Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Sad, Iowa Supreme Court, judicial activisms, Code of Iowa, same-sex marriages, The Des Moines Register, rights of women, iowans, midterm elections  
•       •       •

23362 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Nov 2010 at 4:05 PM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



495 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2010-11-03 11:28:20 AM  
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!
 
2010-11-03 11:32:56 AM  
"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
 
2010-11-03 11:49:08 AM  
The outcome marks the end of a showdown in the state that was funded by several million dollars from mostly out-of-state groups opposed to the same-sex marriage ruling. The vote became very much a referendum on the issue and the ruling, rather than the judges themselves, analysts say.

U-S-A!

U-S-A!
 
2010-11-03 11:49:26 AM  
Like most Iowans, I rarely paid attention to the "Should Judge So-and-So be retained?" questions on the back of the ballot. But the anti-gay crowd, loaded with out of state cash, totally hijacked this issue.

Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....
 
2010-11-03 11:53:44 AM  

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.
 
2010-11-03 12:08:06 PM  

Bladel: Like most Iowans, I rarely paid attention to the "Should Judge So-and-So be retained?" questions on the back of the ballot. But the anti-gay crowd, loaded with out of state cash, totally hijacked this issue.

Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....


Same here...I didn't even know this was an issue, I didn't even know people were all pissy about it in significant numbers. If it does affect you, STFU. If only all voters and politicians would do that. It should be an Constitutional amendment (It's implicit in the 9th but politicians have proved it needs to be a LOT more explicit)

I hope the not retained judges has more to do with the general anti-incumbent position rather than the gay marriage issue. Again, I had no idea this was coming, when I first heard I just figured it was people voting out incumbents (which they're not quite political positions but whatever), the gay marriage vote was unanimous. No court is going to overturn it and it would take an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to instate any sort of gay marriage ban in Iowa. This should be a dead issue.
 
2010-11-03 12:10:28 PM  

Barakku: Bladel: Like most Iowans, I rarely paid attention to the "Should Judge So-and-So be retained?" questions on the back of the ballot. But the anti-gay crowd, loaded with out of state cash, totally hijacked this issue.

Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....

Same here...I didn't even know this was an issue, I didn't even know people were all pissy about it in significant numbers. If it does affect you, STFU. If only all voters and politicians would do that. It should be an Constitutional amendment (It's implicit in the 9th but politicians have proved it needs to be a LOT more explicit)

I hope the not retained judges has more to do with the general anti-incumbent position rather than the gay marriage issue. Again, I had no idea this was coming, when I first heard I just figured it was people voting out incumbents (which they're not quite political positions but whatever), the gay marriage vote was unanimous. No court is going to overturn it and it would take an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to instate any sort of gay marriage ban in Iowa. This should be a dead issue.



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.
 
2010-11-03 12:14:04 PM  
More reason churches shouldn't be allowed to promote politics. I'm not surprised after what the Mormons did in Cali. Fortunately what they did didn't even matter here, except for those judge's jobs, that ruling is going nowhere.
 
2010-11-03 12:17:42 PM  

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.
 
2010-11-03 12:26:21 PM  
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.
 
2010-11-03 12:28:10 PM  
"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.

Yes, judges expanding individual rights to include more citizens, is threatening the contraction of individual rights.

Or is he one of those idiots that think "individual rights" is a zero sum game, and if gays get some rights, heteros lose?
 
2010-11-03 12:28:51 PM  

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


They're concerned the gay cooties will gay up their children.
 
2010-11-03 12:33:29 PM  
Take the country back to the 18th century
 
2010-11-03 12:38:24 PM  
Judges got thrown out for doing their farking jobs of determining what their state's laws say. Sick. Even allowing that means Iowa's got a farked up political system.

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.

Then all of those involved should be stripped of their non-profit status. Oh, but in this country we don't even pretend to enforce the law against non-profits being involved in political campaigns as long as those non-profits are churches.
 
2010-11-03 01:21:01 PM  

patrick767: Then all of those involved should be stripped of their non-profit status. Oh, but in this country we don't even pretend to enforce the law against non-profits being involved in political campaigns as long as those non-profits are churches.


The only thing to do is to set up a mosque to involve itself in politics. Once your mosque is thoroughly stomped on by the courts while being cheered on by the right wing talking heads, you use that precedent to take the fight to the churches.
 
2010-11-03 01:47:40 PM  
The worst part of this was that over 100,000 voters didn't even bother to turn their ballot over to vote on the retention, and I'm 100% confident that the vast majority of them, if pressed, would have voted to retain. Every single person who wanted to recall these judges did, but far too many people who didn't take issue with the ruling chose to not voice their support.

There was a fairly small ultra-conservative evangelical group that couldn't even get their cantidate through the primaries, so instead they turned all their energies (and millions in out of state funding) to make retention an issue. I'm ashamed to live in Iowa today.
 
2010-11-03 01:53:30 PM  

impaler: Or is he one of those idiots that think "individual rights" is a zero sum game, and if gays get some rights, heteros lose?


Given that he is anti-gay rights, I'd imagine that he is one of those people who think that you cannot grant gays rights without denying those same rights to straight people.
 
2010-11-03 02:31:44 PM  
Thoguh
The worst part of this was that over 100,000 voters didn't even bother to turn their ballot over to vote on the retention, and I'm 100% confident that the vast majority of them, if pressed, would have voted to retain. Every single person who wanted to recall these judges did, but far too many people who didn't take issue with the ruling chose to not voice their support.

Turn the ballot over? What are these paper ballots of which you speak?
 
2010-11-03 02:51:17 PM  

patrick767: Turn the ballot over? What are these paper ballots of which you speak?


Iowa (at least every county I've lived in) votes using Scantron type ballots, so you get electronic voting results with a paper trail. The retention questions were all on the backside of the ballot.
 
2010-11-03 02:55:31 PM  
While I agree with the sad tag, that headline reads like a reddit headline. And that makes me sad.
 
2010-11-03 03:15:35 PM  

ozone: While I agree with the sad tag, that headline reads like a reddit headline. And that makes me sad.


Shhhh, don't bag on Reddit...it makes Drew sad when people do that!
 
2010-11-03 03:50:45 PM  
The outcome marks the end of a showdown in the state that was funded by several million dollars from mostly out-of-state groups opposed to the same-sex marriage ruling.


F*cking hell, can other states just mind their own f*cking business already? Seriously, how is out-of-state funding not illegal for state elections?

Was it the Mormon Church again this time?
 
2010-11-03 04:05:42 PM  

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.
 
2010-11-03 04:06:26 PM  

Ennuipoet: Shhhh, don't bag on Reddit...it makes Drew sad when people do that!


LOL. I had actually forgotten about that already.
 
2010-11-03 04:08:39 PM  
That's not very fabulous.
 
2010-11-03 04:09:25 PM  

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.


I was about to suggest that. Is there some technicality that would make that legal? What if he just appointed the same judges to different seats than the ones they had previously occupied? Man, that would be spectacular.
 
2010-11-03 04:09:44 PM  
IOWA for Freedom? How farking Orwellian are these people? Jeezus.
 
2010-11-03 04:09:47 PM  

EvilEgg: patrick767: Then all of those involved should be stripped of their non-profit status. Oh, but in this country we don't even pretend to enforce the law against non-profits being involved in political campaigns as long as those non-profits are churches.

The only thing to do is to set up a mosque to involve itself in politics. Once your mosque is thoroughly stomped on by the courts while being cheered on by the right wing talking heads, you use that precedent to take the fight to the churches.


BRILLIANT.
 
2010-11-03 04:09:51 PM  
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.
 
2010-11-03 04:10:26 PM  

EvilEgg: patrick767: Then all of those involved should be stripped of their non-profit status. Oh, but in this country we don't even pretend to enforce the law against non-profits being involved in political campaigns as long as those non-profits are churches.

The only thing to do is to set up a mosque to involve itself in politics. Once your mosque is thoroughly stomped on by the courts while being cheered on by the right wing talking heads, you use that precedent to take the fight to the churches.


I'm on it!
 
2010-11-03 04:11:03 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!


You don't understand. Those judges don't understand the Constitution like the average citizen does.
 
2010-11-03 04:11:42 PM  
Sad Tag is right on. Let's grow up (as a country) and let people be themselves please...
 
2010-11-03 04:11:51 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.


herp tuh teh derp
 
2010-11-03 04:12:03 PM  
You know, at one time if you had taken a vote about how great slavery was there would have been some places where the popular vote would have gone for it. Or is the expression 'broke' for it. CNN you f' with me head. So, like, there should only be popular votes on issues that I decide can be allowed in the public's hands.
 
2010-11-03 04:12:12 PM  
The consentual acitvities of 1% of the population are really important legislative issues, after all.
 
2010-11-03 04:12:34 PM  

Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: The outcome marks the end of a showdown in the state that was funded by several million dollars from mostly out-of-state groups opposed to the same-sex marriage ruling.


F*cking hell, can other states just mind their own f*cking business already? Seriously, how is out-of-state funding not illegal for state elections?

Was it the Mormon Church again this time?


I came in to ask the same question. Why is this not illegal? Any Fark lawyers care to comment?
 
2010-11-03 04:13:06 PM  
Limited government for some, the heavy boot of repression for the rest
 
2010-11-03 04:13:31 PM  
Don't act so surprised. The Republicans want to take the country back, not take it forward.
 
2010-11-03 04:13:33 PM  
In other news, slack-jawed yokels says gays r bahd!

Ahyuck, Ahyuck, Ahyuck.
 
2010-11-03 04:14:00 PM  

Thoguh: The worst part of this was that over 100,000 voters didn't even bother to turn their ballot over to vote on the retention, and I'm 100% confident that the vast majority of them, if pressed, would have voted to retain. Every single person who wanted to recall these judges did, but far too many people who didn't take issue with the ruling chose to not voice their support.

There was a fairly small ultra-conservative evangelical group that couldn't even get their cantidate through the primaries, so instead they turned all their energies (and millions in out of state funding) to make retention an issue. I'm ashamed to live in Iowa today.


Ditto!
Also ashamed to be here after the locals got scared they would have to marry someone with the same junk in their britches.
 
2010-11-03 04:15:32 PM  
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=ra​cesInPlay & pres=false&tab=governor&state=il
 
2010-11-03 04:15:33 PM  
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.
 
2010-11-03 04:16:03 PM  

Thoguh:
There was a fairly small ultra-conservative evangelical group that couldn't even get their cantidate through the primaries, so instead they turned all their energies (and millions in out of state funding) to make retention an issue. I'm ashamed to live in Iowa today.


Back of the ballot stuff is stupid, why I like voting machines. you should not encourage voters to skip some issues or just vote "straight X"
 
2010-11-03 04:16:04 PM  
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
 
2010-11-03 04:16:20 PM  
Nice link, dumbass.
 
2010-11-03 04:16:21 PM  

patrick767: Thoguh
The worst part of this was that over 100,000 voters didn't even bother to turn their ballot over to vote on the retention, and I'm 100% confident that the vast majority of them, if pressed, would have voted to retain. Every single person who wanted to recall these judges did, but far too many people who didn't take issue with the ruling chose to not voice their support.

Turn the ballot over? What are these paper ballots of which you speak?


/insert silly anal sex comment here
 
2010-11-03 04:16:56 PM  
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.
 
2010-11-03 04:17:02 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!


It takes a lifetime of education, schooling, training and experience to become a high court judge. Judges are, if nothing else, the modern embodiment of Plato's "Philosopher Kings".

But I find it interesting how the Supreme Court system has this rigid hierarchy of law scholars..... yet any dicksack can run for political office.

So why not have something similar for our elected officials? I don't mean anything as steep as what the judicial branch has, but maybe, at the very least, an exam or a course...or even a skill-testing questionnaire or SOME thing that would be a stopgap against outright incompetence swelling the ranks. This would prevent the Bachmans and O'Donnells and Palins and Angles from gathering any political clout purely from the power of their popularity, rather than their unproven qualifications to actually do the damn job.

Just a thought.
 
2010-11-03 04:17:04 PM  
The outcome marks the end of a showdown in the state that was funded by several million dollars from mostly out-of-state groups opposed to the same-sex marriage ruling.

I thought conservatives were pro-states rights?
 
