unions".

On point 3, yes, they are.
 
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