2010-11-03 04:17:18 PM  
Stories like this are the reason I laugh whenever someone whines about how Christians are under attack. They're not. They're on the attack.

How proud Jesus must be of His flock.
 
2010-11-03 04:17:20 PM  
You keep calling people "ignorant" because they believe marriage is between one man and one woman, and this is what's going to happen.
 
2010-11-03 04:17:42 PM  
But Vander Plaats and his group said they were afraid that the legal precedent set for same-sex marriage could lead to the erosion of other freedoms -- and that was why voters needed to speak up.

"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.


So you're protecting your freedom by taking away the freedoms of a minority group?? Talk about an oxymoron... it's like they think if gay marriage is legal, it makes straight marriage illegal. F'n morons.

This deserves the sick tag. I feel like I'm going to puke.

//married straight person
//but sick of gays being descriminated against
///fark H8
 
2010-11-03 04:17:44 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.


Psst. I'll tell you a secret...they are not full grown.
 
2010-11-03 04:17:45 PM  
Ain't democracy a biatch?
 
2010-11-03 04:17:47 PM  
The best way to protect Freedom is by denying it to folks. After all, Freedom is fungible commodity...

Good luck with that, you fair weather patriots.
 
2010-11-03 04:17:58 PM  

uncletogie: Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: The outcome marks the end of a showdown in the state that was funded by several million dollars from mostly out-of-state groups opposed to the same-sex marriage ruling.


F*cking hell, can other states just mind their own f*cking business already? Seriously, how is out-of-state funding not illegal for state elections?

Was it the Mormon Church again this time?

I came in to ask the same question. Why is this not illegal? Any Fark lawyers care to comment?


Money = speech. Corporations (and unions and churches) are people.
 
2010-11-03 04:18:24 PM  

Thoguh: patrick767: Turn the ballot over? What are these paper ballots of which you speak?

Iowa (at least every county I've lived in) votes using Scantron type ballots, so you get electronic voting results with a paper trail. The retention questions were all on the backside of the ballot.


Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees the humor in having an issue that was decided based on a perceived homosexual agenda being put on the backside of the ballot?
 
2010-11-03 04:18:30 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.


THIS.

It's America... who gives a fark who you fark or who you marry?

I'm straight and probably into weirder shiat than the average gay-dude. I just don't really get it... Seems like a BS reason to kick out a judge.
 
2010-11-03 04:19:19 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.

*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=ra​cesInPlay & 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?
 
2010-11-03 04:19:24 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.


So if the police show up at the door and force you to go to the next baptist revival, you're ok with that? It's called the tyranny of the majority and it's why we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy.
 
2010-11-03 04:19:52 PM  
These are the growing pains of a country that has been moving increasingly progressive for the past 100 years. There's some reactionary blowback and a lot of yelling, but eventually those voices get smaller and smaller, until they are relegated to the dustbin of history.
 
2010-11-03 04:19:59 PM  
Too bad I'm not authorized to work in any other countries.

I guess there's always the People's Republic of Vermont.
 
2010-11-03 04:20:01 PM  

Blasphemous Knave: I don't want to live on this planet anymore.


THIS
 
2010-11-03 04:20:02 PM  
Let's put all our rights up for approval by the majority of super-fanatical voters motivated by ignorance and fear. This silly letting people who know about the law decide what laws are thing has gone on long enough.
 
2010-11-03 04:20:17 PM  
Whine about why/who/how these judges got ousted, but it's the American voting system at work here. When elected individuals decide their way is best however adamantly the people protest against it, you better believe when they get a chance, the people will make their voices heard.

/I have nothing against gay marriage; think it should be legal
//I do believe the majority shall rule
 
2010-11-03 04:20:31 PM  

Bladel: Like most Iowans, I rarely paid attention to the "Should Judge So-and-So be retained?" questions on the back of the ballot. But the anti-gay crowd, loaded with out of state cash, totally hijacked this issue.

Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....


I always vote No on those questions. Doesn't matter who the judge is or what their track record is. I'm just opposed to someone staying in office forever.
 
2010-11-03 04:21:28 PM  

Ontos: I'm straight and probably into weirder shiat than the average gay-dude.


Yeah: we straight people can do everything gay can do, plus we can do penis-in-the-vagina sex and they can't.
 
2010-11-03 04:21:35 PM  
This and Prop 19's defeat in CA were the most disapointing results of the election.

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?


No. This country isn't run by majority rule, because frankly majority rule is a stupid idea. 50.1% of the country shouldn't be allowed to oppress the other 49.9%. Having all three branches of government subject to the whims of the electorate is a bad idea. Let the governor appoint the judges, and let the legislature have the power to impeach them.
 
2010-11-03 04:21:36 PM  
The US has a limited supply of rights. That is why driving is a privilege. We didn't want to waste one a right on it. Gays marrying just burns up an entire right on what, up to 10% of the population? I'd rather use that right for something we can all enjoy. Like trans-fats in my french fries.
 
2010-11-03 04:21:45 PM  
Oh, give me a break, you whiners. Judges shouldn't have life terms any more than congressman, and they are part of our legal process. I'm sure each of you would defend to the death a judge who was an activist contrary to your agendas.
 
2010-11-03 04:22:45 PM  

Barakku: Same here...I didn't even know this was an issue, I didn't even know people were all pissy about it in significant numbers. If it does affect you, STFU.


But God needs their help to keep down the gays that He accidentally created.
 
2010-11-03 04:23:16 PM  
Makes me think of this clip
Colbert's Anti-gay-marriage ad (new window)
 
2010-11-03 04:23:28 PM  
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.

I always thought gay people had it too easy. They can just break up and walk away.

Do you have any idea how much money it would cost me to walk away?
 
2010-11-03 04:23:28 PM  
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.
 
2010-11-03 04:23:53 PM  
Fark, Iowa...what the hell is wrong with you?

Standard Deviant: Oh, give me a break, you whiners. Judges shouldn't have life terms any more than congressman, and they are part of our legal process. I'm sure each of you would defend to the death a judge who was an activist contrary to your agendas.


I see your point, but judicial experience is critical in courts of last resort, for so many reasons. Cycling out judges in these courts isn't generally a good idea.
 
2010-11-03 04:23:58 PM  
listicles.thelmagazine.com
 
2010-11-03 04:24:03 PM  

uncletogie: I came in to ask the same question. Why is this not illegal? Any Fark lawyers care to comment?


1st Amendment, by restricting "out of area" political funds you are limiting peoples right to free speech. It sucks but it's Constitutional
 
2010-11-03 04:24:25 PM  

Some Texan: Whine about why/who/how these judges got ousted, but it's the American voting system at work here. When elected individuals decide their way is best however adamantly the people protest against it, you better believe when they get a chance, the people will make their voices heard.

/I have nothing against gay marriage; think it should be legal
//I do believe the majority shall rule


Spoken like a true member of the majority. For now.
 
2010-11-03 04:24:49 PM  

Bladel: Barakku: Bladel: Like most Iowans, I rarely paid attention to the "Should Judge So-and-So be retained?" questions on the back of the ballot. But the anti-gay crowd, loaded with out of state cash, totally hijacked this issue.

Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....

Same here...I didn't even know this was an issue, I didn't even know people were all pissy about it in significant numbers. If it does affect you, STFU. If only all voters and politicians would do that. It should be an Constitutional amendment (It's implicit in the 9th but politicians have proved it needs to be a LOT more explicit)

I hope the not retained judges has more to do with the general anti-incumbent position rather than the gay marriage issue. Again, I had no idea this was coming, when I first heard I just figured it was people voting out incumbents (which they're not quite political positions but whatever), the gay marriage vote was unanimous. No court is going to overturn it and it would take an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to instate any sort of gay marriage ban in Iowa. This should be a dead issue.


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.


These churches and religious groups should immediately lose their tax exempt status
 
2010-11-03 04:25:02 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Electing judges has to be the dumbest idea ever invented.


Just like electing Senators, amirite?

/trollin'
 
2010-11-03 04:25:06 PM  
Judicial activism exists to protect the minority from the majority. It is a vital part of the system. If the majority is able to intimidate judges on issues then you have opened the door for a tyranny of the majority.
 
2010-11-03 04:25:53 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.


They're not really adults, they're "religious conservatives." Which means they should get to do whatever their "faith" leads them to do no matter who it hurts, while all the rest of us should be busy obeying their laws and showing "personal responsibility" and all that. They are like spoiled, learning-disabled toddlers who have never been taught to respect others- as far as they're concerned, the rest of the world is only here to do their bidding and wipe their asses for them.
 
2010-11-03 04:26:04 PM  
Since I just spent all morning fighting with the rest of Totalfark about how evil and wrong I think republicans are for this sort of shiat, this is just another confirmation that there's still a reason to fight.
 
2010-11-03 04:26:51 PM  
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.

Iowa For Freedom claims that only the legislature has the right to grant freedom, the judges don't have the freedom to grant freedom, and are taking away the people's freedom by expanding the freedom to marry.

Therefore, Iowa For Freedom's activists campaign to remove the activist judges and plan to take away homosexual's freedom to marry.

/is that right?
 
2010-11-03 04:27:00 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.


If you ask them, they will explain that they don't personally care what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom, they're just sick and tired of these people forcing the issue onto them and rubbing their faces in it.

That's why they have to donate all this money to a campaign in a state 1,000 miles away that they never plan to visit; if they don't, gays will keep interfering with the privacy of straights to just live their life.
 
2010-11-03 04:27:13 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.

ah yes, that judicial activism thing, when judges make rulings you don't like!
 
2010-11-03 04:27:17 PM  

Talondel: This and Prop 19's defeat in CA were the most disapointing results of the election.


It was defeated because it was badly written, a lot of the potheads I know opposed it because it was a POS law.
 
2010-11-03 04:27:51 PM  
Americans are retarded. And I have been one all my life.
 
2010-11-03 04:27:57 PM  
I don't understand the headline (how are the three judges going to take the country back by returning to private practice?), but I agree with the "sad" tag.
 
2010-11-03 04:28:05 PM  
STOP BEING ASSHOLES
 
2010-11-03 04:29:28 PM  

Azlefty: Talondel: This and Prop 19's defeat in CA were the most disapointing results of the election.

It was defeated because it was badly written, a lot of the potheads I know opposed it because it was a POS law.


I would go with Feingold's defeat in Wisconsin, but hey, to each their own.
 
2010-11-03 04:29:34 PM  

Talondel: This and Prop 19's defeat in CA were the most disapointing results of the election.

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?

No. This country isn't run by majority rule, because frankly majority rule is a stupid idea. 50.1% of the country shouldn't be allowed to oppress the other 49.9%. Having all three branches of government subject to the whims of the electorate is a bad idea. Let the governor appoint the judges, and let the legislature have the power to impeach them.


This corrects nothing.

The governeror and the legislature are also elected by 50.1%. Then, the decisions and appointments they make oppress the other 49.9%

I see no improvement.

I will agree that popular vote is an insane way to do things. If leaders were always wise and benevolent, I'd happily give up the right to periodically choose things.
 
2010-11-03 04:29:43 PM  

I'm Yukon Cornelius: 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.

ah yes, that judicial activism thing, when judges make rulings you don't like!


Indeed....I fail to see how ruling that a law violates the Iowa Constitution constitutes 'activism'....guess Iowa joined the United States of Stupidia.
 
2010-11-03 04:30:56 PM  
http://img.skitch.com/20100104-e9i8jq7sw55kw1d7ak3ss3diip.jpg
 
2010-11-03 04:31:04 PM  

dannymo24: 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.

These churches and religious groups should immediately lose their tax exempt status


Yep it's completely crazy. Even my extra conservative friends thought it was lunacy that church X from down south was pouring millions upon millions in a smear the quears campaign for activist judges. It was a right wing troll come true.
 
2010-11-03 04:31:31 PM  
Dammit...

img.skitch.com
 
2010-11-03 04:31:40 PM  

highrye: Azlefty: Talondel: This and Prop 19's defeat in CA were the most disappointing results of the election.

It was defeated because it was badly written, a lot of the potheads I know opposed it because it was a POS law.

I would go with Feingold's defeat in Wisconsin, but hey, to each their own.


I also would go with Feingold's defeat as the most disappointing result.
 
2010-11-03 04:32:20 PM  

ghare: uncletogie: Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: The outcome marks the end of a showdown in the state that was funded by several million dollars from mostly out-of-state groups opposed to the same-sex marriage ruling.


F*cking hell, can other states just mind their own f*cking business already? Seriously, how is out-of-state funding not illegal for state elections?

Was it the Mormon Church again this time?

I came in to ask the same question. Why is this not illegal? Any Fark lawyers care to comment?

Money = speech. Corporations (and unions and churches) are people.


Thanks for the court ruling that's pissed me off more times than I can count.

Can a corporation go to jail? No? NOT A PERSON, damnit.
 
2010-11-03 04:32:42 PM  

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.
 
2010-11-03 04:33:06 PM  

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=ra​cesInPlay & 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.
 
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
 
2010-11-03 04:45:50 PM  
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. .
 
2010-11-03 04:46:15 PM  

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!
 
2010-11-03 04:46:20 PM  

Opposite: Does this mean that if a law comes up for review in Iowa, banning same sex marriage, that it would most likely pass?


No, because it would require a constitutional amendment and would never make it through the multiple votes in the statehouse and then a general election.

This recall only worked because lots of people who weren't bigoted assholes didn't even know it was going on, so a small minority managed to amplify their infuence beyond their numbers.
 
2010-11-03 04:46:23 PM  

dannymo24: These churches and religious groups should immediately lose their tax exempt status


Hear hear.
 
2010-11-03 04:47:14 PM  

IamAwake: 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.


So why did Iowa vote to keep all its incumbent congress-critters?
 
2010-11-03 04:47:23 PM  

Al_Ed: 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.


That screws the system though. What if this had been a vote for women's rights? Or black people's right?

the Courts shouldn't be punished for doing the right thing. Allowing gay marriage does nothing to harm marriage in any measurable way. Other groups can still get married, nothing changed there.
 
2010-11-03 04:47:42 PM  

Doubleodoug: 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
.


Pretty sure it does.

lennavan: 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
?


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.
 
2010-11-03 04:47:50 PM  

Thoguh: This recall only worked because lots of people who weren't bigoted assholes didn't even know it was going on, so a small minority managed to amplify their infuence beyond their numbers.


It was also well timed. The majority of the country is in a throw the bums out mood as it is. it probably didn't take much at all to reach the tipping point.
 
2010-11-03 04:48:19 PM  
"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"


You mean they might double the amount of gun rights and private property rights the way they did marriage rights?
 
2010-11-03 04:48:29 PM  
Because the word marriage doesn't belong to them. It's not theirs. It's all of ours. You know what the people with "civil unions" are going to call themselves? Married. You're not going to hear people say they got "civil unioned". They're going to say they got married. The word belongs to all of us, not just them.
 
2010-11-03 04:48:55 PM  
Hey Iowa - eat a bag of dicks.
sidesalad.net
 
2010-11-03 04:49:37 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!


No to mention a marriage measure shouldn't be voted on in the first place. This is a legal issue and if the states had placed antimiscegenation laws on ballots we still would've been arguing the validity of mixed marriages in court through the 70s, a few die hards holding on in the 80s.
 
2010-11-03 04:49:40 PM  

Phaid: Blasphemous Knave: I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Remember: down, not across.


Apparently it was too obscure for you, but that was a Futurama reference, not a cry for help. Way to keep Fark classy, though.
 
2010-11-03 04:50:11 PM  
This country sucks in a lot of ways. It really does. mostly the people. idiots. always on the wrong side of history. in 150 years this time period will be like when people look back on the 1850's and slavery. farking religious assholes hijacking this country.


fark YOU ALL.
 
2010-11-03 04:50:22 PM  

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.
 
2010-11-03 04:50:37 PM  

Coconice: 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.


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.


So in a race that can't be called yet 18 hours later, last I checked was 8,000 votes a part, you're claiming the candidates do not give 1/10 of one (1) shiat about your particular demograph?

I'm still interested to know which issue(s) you are thinking of when you say "pro-urban, anti-rural" and how the candidates stand on it/them.
 
2010-11-03 04:50:47 PM  

Al_Ed: 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.


It's actually a piss poor way for the system to work... and is in fact the reason most countries and states appoint judges instead of having them voted in. They are supposed to be able to strike down unconstitutional laws and do what's right, even when it's not popular.

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.
 
2010-11-03 04:51:02 PM  

realmolo: k


Word. I'll see you at the rallies.

*respeck knuckles*
 
2010-11-03 04:51:04 PM  
We may not behead our people who are not like everyone else but we definitely ruin lives unnecessarily in this country. As long as we let fairy tale believers make our rules we will always be a backwards, ignorant people.
 
2010-11-03 04:52:00 PM  

KatjaMouse: No to mention a marriage measure shouldn't be voted on in the first place. This is a legal issue and if the states had placed antimiscegenation laws on ballots we still would've been arguing the validity of mixed marriages in court through the 70s, a few die hards holding on in the 80s.


Mixed race marriages? What's next, marrying turtles?!?!
 
2010-11-03 04:52:07 PM  

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.
 
2010-11-03 04:52:14 PM  

Barakku: More reason churches shouldn't be allowed to promote politics.


Why do you hate black people?
 
2010-11-03 04:52:32 PM  
The saddest part of this is that churches seem to think the government is going to force the church to recognize gay marriages. That is simply not true. It forces the State to recognize gay marriages...a church can call marriage whatever the fark it wants to call it. Doesn't change the rights of those in a "civil union."

So why not call it that? Well, why not call a marriage between a man and a woman not made in a church a "civil union"? Shiat...why not just call all marriages "civil unions" outside the church?

It makes no difference what you call it...the point is that two consenting adults should have the right to obtain the same spousal rights and tax benefits (along with all the wonderful headaches and joy draining) that a "traditional" marriage offers.
 
2010-11-03 04:52:40 PM  
Retention elections are there to ensure some corrupt asshole doesn't get to stonewall everyone and keep his lifetime appointment, not to kick out judges for a decision you happen to disagree with. It's like the South getting to vote out the justices of the supreme court that made the Brown decision. It's retarded.

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.
 
2010-11-03 04:53:22 PM  

Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: Seriously, how is out-of-state funding not illegal for state elections?


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
 
2010-11-03 04:53:35 PM  

Coconice: Talondel: This and Prop 19's defeat in CA were the most disapointing results of the election.

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?

No. This country isn't run by majority rule, because frankly majority rule is a stupid idea. 50.1% of the country shouldn't be allowed to oppress the other 49.9%. Having all three branches of government subject to the whims of the electorate is a bad idea. Let the governor appoint the judges, and let the legislature have the power to impeach them.

This corrects nothing.

The governeror and the legislature are also elected by 50.1%. Then, the decisions and appointments they make oppress the other 49.9%


It's a lot harder to get an elected legislature to impeach a judge than it is to get the populace to vote them out in a retention election. It's also pretty hard for one governor to pack a court full of like minded people when they all serve for life. That's the purpose of divided, representative government. To make it difficult for the state to wield power.
 
2010-11-03 04:54:16 PM  

realmolo: 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.



You must live in central/eastern Iowa...the part that doesnt have any idea that there is more Iowa west of I-35. Too many times has central Iowa completely disregarded the needs of the rest of us. I'm not against gay marriage in any way shape or form. I have gay friends that are married. How many states have legalized gay marriage? Yet, apparently we are all unthinking livestock screwing farming hicks. Put this question on your state's ballot and let's see who passed it and who doesn't. Who will be labeled progressives and who will be labeled hicks.
 
2010-11-03 04:54:34 PM  

Phaid: Blasphemous Knave: I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Remember: down, not across.


Use a blade razor, not an electric.
 
2010-11-03 04:54:45 PM  

Macinfarker: So why not call it that? Well, why not call a marriage between a man and a woman not made in a church a "civil union"? Shiat...why not just call all marriages "civil unions" outside the church?


Because ceding language to religious whackjobs and trying to cater policy to them is farking retarded.
 
2010-11-03 04:54:50 PM  
I was very disappointed to hear this. I'm not gay, nor do I have many gay friends, but this was about the only reason I went to vote last night. I fail to see how these are 'activist judges' that need to be reigned in.
 
2010-11-03 04:55:55 PM  
Maybe Iowans are just sending a message that judges have way to much power in this country and that issues like gay marriage should be decided by the people.


/and remember that you can't have tyranny of the majority if there isn't any actual "tyranny". It's just democracy.
 
2010-11-03 04:56:24 PM  

KatjaMouse: No to mention a marriage measure shouldn't be voted on in the first place.


So laws shouldn't be voted on?
 
2010-11-03 04:56:25 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.


wise words to a stupid piece of shiat maybe...when will 'conservatives' just grow the fark up and stop acting like spoiled children? When that happens, you will get the respect you all think you deserve, but not until then.
 
2010-11-03 04:57:35 PM  
so, what we have here is 3 retards who, up until this reelection cycle, had NEVER campaigned to keep their seat. suddenly, a special interest group pours money their way

the people said 'fark you' and kicked them out.

whats wrong with this?

/oh thats right, youre 'concerned' for the homosexuals.
 
2010-11-03 04:58:26 PM  

cefm: Hey Iowa - eat a bag of dicks.


You want them to exercise?
 
2010-11-03 04:58:28 PM  

This text is now purple: So laws shouldn't be voted on?


Rights shouldn't be voted on.
 
2010-11-03 04:58:39 PM  

Richard Flaccid: Maybe Iowans are just sending a message that judges have way to much power in this country and that issues like gay marriage should be decided by the people.


/and remember that you can't have tyranny of the majority if there isn't any actual "tyranny". It's just democracy.


When 50%+1 people vote to take away a right from the 50%-1 that is tyranny.
 
2010-11-03 04:58:41 PM  

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


That's not a very accurate assessment of the situation.

A more accurate description is that special interest groups from out of state came in and spent a whole shiatload of money to stir up and organize a small portion of the population who really hate gays.

The large majority of the people in the state had no problem with the ruling, but they also had no strong feelings about the judges and likely weren't aware of the ramification of a back-ballot issue.

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.
 
2010-11-03 04:59:01 PM  

Richard Flaccid: Maybe Iowans are just sending a message that judges have way to much power in this country and that issues like gay marriage should be decided by the people.


/and remember that you can't have tyranny of the majority if there isn't any actual "tyranny". It's just democracy.


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?
 
2010-11-03 04:59:10 PM  

Antimatter: That screws the system though. What if this had been a vote for women's rights? Or black people's right?


What if it had been a vote on property line setbacks in a zoning code? It doesn't matter...if the people are unhappy with how a judge or politician ruled or voted, the people are entitled to vote against that judge / politician.

Don't hate the playas...

Hell, I actually give them credit for *having* a reason. I vote for the person who has the funniest name.
 
2010-11-03 04:59:12 PM  

bodyshots: so, what we have here is 3 retards who, up until this reelection cycle, had NEVER campaigned to keep their seat. suddenly, a special interest group pours money their way

the people said 'fark you' and kicked them out.

whats wrong with this?

/oh thats right, youre 'concerned' for the homosexuals.



Not sure I want to live in a state where judges "campaign on the issues." And sure as hell don't want to be a defendant in front of one.
 
2010-11-03 04:59:36 PM  

flaEsq: Take the country back to the 18th century


Well, we knew that already.
 
2010-11-03 05:00:17 PM  
FTA: The move was spearheaded primarily by Bob Vander Plaats, a Republican Sioux City attorney who lost the nomination for governor of the state and created the group Iowa For Freedom.

"Iowa for Freedom" - I guess the freedom to take away the rights of SOME citizens just for being gay. That's "REAL FREEDOM" eh?

Lordy the Irony, one needs a knife!
 
2010-11-03 05:00:35 PM  

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.
 
2010-11-03 05:01:11 PM  

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.
 
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.
 
2010-11-03 05:01:23 PM  

scavenger: These are the growing pains of a country that has been moving increasingly progressive for the past 100 years. There's some reactionary blowback and a lot of yelling, but eventually those voices get smaller and smaller, until they are relegated to the dustbin of history.


Your newsletter, yada yada...
 
2010-11-03 05:01:38 PM  
I did a little research. In Iowa, the Supreme Court is actually just a regular court with tomatoes and sour cream.
 
2010-11-03 05:02:04 PM  

Paulistinian: Ain't democracy a biatch?


Yeah, especially when it goes against my personal opinions.
Then democratic principles seem to become downright inconvenient.
 
2010-11-03 05:02:32 PM  

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!
 
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.


I live with my mom 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=ra​cesInPlay & 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.
 
2010-11-03 05:19:46 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!


Agreed. I want a person that will interpret the law correctly as he sees fit, not in how he thinks the electorate wants him to. Same with Attorney General. In DC yesterday, the voters just gave themselves the power to vote for Attorney General (assuming Congress doesn't override that vote). I voted no. Don't want people voting on that position.
 
2010-11-03 05:20:09 PM  

lennavan: 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.


My sarcasm meter twitched.

Just so we're clear: I personally favor civil unions. What I don't favor, for anyone, for any reason, is judicial activism.

Iowa had a law on the books dealing with gay marriage. The state supreme court decided to shiat on that law and, without ruling on it, decided to sidestep it and effectively neuter it. I'd say the people of Iowa were well within their rights to be incensed about being treated like a bunch of wayward children enough to vote the justices off the bench.
 
2010-11-03 05:20:51 PM  
"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 desegregated 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."

Helps to see his argument in another context. The Equal Protection Clause trumps the state constitution in any event, and it's hard to see how gay couples are receiving equal treatment when they are barred from a legal status reserved to the straight couples. The irony is that the "checks and balances" he praises were upended here by out-of-state money working hard to politicize the judiciary. Thanks Mormons!

Will some brave soul in Congress simply present a bill to amend the Equal Protection Clause to include sexual preference? It will be a long, drawn out battle (much like sufferance and desegregation were in their day), but it needs to begin in earnest.
 
2010-11-03 05:20:58 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


Judges do things the majority doesn't want all the time. Its called an independent judiciary and this is a direct attack against it.

/civil rights rarely have majority support at the time
 
2010-11-03 05:22:06 PM  
so, then it's not really all about the economy and jobs?
 
2010-11-03 05:22:21 PM  
I think we should get rid of any tax benefits and any kind of government approval of the institution of marriage.

Then what?
 
2010-11-03 05:22:26 PM  

The_Great_Hambino: 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.


Judge's interpretation should be constrained to the legislator's probably intent of the law not expand upon it.

If the law falls short of what the public wants the correct remedy is to elect a legislature that will not change the law not depending a judge to change it for them. This not say that Judge cannot say that a law in unconstitutional. The Judge can but it sup the legislature not the judge to create a law that passes constitutional muster.
 
2010-11-03 05:22:30 PM  

This text is now purple: 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.


You need to read up about Archbishop Raymond Burke, current head of the highest Vatican court and the cardinal who insisted presidential candidate John Kerry should be denied communion in 2004 due to his stance on abortion.

If you think the traditional Southern Baptists believe the Pope is anything other than the anti-Christ, you haven't sat in on a traditional Southern Baptist Sunday School class. Just call Pat Robertson and ask him what the Pope is.
 
2010-11-03 05:22:38 PM  

Quel: I want a person that will interpret the law correctly as he sees fit, not in how he thinks the electorate wants him to.


Fair enough. You realize you're now essentially talking about "protected classes" via the 14th Amendment? You're in favor of making gender preference a protected class for the purposes of anti-discrimination?
 
2010-11-03 05:23:21 PM  
Ack. The spending argument is analogous to gasoline: you have a car(economy) that needs to get from A to B so you are going to need gas (spending). The Republicans are like a driver in the middle of the desert who suddenly decides he can't afford to use the gas he has to get from A to B so he hoards it instead of putting it in the car. Look how thrifty he is! Car dies in the middle of the desert... Actually we did spend our way out of the last depression - it was called WWII. -John Shaw
 
2010-11-03 05:23:25 PM  
US Supreme Court Justices are appointed by Presidents when one retires or dies. This is how all supreme courts should function, in my opinion. FORTUNATELY, I don't live there, so my opinion doesn't matter.
 
2010-11-03 05:23:46 PM  

craig328: Just so we're clear: I personally favor civil unions. What I don't favor, for anyone, for any reason, is judicial activism.

Iowa had a law on the books dealing with gay marriage. The state supreme court decided to shiat on that law and, without ruling on it, decided to sidestep it and effectively neuter it. I'd say the people of Iowa were well within their rights to be incensed about being treated like a bunch of wayward children enough to vote the justices off the bench.


Its very clear that you never read the ruling of the Iowan supreme court. Stop making ignorant comments, download it, read it, and get a clue.

/separate but equal has been tried - did you read the newsletter about that?
//and "Judicial Activism" is a bullshiat term - you didn't like the rule based on your prejudices - that doesn't make it activism.
 
2010-11-03 05:24:51 PM  

bravian: 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

Judges do things the majority doesn't want all the time. Its called an independent judiciary and this is a direct attack against it.

/civil rights rarely have majority support at the time


Attack? Really? Because the voters exercised their rights via the ballot box?

Incidentally, just WTF do you think the process for removing judges from the bench in Iowa exists for anyway? Everything except for the subjects you personally agree with in which case it's an "attack"?

Wow...just wow.
 
2010-11-03 05:24:57 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.


Calling someone ignorant is a nice way of saying bigot. Fine, have it your way. Theyre bigots.
 
2010-11-03 05:25:47 PM  
I don't see why the gays don't just choose to not be gay...
 
2010-11-03 05:27:17 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I want to take the power away from the people when the people are not giving every citizen the equal protections of the law.


What are your feelings on polygamy?
 
2010-11-03 05:27:18 PM  

robbiex0r: I think we should get rid of any tax benefits and any kind of government approval of the institution of marriage.

Then what?


In the time of our countries founders - marriages were largely unregulated in this country. But people were essentially hooking up for a while and then splitting on each other. The moralists had a cow and thus government regulation of the civil contract.

But governments have always regulated marriage. So what you are asking for is a more radical change in the concept of marriage then allowing two same-sex people to get hitched.
 
2010-11-03 05:27:26 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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.....


He'll have livestock and water and land, but that isn't my actual point anyway. He was told he don't matter, that we have NO reason to listen to what he has to say.... and ya'll wonder why the rural people hate urban folk? Without the rural people doing those jobs, we don't' exist. Now, the things we create make their lives easier better and more reproductive to be sure. But they are not necessary, just ask the Amish.

BTW I'm not saying that they are always right or that they should be running the show, they know as much about cities as I know about rounding up cattle, but they deserve to be listened to.
 
2010-11-03 05:27:39 PM  

Cyno01: Calling someone ignorant is a nice way of saying bigot. Fine, have it your way. Theyre bigots.


Well, in proper context. I'm not sure my customers who often say "Y'know, I'm glad you're doing (x) for me since I'm so ignorant about computers" would like it if I turned around and said "so in other words, you're a bigot?"
 
2010-11-03 05:27:49 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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?


Seriously. We don't vote based on LAND AREA.

...that is, at least we haven't since 1970, which is when my area (also in IL) finally got rid of apportioning County Board seats by land area.

"b...b...but 89% of the county is rural!"

Yeah, the 89% with nothing but CORN ON IT. Meanwhile, it's human beings who have the franchise. Even if they live all bunched up on one part of the area.
 
2010-11-03 05:27:51 PM  

uncletogie: Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: The outcome marks the end of a showdown in the state that was funded by several million dollars from mostly out-of-state groups opposed to the same-sex marriage ruling.


F*cking hell, can other states just mind their own f*cking business already? Seriously, how is out-of-state funding not illegal for state elections?

Was it the Mormon Church again this time?

I came in to ask the same question. Why is this not illegal? Any Fark lawyers care to comment?


Because they have lots and lots of money. If you have lots and lots of money, anything is legal.
 
2010-11-03 05:28:29 PM  
Interesting. I didn't realize some judges were vote in/out. I kind of like that idea.
 
2010-11-03 05:28:48 PM  

bravian: robbiex0r: I think we should get rid of any tax benefits and any kind of government approval of the institution of marriage.

Then what?

In the time of our countries founders - marriages were largely unregulated in this country. But people were essentially hooking up for a while and then splitting on each other. The moralists had a cow and thus government regulation of the civil contract.

But governments have always regulated marriage. So what you are asking for is a more radical change in the concept of marriage then allowing two same-sex people to get hitched.


Think of the money the government would make/save!
 
2010-11-03 05:29:31 PM  
All you have to do, you alternative life seekers, is simply leave that one word marriage alone. Then gather all the rights and benefits that you deserve and seek them under the label of civil union.

If you could just get over the asinine insistence of -Oh googly moogly we wanna be married like those straight people- you'd already have half the country granting you the rights that you seek.

Whomever is spearheading your efforts to gain equal footing needs to be fired immediately.

Political activism...you're doing it wrong.
 
2010-11-03 05:29:47 PM  

Some Texan: US Supreme Court Justices are appointed by Presidents when one retires or dies. This is how all supreme courts should function, in my opinion. FORTUNATELY, I don't live there, so my opinion doesn't matter.


The recall serves an important purpose, it allows the electorate to remove a currupt judge. It has never been used in the history of the state. This time around it was hijacked by a minority of bigots with extensive out of state funding.
 
2010-11-03 05:29:55 PM  

This text is now purple: Philip Francis Queeg: I want to take the power away from the people when the people are not giving every citizen the equal protections of the law.

What are your feelings on polygamy?


If polygamy is made legal, then it should be open to all consenting adults, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
 
2010-11-03 05:30:17 PM  

bravian: Its very clear that you never read the ruling of the Iowan supreme court. Stop making ignorant comments, download it, read it, and get a clue.

/separate but equal has been tried - did you read the newsletter about that?
//and "Judicial Activism" is a bullshiat term - you didn't like the rule based on your prejudices - that doesn't make it activism.



You know what's fun? I don't need to have read it. It's tangential. The story (the only one that matters) is that the judges did something that the voters of the state of Iowa felt was incompatible with their retention on the bench of the Supreme Court in their state. They didn't riot, storm the court and haul them out and tar and feather them. They simply made use of the constitutionally provided for means of ridding themselves of judges whose judgment has been found lacking by the people whose issues they're ruling on.

So, see, I don't need to read the decision (any more than you didn't) as it's not really applicable. Just in case you're confused, their judgement stands even if they've been removed from the bench. This action doesn't vacate, reverse or somehow nullify that decision.
 
2010-11-03 05:30:46 PM  

farkin_Gary: All you have to do, you alternative life seekers, is simply leave that one word marriage alone. Then gather all the rights and benefits that you deserve and seek them under the label of civil union.

If you could just get over the asinine insistence of -Oh googly moogly we wanna be married like those straight people- you'd already have half the country granting you the rights that you seek.

Whomever is spearheading your efforts to gain equal footing needs to be fired immediately.

Political activism...you're doing it wrong.



Also, this. Do you want the equal rights/benefits or do you just want to stick it to the religious?
 
2010-11-03 05:31:37 PM  

Sticky Hands: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.....

He'll have livestock and water and land, but that isn't my actual point anyway. He was told he don't matter, that we have NO reason to listen to what he has to say.... and ya'll wonder why the rural people hate urban folk? Without the rural people doing those jobs, we don't' exist. Now, the things we create make their lives easier better and more reproductive to be sure. But they are not necessary, just ask the Amish.

BTW I'm not saying that they are always right or that they should be running the show, they know as much about cities as I know about rounding up cattle, but they deserve to be listened to.


They are listened to. A rural voter has exactly the same number of votes as an urban voter.
 
2010-11-03 05:32:27 PM  

craig328: Attack? Really? Because the voters exercised their rights via the ballot box?

Incidentally, just WTF do you think the process for removing judges from the bench in Iowa exists for anyway? Everything except for the subjects you personally agree with in which case it's an "attack"?

Wow...just wow.


I have no idea why its on the books. But its a very recent change in Iowan law. You did know that right?

There is a singular reason why Judges should be appointed and its to keep an independent judiciary unswayed by populist idioticy by the likes of people like you. A bunch of out of state money came into the state to remove these three judges - how is that right? How does that encourage an independent judicial system? I'll answer for you - it doesn't.

Have you read the ruling yet? Or are you just going to keep talking out of your ass about shiat you know nothing about?
 
2010-11-03 05:32:44 PM  

bravian: 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

Judges do things the majority doesn't want all the time. Its called an independent judiciary and this is a direct attack against it.

/civil rights rarely have majority support at the time


A lot of people in this thread have said the same thing. The problem is that people who don't get it to begin with won't understand it no matter how you explain it.

And anyway, I think the funds are coming to fight gay marriage not because the money people feel strongly about it, but because they see it as an opportunity to get people elected.

It's not about electing officials that will ban gay marriage; it's about using gay marriage to get people elected.
 
2010-11-03 05:33:03 PM  
My teabaggy friend was incensed about that "activist liberal judge" saying Prop 8 was unconstitutional, and the judge was clearly "trying to get votes" (which is demonstrably false).

He quite strongly believes that a judge shouldn't be allowed to "overrule the will of the people" even if the will is completely unconstitutional.

He also had never heard of anti-miscegenation laws and believes that we had troops in Iraq before Afghanistan.
 
2010-11-03 05:33:44 PM  

bravian: Judges do things the majority doesn't want all the time. Its called an independent judiciary and this is a direct attack against it.


8 years is a long time between elections. Senators get 6 year terms so that they are more separated from the time of the vote to the time of the election, for this very reason.

By the same token, are you comfortable with lifetime appointments? By essentially making a sovereign figure of a judge, they are totally removed from any check on their power short of a rifle. An unaccountable judge is a potential loose cannon.
 
2010-11-03 05:34:10 PM  

craig328: Just so we're clear: I personally favor civil unions. What I don't favor, for anyone, for any reason, is judicial activism.


So you don't like the separation of powers as set up in the Constitution? Because popular vote was never the final way to settle any issue in the US. The entire point of having a judiciary is so that they can step in and declare when stuff is unconstitutional.

As for other states weighing in, I'm sure they do it because they know that if one state grants marriages, they're going to have to accept those marriages just like they do the straight ones. So they think they have a dog in the race and something to lose.

For what it's worth, those in favor of gay marriage also use that situation to their advantage (they know, as do we all, that if they can get a few states to allow it, other states will at least have to accept those marriages afterward, so it's a crack in the wall).

/personally in favor of allowing gay marriage
//yes, with that word
///either that or go with civil unions for all and strike the word "marriage" from the law altogether for all couples, but no difference in wording
 
2010-11-03 05:34:40 PM  

craig328: Just so we're clear: I personally favor civil unions. What I don't favor, for anyone, for any reason, is judicial activism.


Fair enough. I prefer equal treatment for everyone under the law, I don't really care what you call it, marriage or civil union, so long as it's equal. I also hate judicial activism although I cannot think of any judicial activism off of the top of my head. People throw that term out all too often to really mean "a judge ruled something I disagree with." Let's not mix the two up, okay?

craig328: Iowa had a law on the books dealing with gay marriage.


I agree. Said law violated the constitutional rights of a subset of the population.

craig328: The state supreme court decided to shiat on that law and, without ruling on it, decided to sidestep it and effectively neuter it.


This is what courts do when someone or a governing body violates the constitutional rights of a person. Checks and balances.

craig328: I'd say the people of Iowa were well within their rights to be incensed about being treated like a bunch of wayward children enough to vote the justices off the bench.


Yeah, everyone has the right to have some poutrage, as misplaced as it may be. They weren't treated like wayward children, they were treated like a tyrannical body violating the constitution, attempting to remove the inalienable rights of US citizens.
 
2010-11-03 05:34:45 PM  

Some Texan: 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?


I'll go ahead and admit, I don't remember anything about marriage of any type from that article. I'll have to find it and see.

I do remember lots of non-one man, one woman marriage arrangements from around the world (mostly various poly-types), and there is something about friend-marriages between same sex couples in some non-western nations rattling around in my head... but I can't get a handle on it today.
 
2010-11-03 05:34:52 PM  

Azlefty: Talondel: This and Prop 19's defeat in CA were the most disapointing results of the election.

It was defeated because it was badly written, a lot of the potheads I know opposed it because it was a POS law.


I've heard the "badly written" thing a couple of times before....

In what ways is it badly written?
 
2010-11-03 05:34:55 PM  

craig328: 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.


The Iowa Constitution laid out certain basic rights. It also laid out a way to change the Constitution, and that's rather hard to do. The voters may have had enough of a majority to pass a regular law, but they didn't have the votes or the patience to change the state Constitution. Unfortunately for them, the law violated the state's Constitutionally guaranteed rights, so the court struck it down. That's not policy, it's fact. A is inconsistent with B, and B is more powerful, so A loses. If the voters in Iowa really hate gay marriage that much, they are free to change the state Constitution. Until they do so, they'll just be flat-out WRONG.
 
2010-11-03 05:34:56 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: 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.

You need to read up about Archbishop Raymond Burke, current head of the highest Vatican court and the cardinal who insisted presidential candidate John Kerry should be denied communion in 2004 due to his stance on abortion.


Did Kerry suddenly become pro-life? No?

Then I think my point has already been made.
 
2010-11-03 05:35:04 PM  
Christians can be such Muslims at times.
 
2010-11-03 05:35:29 PM  
When it boils down to it, the bible says homosexuality is a sin. Sin is sin. ie: lying is the same with God as robbing a bank. They are both sins and both very bad. We are all sinners. I don't hate homos, or even much care what they do. They are sinners. I am a sinner. They are no worse than I, and I am no worse than them.

I don't much care for the way their agenda seems to be forced upon others, but sometimes it is what it is.

People that use religion as a reason to hate on people suck.

Additionally, people who paint all religious people with a broad brush and say we're all bigots, fanatics, and haters and what not also suck.

Jesus teaches to love. God is love.

/something about glass houses and throwing stones
//we could all afford to be more tolerant.
 
2010-11-03 05:36:15 PM  

robbiex0r: farkin_Gary: All you have to do, you alternative life seekers, is simply leave that one word marriage alone. Then gather all the rights and benefits that you deserve and seek them under the label of civil union.

If you could just get over the asinine insistence of -Oh googly moogly we wanna be married like those straight people- you'd already have half the country granting you the rights that you seek.

Whomever is spearheading your efforts to gain equal footing needs to be fired immediately.

Political activism...you're doing it wrong.


Also, this. Do you want the equal rights/benefits or do you just want to stick it to the religious?


Separate, but equal, right? The seats in the back of the bus are just fine.
 
2010-11-03 05:36:25 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: This text is now purple: Philip Francis Queeg: I want to take the power away from the people when the people are not giving every citizen the equal protections of the law.

What are your feelings on polygamy?

If polygamy is made legal, then it should be open to all consenting adults, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.


But marriage is legal.
 
2010-11-03 05:36:26 PM  

Barakku: Bladel: Like most Iowans, I rarely paid attention to the "Should Judge So-and-So be retained?" questions on the back of the ballot. But the anti-gay crowd, loaded with out of state cash, totally hijacked this issue.

Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....

Same here...I didn't even know this was an issue, I didn't even know people were all pissy about it in significant numbers. If it does affect you, STFU. If only all voters and politicians would do that. It should be an Constitutional amendment (It's implicit in the 9th but politicians have proved it needs to be a LOT more explicit)

I hope the not retained judges has more to do with the general anti-incumbent position rather than the gay marriage issue. Again, I had no idea this was coming, when I first heard I just figured it was people voting out incumbents (which they're not quite political positions but whatever), the gay marriage vote was unanimous. No court is going to overturn it and it would take an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to instate any sort of gay marriage ban in Iowa. This should be a dead issue.


Vander Plaats knows all this. He only wanted to have the last laugh after not getting nominated for governor.

What he's done is like the kid who says "I don't wanna play anymore and I'm going home." Only instead of taking his ball and bat and leaving, he hits the ball thru your dining room window and bashes in the car hood with the bat.
 
2010-11-03 05:36:33 PM  

craig328: Incidentally, just WTF do you think the process for removing judges from the bench in Iowa exists for anyway? Everything except for the subjects you personally agree with in which case it's an "attack"?


Incidentally why do you think SCOTUS justices get lifetime appointments, are not elected and never face re-election or the possibility of removal?
 
2010-11-03 05:37:04 PM  

farkin_Gary: All you have to do, you alternative life seekers, is simply leave that one word marriage alone. Then gather all the rights and benefits that you deserve and seek them under the label of civil union.


Sure, as long as you only have civil unions for straight people too, so that NO ONE gets a "marriage license." Then I'm fine with it.

What's not going to fly is having separate words for the two types of couples, so that people (or more likely insurance companies/employers/etc) can endlessly split the hairs.

Meanwhile no one gives a shiat what goes on in religious institutions, so if they still want to have "marriage" ceremonies separate from the state they're free to. Notice that loads of religious institutions already have far stricter rules about who they will marry than the current state-mandated "one man and one woman" and no one is causing them to violate those self-imposed rules now.
 
2010-11-03 05:37:29 PM  
why is what people do with their private parts such a public issue?
 
2010-11-03 05:37:40 PM  

patrick767: 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.


Exactly,

However, explaining that to knuckle dragging bigots is pretty much impossible.
 
2010-11-03 05:37:54 PM  
Why don't gays start their own country somewhere with their own laws? Why do they keep trying to hijack this one? Do they think that the laws that define our culture accidentally left them out?
 
2010-11-03 05:38:05 PM  

bravian: craig328: Attack? Really? Because the voters exercised their rights via the ballot box?

Incidentally, just WTF do you think the process for removing judges from the bench in Iowa exists for anyway? Everything except for the subjects you personally agree with in which case it's an "attack"?

Wow...just wow.

I have no idea why its on the books. But its a very recent change in Iowan law. You did know that right?

There is a singular reason why Judges should be appointed and its to keep an independent judiciary unswayed by populist idioticy by the likes of people like you. A bunch of out of state money came into the state to remove these three judges - how is that right? How does that encourage an independent judicial system? I'll answer for you - it doesn't.

Have you read the ruling yet? Or are you just going to keep talking out of your ass about shiat you know nothing about?



Shall I wait for the mountain of citations you clearly owe for all the "facts" that you CLEARLY know but which I am obviously ignorant of.

Insofar as the rest of your spittle-launching diatribe, does it now matter how recent a law is? What, it's not a law law til it's aged a little?

And again, the text of the case the people of Iowa took exception to isn't important for two reasons: 1. that ruling still stands (I believe your political dyslexia is why you keep missing that point) and 2. it doesn't matter what the impetus was...the end result is they're gone.

So no, I won't bother going to look at the ruling as it has zero to do with the legality and proper functioning of the system in Iowa for removing judges from the bench. Neither will I post a humorous pic of a derping dumbass to mock you so as to help deliver my point that you're not getting it.

See? I'm a sensitive guy.
 
2010-11-03 05:38:57 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: You have no right to violate the rights of others. I have no right to deny you every right I maintain for myself.


I agree. But is marriage a right protected under the constitution or is it a privilege? This is what it all comes down to.

For the record I live in Wisconsin and I voted no for the 2006 Wisconsin gay marriage ban. I support the rights of gay couples.

My point is that this is my opinion on this issue and other people should have the right to vote their opinion. We need to quit putting all of the power into the hands of corrupt politicians and judges.
 
2010-11-03 05:38:59 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: robbiex0r: farkin_Gary: All you have to do, you alternative life seekers, is simply leave that one word marriage alone. Then gather all the rights and benefits that you deserve and seek them under the label of civil union.

If you could just get over the asinine insistence of -Oh googly moogly we wanna be married like those straight people- you'd already have half the country granting you the rights that you seek.

Whomever is spearheading your efforts to gain equal footing needs to be fired immediately.

Political activism...you're doing it wrong.


Also, this. Do you want the equal rights/benefits or do you just want to stick it to the religious?

Separate, but equal, right? The seats in the back of the bus are just fine.


I would call it different. But whatever. The point is, this isn't about how you define it, or what you think it should be called.

/the cool kids sat at the back of the bus
 
2010-11-03 05:39:09 PM  
Here is a message for the gays, please pass along to the person responsible for your marketing and public relations:

First off, you cannot be your own protected group or class of people. Second, quit shoving your "gayness" into the faces of the world. That tactic will work no better with an American mid-western middle-ager, than it will with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The backlash has already begun, and you don't want to go backwards.

Also - maybe you should re-think your stance and desire for same-sex marriage. As a married man, I cannot fathom a reason why anyone who doesn't have to be married, would want to be married. Just be happy that you are with someone who you can swap clothes with, has the same sex drive, and like to watch the same kinds of TV shows that you do.
 
2010-11-03 05:39:14 PM  
Punish people for upholding freedoms!

That is the American WAY!
 
2010-11-03 05:39:23 PM  

This text is now purple:

By the same token, are you comfortable with lifetime appointments? By essentially making a sovereign figure of a judge, they are totally removed from any check on their power short of a rifle. An unaccountable judge is a potential loose cannon.


That's why we have multiple levels of appeals courts, with the upper levels being made up of panels of judges, rather than lone individuals.
 
2010-11-03 05:39:45 PM  

Bladel: Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....


Yes, it does.

Let's not kid ourselves - right and left, nearly everyone's sense of "legislating from the bench" has become "ruling the result of which I dislike."

It's not necessarily a bad thing. Judges have done a lot of good over the centuries - from banning slavery in several states in the 18th and 19th to allowing gay marriage in a few today. But the laws in place have been a means, rather than an end, to varying degrees throughout. Meanwhile, the people celebrate the "good" rulings and curse the "bad" ones, barely caring what the laws actually say. If, as some in this thread have said, we've come to feel there's no such thing as "judicial activism," then there's nothing a judge can't do. So let's just drop the talk of "legal realism" and call it what it is.

Welcome to krytocracy, folks. Long live the judge.
 
2010-11-03 05:40:02 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: robbiex0r: farkin_Gary: All you have to do, you alternative life seekers, is simply leave that one word marriage alone. Then gather all the rights and benefits that you deserve and seek them under the label of civil union.

If you could just get over the asinine insistence of -Oh googly moogly we wanna be married like those straight people- you'd already have half the country granting you the rights that you seek.

Whomever is spearheading your efforts to gain equal footing needs to be fired immediately.

Political activism...you're doing it wrong.


Also, this. Do you want the equal rights/benefits or do you just want to stick it to the religious?

Separate, but equal, right? The seats in the back of the bus are just fine.


Oh, you're a dilly! And a VERY BIG part of the problem I address.

Get the fark out of the way, slacker.
 
2010-11-03 05:41:22 PM  

lennavan: craig328: Incidentally, just WTF do you think the process for removing judges from the bench in Iowa exists for anyway? Everything except for the subjects you personally agree with in which case it's an "attack"?

Incidentally why do you think SCOTUS justices get lifetime appointments, are not elected and never face re-election or the possibility of removal?


Largely because they have no enforcement agency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia
 
2010-11-03 05:41:32 PM  

This text is now purple: Philip Francis Queeg: This text is now purple: Philip Francis Queeg: I want to take the power away from the people when the people are not giving every citizen the equal protections of the law.

What are your feelings on polygamy?

If polygamy is made legal, then it should be open to all consenting adults, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

But marriage is legal.


Marriage between two people is. Therefore I believe it should be open to all without regard to race, creed, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
 
2010-11-03 05:42:10 PM  

stonelotus: why is what people do with their private parts such a public issue?


Too much ghey sexx means people aren't following God's Law and so God is going to remove His blessing from the United States (the blessing which has made American Exceptionalism a reality throughout history since its founding) and the country will fall.
 
2010-11-03 05:42:39 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: This text is now purple:

By the same token, are you comfortable with lifetime appointments? By essentially making a sovereign figure of a judge, they are totally removed from any check on their power short of a rifle. An unaccountable judge is a potential loose cannon.

That's why we have multiple levels of appeals courts, with the upper levels being made up of panels of judges, rather than lone individuals.


And?

We have multiple layers of bicameral legislature, too. We elect them.
 
2010-11-03 05:43:06 PM  

Tissot: First off, you cannot be your own protected group or class of people.


I agree, they should be grouped in with the rest of us with equal rights.

Tissot: As a married man, I cannot fathom a reason why anyone who doesn't have to be married, would want to be married.


Just because you made a poor decision doesn't mean the rest of us did.
 
2010-11-03 05:43:16 PM  

pack999: farkin_Gary 2010-11-03 05:29:31 PM

All you have to do, you alternative life seekers, is simply leave that one word marriage alone. Then gather all the rights and benefits that you deserve and seek them under the label of civil union.

If you could just get over the asinine insistence of -Oh googly moogly we wanna be married like those straight people- you'd already have half the country granting you the rights that you seek.

Whomever is spearheading your efforts to gain equal footing needs to be fired immediately.

Political activism...you're doing it wrong.

Nice point - reality. Get over the idealistic horse hockey and put together a plan that "will be" accepted. Not "should be".


Problem with that point is I pretty sure we've already dealt with separate but equal before, and look where that went (hint: no equality until we got rid of the separate part).

What we really need to do is kill the idea of civil marriage completely. Have everyone, gay or straight, get civil unions and then, if they want, get a religious marriage!
 
2010-11-03 05:43:55 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


It's so funny how they invoke their "rights" in an attempt to take away the rights of others. "If we have to treat them dirty homos like human beings, next thing ya know, we won't be able to own assault rifles or own houses anymore!"

Um, excuse me? The two things aren't even remotely related. I wish they'd just come out and say what this is really about (they hate gays, and want to hurt them as much as possible....whether it's because they imagined "Jesus" told them to, or whether it's because they're just ignorant, is immaterial) and at least be open about it. Unfortunately, it doesn't really matter WHAT your particular branch of religious-crazy is, you don't get to impose it on other people.

You can't vote to take away rights from black people, OR Jews, or atheists, or women....and you shouldn't be able to do it to gays, either. I don't care how many people vote on it, or how much they spend.....it's wrong, and it's unconstitutional. Mob rule isn't a good basis for decision making, and this is one obvious case where the so-called "activist judges" (who I would just call "decent human beings") made the right decision, with the voting majority being wrong.
 
2010-11-03 05:44:11 PM  

farkin_Gary: All you have to do, you alternative life seekers, is simply leave that one word marriage alone. Then gather all the rights and benefits that you deserve and seek them under the label of civil union.

If you could just get over the asinine insistence of -Oh googly moogly we wanna be married like those straight people- you'd already have half the country granting you the rights that you seek.

Whomever is spearheading your efforts to gain equal footing needs to be fired immediately.

Political activism...you're doing it wrong.


So you'd like gays to have a separate, but equal, version of marriage?
 
2010-11-03 05:44:24 PM  

Bladel: Like most Iowans, I rarely paid attention to the "Should Judge So-and-So be retained?" questions on the back of the ballot. But the anti-gay crowd, loaded with out of state cash, totally hijacked this issue.

Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....


Judges don't make laws! People do!

That's the whole point. These asshats should be removed if they 'Make Laws' against the will of the people.
 
2010-11-03 05:44:37 PM  

Tissot: As a married man, I cannot fathom a reason why anyone who doesn't have to be married, would want to be married.


I've been happily married for 8 years. You are doing something wrong.

/My wife loves cooking, football, and Battlestar Galatica.
//Also, easy on the eyes.
 
2010-11-03 05:44:52 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: This text is now purple: Philip Francis Queeg: This text is now purple: Philip Francis Queeg: I want to take the power away from the people when the people are not giving every citizen the equal protections of the law.

What are your feelings on polygamy?

If polygamy is made legal, then it should be open to all consenting adults, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

But marriage is legal.

Marriage between two people is. Therefore I believe it should be open to all without regard to race, creed, ethnicity or sexual orientation.


I'll buy that, but the fundies on one side and the hard liners on the other side are all so damn hung up on that one word that they can't just settle down and let the laws be molded to reflect changing attitudes..
 
2010-11-03 05:45:08 PM  

lennavan: Tissot: First off, you cannot be your own protected group or class of people.

I agree, they should be grouped in with the rest of us with equal rights.

Tissot: As a married man, I cannot fathom a reason why anyone who doesn't have to be married, would want to be married.

Just because you made a poor decision doesn't mean the rest of us did.


Did your wife make you say that?
 
2010-11-03 05:45:37 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: This text is now purple: Philip Francis Queeg: This text is now purple: Philip Francis Queeg: I want to take the power away from the people when the people are not giving every citizen the equal protections of the law.

What are your feelings on polygamy?

If polygamy is made legal, then it should be open to all consenting adults, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

But marriage is legal.

Marriage between two people is. Therefore I believe it should be open to all without regard to race, creed, ethnicity or sexual orientation.


But my question isn't to whom should polygamy be extended should it be made legal. It was "Should polygamy be made legal?"

Under equal protections, should I not have the right to marry whomever I like, regardless of their present state of marriage, or mine? Much as, should I note have the right to marry whomever I like, regardless of their color or orientation, or mine?
 
2010-11-03 05:45:51 PM  

Richard Flaccid: Philip Francis Queeg: You have no right to violate the rights of others. I have no right to deny you every right I maintain for myself.

I agree. But is marriage a right protected under the constitution or is it a privilege? This is what it all comes down to.

For the record I live in Wisconsin and I voted no for the 2006 Wisconsin gay marriage ban. I support the rights of gay couples.

My point is that this is my opinion on this issue and other people should have the right to vote their opinion. We need to quit putting all of the power into the hands of corrupt politicians and judges.


Privilege or right, it doesn't matter.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
 
2010-11-03 05:46:49 PM  

itazurakko: stonelotus: why is what people do with their private parts such a public issue?

Too much ghey sexx means people aren't following God's Law and so God is going to remove His blessing from the United States (the blessing which has made American Exceptionalism a reality throughout history since its founding) and the country will fall.


Jesus Christ is quoted as stating "Do not resist an evil man."

Go think about that.
 
2010-11-03 05:47:20 PM  

Two_Noodles:

Psst. I'll tell you a secret...they are not full grown.


What the fark is that supposed to mean?
 
2010-11-03 05:47:37 PM  

lennavan:
I can in no way understand why anyone would disagree with this.


The reason people vote against gay rights is due to their own feelings of political powerlessness. Like the classic playground bully who feels the need to establish fake dominance to compensate for his or her lack of power at home or in the classroom, voters pick on the one class that is perceived as being even lower on the totem pole. The big, hard, phallic totem pole.
 
2010-11-03 05:48:34 PM  
Homosexuality is a behavioural issue as it serves no evolutionary process.

There is *no* reason gays should be given special rights over others.

Thankfully, people are starting to wake up....
 
2010-11-03 05:50:35 PM  

lennavan: Tissot: First off, you cannot be your own protected group or class of people.

I agree, they should be grouped in with the rest of us with equal rights.

Tissot: As a married man, I cannot fathom a reason why anyone who doesn't have to be married, would want to be married.

Just because you made a poor decision doesn't mean the rest of us did.


My own decision or opinion on marriage is not even the point. Humans aren't biologically made to cohabitate or mate for life with another single human. Our physiology and shear mental capacity rule it out, right off the bat, without going deeper. Marriage is highly un-natural. Maybe for you it is desirable, because you are physically or mentally flawed.
 
2010-11-03 05:51:00 PM  

This text is now purple: Philip Francis Queeg: This text is now purple: Philip Francis Queeg: This text is now purple: Philip Francis Queeg: I want to take the power away from the people when the people are not giving every citizen the equal protections of the law.

What are your feelings on polygamy?

If polygamy is made legal, then it should be open to all consenting adults, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

But marriage is legal.

Marriage between two people is. Therefore I believe it should be open to all without regard to race, creed, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

But my question isn't to whom should polygamy be extended should it be made legal. It was "Should polygamy be made legal?"

Under equal protections, should I not have the right to marry whomever I like, regardless of their present state of marriage, or mine? Much as, should I note have the right to marry whomever I like, regardless of their color or orientation, or mine?


No, because the laws do not currently provide the protection of multiple marriage to anyone. There is no unequal protection in that regard.

If the people should chose to make laws that create protections for multiple marriage, those protections would need to be provided equally to all who chose to enter such a union.
 
2010-11-03 05:51:24 PM  

fark80: Homosexuality is a behavioural issue as it serves no evolutionary process.

There is *no* reason gays should be given special rights over others.

Thankfully, people are starting to wake up....


No one is demanding special rights. They are demanding equal rights.
 
2010-11-03 05:51:43 PM  

stonelotus: why is what people do with their private parts such a public issue?


Marriage is about as public as it gets. This isn't a sodomy law.
 
2010-11-03 05:51:48 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.


Agreed.
 
2010-11-03 05:52:28 PM  

farkin_Gary: I'll buy that, but the fundies on one side and the hard liners on the other side are all so damn hung up on that one word that they can't just settle down and let the laws be molded to reflect changing attitudes..


Sure. But why are they hung up on it? It's not about the word at all, it's about having a different word for the two groups or not. Both sides know that is exactly what they're fighting over - the question of separatism.

The "no on gay marriage" side is adamant that they don't want gay relationships to be called by the same word as straight ones. The "yes on gay marriage" side is just as adamant that they want the same word to be used for both.

So yeah, it IS about "separate but equal" and the validity (or lack thereof) of that concept.

Have you ever been on the low ranking side of some divide, where those in charge are saying "yeah, yeah, don't worry, you don't technically have the status of those other favored people but TRUST US, it's all the same really, you're silly to worry about it"? But of course they won't put it in writing, and they never buy the "if it's all the same, TRULY all the same, why maintain the division?" argument?

And you always get screwed in the end, because always, every time, there IS some distinction used to filter the "lower" group out?

Yeah. This isn't anything different.
 
2010-11-03 05:52:29 PM  
"Iowa law wisely allows for a check and balance of the Supreme Court through a retention vote by you, the citizens

It's too bad that some ignorant asswipe from outside the state decided to abuse the system to further his own bigoted agenda.

/anybody care to guess who the next politician to be caught in a gay sex scandal will be?
 
2010-11-03 05:53:12 PM  

fark80: Homosexuality is a behavioural issue as it serves no evolutionary process.

There is *no* reason gays should be given special rights over others.

Thankfully, people are starting to wake up....


Special rights? There's nothing special about it. You'll be able to marry the man or woman you love just like anyone else.

Sometimes repressed people--especially those who frame this issue as a "special privilege"--wake up gay, you know.
 
2010-11-03 05:54:25 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Richard Flaccid: Philip Francis Queeg: You have no right to violate the rights of others. I have no right to deny you every right I maintain for myself.

I agree. But is marriage a right protected under the constitution or is it a privilege? This is what it all comes down to.

For the record I live in Wisconsin and I voted no for the 2006 Wisconsin gay marriage ban. I support the rights of gay couples.

My point is that this is my opinion on this issue and other people should have the right to vote their opinion. We need to quit putting all of the power into the hands of corrupt politicians and judges.

Privilege or right, it doesn't matter.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


yes, and if you told the people who actually put that in the constitution that it mandated gay marriage they would have locked you up (assuming you could make them understand what "gay" meant).
 
2010-11-03 05:55:16 PM  

bodyshots: so, what we have here is 3 retards who, up until this reelection cycle, had NEVER campaigned to keep their seat. suddenly, a special interest group pours money their way

the people said 'fark you' and kicked them out.

whats wrong with this?

/oh thats right, youre 'concerned' for the homosexuals.


No, suddenly a special interest group pours money into getting them removed. a special interest group pouring money "their way" would mean giving money to them. Read the article. The judges didn't spend any money on campaigning and they didn't receive any. The money mentioned in the article is all out-of-state money being spent to get these judges kicked out.


On the subject of homosexuality, I will simply say that it is funny how you conservatives are always yelling and screaming about others taking away your rights, yet you're the first people to deprive your fellow citizens of their rights; rights to marriage, rights to be left alone, rights to privacy, rights to make a living, when they choose to live a way you disagree with. You can legalize discrimination all you like, but you can't legislate away humanity, or the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which are the inalienable birthright of every human being. Your guys punished these judges for doing what was right. Rove, Duke, and their minions impoverished themselves by tens of millions of dollars to do so. But the ruling still stands, and no matter how much wealth your ilk burns on oppressing your fellow citizens in the future, it will never change the moral righteousness and legal rectitude of their ruling.
 
2010-11-03 05:55:41 PM  
Radical thought, but maybe it would be a good idea to have these issues decided by a legislature and governor instead of having the judiciary discovering rights in the emanations from the penumbras of the laws. The whole "consent of the governed" thing, you know.
 
2010-11-03 05:56:51 PM  

Tissot: Second, quit shoving your "gayness" into the faces of the world. That tactic will work no better with an American mid-western middle-ager, than it will with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The backlash has already begun, and you don't want to go backwards.


So we should invade you?
 
2010-11-03 05:57:14 PM  
Jjorsett,

And set the civil rights movement back 100 years? I mean, if you really like that idea, that's kind of farked up.
 
2010-11-03 05:57:27 PM  

keypusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Richard Flaccid: Philip Francis Queeg: You have no right to violate the rights of others. I have no right to deny you every right I maintain for myself.

I agree. But is marriage a right protected under the constitution or is it a privilege? This is what it all comes down to.

For the record I live in Wisconsin and I voted no for the 2006 Wisconsin gay marriage ban. I support the rights of gay couples.

My point is that this is my opinion on this issue and other people should have the right to vote their opinion. We need to quit putting all of the power into the hands of corrupt politicians and judges.

Privilege or right, it doesn't matter.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

yes, and if you told the people who actually put that in the constitution that it mandated gay marriage they would have locked you up (assuming you could make them understand what "gay" meant).


Hate to break this too you, but homosexuality has been around as long as man has. Those who wrote the 14th Amendment were perfectly aware of the existence of homosexuals.
 
2010-11-03 05:58:09 PM  
People like that Vander Blaat make me all stabby.

/ITG
 
2010-11-03 05:58:54 PM  

itazurakko: farkin_Gary: I'll buy that, but the fundies on one side and the hard liners on the other side are all so damn hung up on that one word that they can't just settle down and let the laws be molded to reflect changing attitudes..

Sure. But why are they hung up on it? It's not about the word at all, it's about having a different word for the two groups or not. Both sides know that is exactly what they're fighting over - the question of separatism.

The "no on gay marriage" side is adamant that they don't want gay relationships to be called by the same word as straight ones. The "yes on gay marriage" side is just as adamant that they want the same word to be used for both.

So yeah, it IS about "separate but equal" and the validity (or lack thereof) of that concept.

Have you ever been on the low ranking side of some divide, where those in charge are saying "yeah, yeah, don't worry, you don't technically have the status of those other favored people but TRUST US, it's all the same really, you're silly to worry about it"? But of course they won't put it in writing, and they never buy the "if it's all the same, TRULY all the same, why maintain the division?" argument?

And you always get screwed in the end, because always, every time, there IS some distinction used to filter the "lower" group out?

Yeah. This isn't anything different.


Well, we have processes which are supposed to level these things out.

And yes, I have been on the "lower" side of an equation. It's called motivation.
 
2010-11-03 05:59:19 PM  

jjorsett: Radical thought, but maybe it would be a good idea to have these issues decided by a legislature and governor instead of having the judiciary discovering rights in the emanations from the penumbras of the laws. The whole "consent of the governed" thing, you know.


The whole tyranny of the majority thing...
 
2010-11-03 05:59:28 PM  

keypusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Richard Flaccid: Philip Francis Queeg: You have no right to violate the rights of others. I have no right to deny you every right I maintain for myself.

I agree. But is marriage a right protected under the constitution or is it a privilege? This is what it all comes down to.

For the record I live in Wisconsin and I voted no for the 2006 Wisconsin gay marriage ban. I support the rights of gay couples.

My point is that this is my opinion on this issue and other people should have the right to vote their opinion. We need to quit putting all of the power into the hands of corrupt politicians and judges.

Privilege or right, it doesn't matter.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

yes, and if you told the people who actually put that in the constitution that it mandated gay marriage they would have locked you up (assuming you could make them understand what "gay" meant).


If you told them it mandated allowing inter-racial marriages, allowing blacks, women, and catholics the same rights of ownership, marriage, and personhood as white male protestants, or allowing foreign citizens to be imprisoned without charge, trial, or evidence and tortured, indefinitely, they'd have also locked you up. Your point?
 
2010-11-03 06:00:22 PM  

farkin_Gary: Well, we have processes which are supposed to level these things out.


Yes, and the judiciary tossing out laws that are not constitutional is part of that process.

This is not over, not by a long shot.

Next up, more laws get made, more court cases. Mind, if they're too similar to the ones that were already tossed and there's not enough new information, the court can decide not to hear them.
 
2010-11-03 06:01:08 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?


He's not saying that at all. He's just pointing out that because the 'Non-Chicago' part of the state has a much smaller population than the Chicago part, they effectively have no voice whatsoever in Illinois politics.

This becomes a pretty big issue in terms of things like education spending, since the needs/funding of Chicago are wildly disparate from the needs/funding of the rest of the state - but those poor hicks have to go along with what us urban degenerates choose.

It's actually a somewhat neat illustration of the whole 'Tyranny of the Majority' issue being raised throughout this thread. Majority rule in this case virtually guarantees that the needs/considerations of the genetic-diversity-challenged are totally ignored.
 
2010-11-03 06:03:03 PM  
SchlingFocker
The large majority of the people in the state had no problem with the ruling, but they also had no strong feelings about the judges and likely weren't aware of the ramification of a back-ballot issue.

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.


To avoid small groups feeling strongly about an issue from changing things for everybody, here around it isn't enough to get the majority of the votes cast, you also need a certain percentage of the total voting population to back your proposal - e.g. 75% of votes for "change it" aren't enough if only 10% of the people cared enough to show up to vote on the issue in the first place.
 
2010-11-03 06:03:21 PM  
Tissot: First off, you cannot be your own protected group or class of people.

We can organize ourselves how we like. The right to free assembly says so much. What do you care if we strive to improve our lives the same way as anyone else?

I mean, we're people.

Second, quit shoving your "gayness" into the faces of the world.

Shoving it? We're just living. You'd like us to go inside and not come out, wouldn't you? Subjugate ourselves to you. Not going to happen buddy.

The backlash has already begun, and you don't want to go backwards.

Haha, oh my god. Yes, the answer after all these years of liberation and growth is to be quiet, stop "flaunting," shut up and front a straight, closeted lifestyle.

Some PR guy you are.
 
2010-11-03 06:03:26 PM  

keypusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Richard Flaccid: Philip Francis Queeg: You have no right to violate the rights of others. I have no right to deny you every right I maintain for myself.

I agree. But is marriage a right protected under the constitution or is it a privilege? This is what it all comes down to.

For the record I live in Wisconsin and I voted no for the 2006 Wisconsin gay marriage ban. I support the rights of gay couples.

My point is that this is my opinion on this issue and other people should have the right to vote their opinion. We need to quit putting all of the power into the hands of corrupt politicians and judges.

Privilege or right, it doesn't matter.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

yes, and if you told the people who actually put that in the constitution that it mandated gay marriage they would have locked you up (assuming you could make them understand what "gay" meant).


But it's this country's contract; by living here you agree to follow the rules of the constitutions as stated. They also didn't like black people and women, but society moves on.

People shouldn't vote that some people have some rights while others don't. It's an all or nothing kind of deal. People have rights. Judges look at the constitution and say "yup, they have rights. See? It says right here." If you don't like what the judges say, then you try to vote to change the constitution or the law.
You can't deny rights to certain groups without any real cause. No, traditions based on homophobia are not real cause. So far, nobody has been able to show how gays getting married has any negative effects, so their rights should not be abridged in any way, shape or form.
To do so would be ignoring the constitution and it becomes meaningless. Kinda ironic, considering how unpatriotic this is yet looking at a lot of people who claim to be patriotic yet agree with abridging the rights of certain groups just because it might make them uncomfortable... there's obviously some gap in their reasoning they are purposely ignoring.
OR maybe they just hate gay people, want to do whatever it takes to make gay lives miserable, and are unwilling to reevaluate their beliefs every few years in order to better themselves.
Nah.
/ramble
 
2010-11-03 06:04:53 PM  

Jster422: 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?

He's not saying that at all. He's just pointing out that because the 'Non-Chicago' part of the state has a much smaller population than the Chicago part, they effectively have no voice whatsoever in Illinois politics.

This becomes a pretty big issue in terms of things like education spending, since the needs/funding of Chicago are wildly disparate from the needs/funding of the rest of the state - but those poor hicks have to go along with what us urban degenerates choose.

It's actually a somewhat neat illustration of the whole 'Tyranny of the Majority' issue being raised throughout this thread. Majority rule in this case virtually guarantees that the needs/considerations of the genetic-diversity-challenged are totally ignored.


This. I'm from downstate (actually father north than Chicago) and it's amazing how the education funding thing puts us at a distict disadvantage.
 
2010-11-03 06:06:32 PM  

Axel_Gear: jjorsett: Radical thought, but maybe it would be a good idea to have these issues decided by a legislature and governor instead of having the judiciary discovering rights in the emanations from the penumbras of the laws. The whole "consent of the governed" thing, you know.

The whole tyranny of the majority thing...


So the rights of unpopular minorities should not be seen as guaranteed by the Law, but as the whims of legislatures and public fancies? Good to know where you stand, I guess. Maybe next time there's a financial crisis we could hold true to your concept of rights and just dispossess all the Jewish bankers the way European monarchs did in ages passed. After all, the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant the right to own property to Jews, anymore than it explicitly states that the amendments, the values of the Declaration, or the wider Constitution itself applies to homosexuals, so really, it is a subject better left up to "the consent of the governed".
 
2010-11-03 06:06:41 PM  

Jster422: It's actually a somewhat neat illustration of the whole 'Tyranny of the Majority' issue being raised throughout this thread. Majority rule in this case virtually guarantees that the needs/considerations of the genetic-diversity-challenged are totally ignored.


Well, Illinois DOES have a Senate, as well as a judiciary.

But for the part of the government that is decided by majority rule, yeah, Cook County has a large voice because it is populous. It's supposed to be that way.

Far too often the arguments about "ZOMG Chicago!!!" seem to me to be coming from a place that wishes counties were some sort of intermediary, in order to enforce a form of voting by land area. Yes, much of the state is rural. That doesn't mean that a majority of the citizens are rural, and furthermore some huge percentage of those who scream about Chicago and fancy themselves to be "rural" are actually suburban these days, even far downstate.

We don't vote by county. We vote by district, and Cook County (or any of the collar counties for that matter, though people don't scream about those nearly as loudly because until recently they trended pretty solidly Republican) has more districts in it than other counties.
 
2010-11-03 06:07:18 PM  

Blasphemous Knave: I don't want to live on this planet anymore.


It took this tip your scale?
 
2010-11-03 06:08:12 PM  
RE Standard Deviant
"Oh, give me a break, you whiners. Judges shouldn't have life terms any more than congressman, and they are part of our legal process. I'm sure each of you would defend to the death a judge who was an activist contrary to your agendas."

I agree, we should replace everybody every 4 years or so. Doctors, pro athletes, engineers, airline pilots, etc. We'll make exceptions for Walmart greeters and people who work at McDonald's, those jobs can't get more unskilled.

But judges? Who needs judges with years of experience? We want judges to be just like politicians. Everybody is happy with the stellar job politicians are doing in running the country.
 
2010-11-03 06:09:23 PM  

realmolo: 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.


Lemme tell ya, there are some of us OVER 50 that are pissed off about this, too. But we still want you to Get Off Our Lawn.

/technically, I don't even have a lawn. just throwin' that out there
 
2010-11-03 06:10:34 PM  

Heron: Axel_Gear: jjorsett: Radical thought, but maybe it would be a good idea to have these issues decided by a legislature and governor instead of having the judiciary discovering rights in the emanations from the penumbras of the laws. The whole "consent of the governed" thing, you know.

The whole tyranny of the majority thing...

So the rights of unpopular minorities should not be seen as guaranteed by the Law, but as the whims of legislatures and public fancies? Good to know where you stand, I guess. Maybe next time there's a financial crisis we could hold true to your concept of rights and just dispossess all the Jewish bankers the way European monarchs did in ages passed. After all, the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant the right to own property to Jews, anymore than it explicitly states that the amendments, the values of the Declaration, or the wider Constitution itself applies to homosexuals, so really, it is a subject better left up to "the consent of the governed".


I think you quoted the wrong person.
 
2010-11-03 06:10:40 PM  

hockeychick: This. I'm from downstate (actually father north than Chicago) and it's amazing how the education funding thing puts us at a distict disadvantage.


Education funding in Illinois is farked up, no argument from me there.

Although I would prefer to see equal funding, quit basing it on property taxes.
 
2010-11-03 06:14:10 PM  

itazurakko: hockeychick: This. I'm from downstate (actually father north than Chicago) and it's amazing how the education funding thing puts us at a distict disadvantage.

Education funding in Illinois is farked up, no argument from me there.

Although I would prefer to see equal funding, quit basing it on property taxes.


This I couldn't agree with more.

The State Constitution clearly says that the STATE has the primary responsibility for education funding.
 
2010-11-03 06:14:36 PM  
The universe loves irony and karma.

The afterlife for the douchenozzles that ousted these judges will be eternity in a gay pick up bar.

i72.photobucket.com
 
2010-11-03 06:15:17 PM  

itazurakko: hockeychick: This. I'm from downstate (actually father north than Chicago) and it's amazing how the education funding thing puts us at a distict disadvantage.

Education funding in Illinois is farked up, no argument from me there.

Although I would prefer to see equal funding, quit basing it on property taxes.


I'm all for a non-property tax based system. The current system really screws anyone not in Cook or the collar counties, as farmland is at a much lower tax rate and there's so much more of it downstate. Rural schools get the shaft.

//In my hometown the cows outnumbered the people 3 to 1.
 
2010-11-03 06:16:44 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.


Wait, do you mean like D&D nerd Romantics or Hugh Grant romantics?
 
2010-11-03 06:19:49 PM  

Mearen: 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.


Laws against murder exist because murdering someone deprives them of their right to be alive, not because God says so.

Otherwise you could go to jail for coveting and idolatry.
 
2010-11-03 06:21:53 PM  

itazurakko: Jster422: It's actually a somewhat neat illustration of the whole 'Tyranny of the Majority' issue being raised throughout this thread. Majority rule in this case virtually guarantees that the needs/considerations of the genetic-diversity-challenged are totally ignored.

Well, Illinois DOES have a Senate, as well as a judiciary.

But for the part of the government that is decided by majority rule, yeah, Cook County has a large voice because it is populous. It's supposed to be that way.

Far too often the arguments about "ZOMG Chicago!!!" seem to me to be coming from a place that wishes counties were some sort of intermediary, in order to enforce a form of voting by land area. Yes, much of the state is rural. That doesn't mean that a majority of the citizens are rural, and furthermore some huge percentage of those who scream about Chicago and fancy themselves to be "rural" are actually suburban these days, even far downstate.

We don't vote by county. We vote by district, and Cook County (or any of the collar counties for that matter, though people don't scream about those nearly as loudly because until recently they trended pretty solidly Republican) has more districts in it than other counties.


I understand what you are saying - and you are correct. I'm not saying 'OMG Overthrow the Gubmint' - just 'Yeah, that shiat's a bummer'. People were reacting to the original poster as if he was saying the system was 'unfair' - which he wasn't, and which it isn't. It's absolutely 'fair', but that doesn't make it not suck a bit.
 
2010-11-03 06:21:59 PM  
Land of the Free!

img145.imageshack.us
 
2010-11-03 06:22:07 PM  

hockeychick: I'm all for a non-property tax based system. The current system really screws anyone not in Cook or the collar counties, as farmland is at a much lower tax rate and there's so much more of it downstate. Rural schools get the shaft.

//In my hometown the cows outnumbered the people 3 to 1.


Yeah, it screws people in bad urban areas too. Plus it's just more incentive for the bad sort of sprawl.

So many times the state has come thiiiiiiissss close to maybe fixing it, but no.
 
2010-11-03 06:24:15 PM  

Therion: Land of the Free!


Okay I had to laugh at that. Where is it?
 
2010-11-03 06:24:23 PM  
But Vander Plaats and his group said they were afraid that the legal precedent set for same-sex marriage could lead to the erosion of other freedoms --

Wow. That is some serious logic fail.
 
2010-11-03 06:24:31 PM  

Barakku: More reason churches shouldn't be allowed to promote politics. I'm not surprised after what the Mormons did in Cali. Fortunately what they did didn't even matter here, except for those judge's jobs, that ruling is going nowhere.


This.

Separation of church and state. You want the government to stay out of telling you when/where/how you worship, then you need to be very careful about attempting to influence the political process.

Want to get political? Fine. Pay taxes.
 
2010-11-03 06:24:54 PM  
I know this won't be a popular opinion on Fark, but I don't have a problem with Iowans turning out their judges. TFA reads like the judges are all butt-hurtTM because the peasants dared to vote no on their re-appointment election. Well, la-dee-dah! It's right there in the Iowa constitution, judges. You serve with the consent of the people of Iowa.

The citizens of California did the same thing some years ago to Chief Justice Rose Bird and two associate justices of the California Supreme Court, when they overstepped the will of the people. For all of our flaws, we the people still insist on a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

Or did you think yourselves above all us plebian rifraff?

/voted no on Prop 8
 
2010-11-03 06:28:17 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: we the people still insist on a government of the people, for the people and by the people.


Ya know, there is a reason they call them gay "people" and not gay "turnips".
 
2010-11-03 06:31:27 PM  

fark80: Homosexuality is a behavioural issue as it serves no evolutionary process.


Bzzzzt! Wrong. Homosexuality seems to naturally occur in many species, especially apex predators (like humans). The chances of an offspring being a homosexual seems to directly correlate to how many times the mother has had young. It seems to be a natural mechanism to counteract overpopulation. If an animal (or human) has had multiple broods nature figures that having more breeders in the population isn't such a good idea as overpopulating is likely to occur.

There is *no* reason gays should be given special rights over others.

I agree. Homosexuals should be given the exact same rights as anyone else, among them the right to enter into a marriage contract with the consenting adult of their choice.

Thankfully, people are starting to wake up....

Yes, yes they are.
 
2010-11-03 06:31:43 PM  

Poppa Boner: StoneColdAtheist: we the people still insist on a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

Ya know, there is a reason they call them gay "people" and not gay "turnips".


And how, precisely, does that relate to the constitutional provision for the people of Iowa to vote yea or nay on their Supremes?
 
2010-11-03 06:32:15 PM  
Every election has political overtones and they seem louder with this one.
Eligible voters are allowed to vote their desires regardless of the thoughts and desires of anyone else.
Being butt-hurt about unfavorable results will not change anything and it is same process the loser tried to win by regardless how much they rant and rave after the fact.
Any same sex marriage law applies to every citizens of said state without respect to ones sexual orientation, rather they chose to exercise it or not is a separate matter.
I see the basic argument as, "Is homosexuality limited to a
individual privacy rights or does it extent in to the public domain of general rights."
Some courts have ruled that everyone's rights does include same sex marriage and other have said it does not.
Every president has filled the US Supreme court with a person that may favor their party line.
Politics has always been part of every branch of the government in this country.
 
2010-11-03 06:32:32 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: I know this won't be a popular opinion on Fark, but I don't have a problem with Iowans turning out their judges. TFA reads like the judges are all butt-hurtTM because the peasants dared to vote no on their re-appointment election. Well, la-dee-dah! It's right there in the Iowa constitution, judges. You serve with the consent of the people of Iowa.

The citizens of California did the same thing some years ago to Chief Justice Rose Bird and two associate justices of the California Supreme Court, when they overstepped the will of the people. For all of our flaws, we the people still insist on a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

Or did you think yourselves above all us plebian rifraff?

/voted no on Prop 8


Its not the judges job to serve the will of the people. Its their job to uphold the Constitution. Even if doing so it against the will of the people.

The legislature serves the will of the people. Judges make sure it doesn't violate the Constitution.
 
2010-11-03 06:36:08 PM  

realmolo: 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.


they can't repeal it. he can't even introduce a law to repeal it. the legislature has to introduce an amendment to the constitution changing the wording to say "man and woman" and has to pass both chambers in two consecutive sessions for this to even happen. and branstad appointed a good chunk of all the judges who are supremes.