Comment Policy
Disputes of fact and of opinion are why we are here. We may disagree with you, just as we hope you share your disagreements with us. Being friendly will usually invite friendly replies. We can and will delete otherwise great posts for unseemly profanity.
Comments anywhere on the site -- no matter how old the post -- will show up on the front page as a recent comment and in the comment RSS feeds.
The people know that homosexuals are already allowed to marry. Good for them!
ReplyDeleteYours,
ReplyDeleteOne of the most frustrating parts of the debate is respecting the political/legislative process. On both sides. In Massachusetts we were ready for the vote, even the state's highest court ruled that the marriage vote could go forward. It was a procedure vote from the legislature that stopped the vote. I doubt the state legislature will even change enough to have another vote. We did add 21 Republican state reps this week, in Massachusetts, but for most marriage is a non-issue. And still the state's legislature will be 75% Democrat.
For those who still speak up on Marriage in Massachusetts, we're more of a 'pro-life/pro-family' Democrat. Not out right progressive, but more willing to fund social services for the low-income families. Republicans here are mere fiscal conservatives, to cut service and cut taxes without any interest in promoting stronger families or strengthening non-profits.
It's never 'we won, now be quiet', the process will always in some form go on.
I would suspect it most likely that the number of voters who opposed the neutered marriage ruling (Varnum) yet voted against dismissing the justices was greater than the number who supported the ruling yet voted to dismiss the justices.
ReplyDeleteThe first group (against Varnum, for retention of justices) probably agreed with Sandra Day O'Connor's position, but I'm unaware of any argument or common attitude that could have produced a significant number for the second group (for Varnum, against retention of justices).
Hence, this likely indicates that the percentage of those who supported Varnum was even lower than the percentage that voted to retain the justices.
Does it matter? Isn't it the job of the justices to determine what's constitutional or not? It's nice to have an opinion, but ultimately, it's the job of the courts to determine if a law is constitutional or not. If we politicize the courts, to merely reflect majority opinion, then we have undercut our system of government.
ReplyDeleteRemember, the judges decision is simply their opinion. In this situation the public had the right to offer its opinion by removing the judges. In my opinion the opinion of the judges was ludicrous and politically motivated. It was their means of creating legislation rather than making a constitutionally objective judgment. This is one of the great threats to our democracy today as a few can impose their nonsense over the majority.
ReplyDeleteWhen a law is deemed 'unconstitutional' it is repealed/stricken from the general laws, not rewritten by judges, well at least I thought.
ReplyDeleteWhat would happen to a state if they repealed all marriage laws and stopped identifying married couples for matters of public policy whether it be family/probate/tax in nature.
It's perfectly constitutional not to have any law regarding marriage either on a state or federal level.
It's not the law, but the word. The word has meaning, and if judges, legislatures, and lobby groups wish to redefine words well why?
Why is the idea there is a word to describe a relationship between a man and a woman in which it is assumed to be sexually monogamous ?
Why?
The idea of marriage is so outdated or unrealistic, idealistic, or based on religion why have it on the books anyways?
Why not create a new word, a better word to describe today's modern day relationships?
"In my opinion the opinion of the judges was ludicrous and politically motivated."
ReplyDeleteReally? Why? Since it's the same opinion that was reached in other states and in a federal circuit court, is it really so ludicrous?
You really believe that ALL SEVEN judges, as well as a lower court judge whose ruling they affirmed, got it wrong?!?! Does that really pass the smell test?
If you want judges doing "majority rules!" rulings, change the constitution, because under our current legal system, these judges did exactly what they were supposed to do: rule on the constitutionality of a law.
If you don't know how the nation's legal system works, maybe you should go to your library and check out a book and read about it, before you try to destroy it.
If you want judges doing "majority rules!" rulings, change the constitution, because under our current legal system, these judges did exactly what they were supposed to do: rule on the constitutionality of a law.
ReplyDeleteWell, Sean, if you like the idea of judges being held to have the absolute final say in all matters, then you can change the constitution to make it illegal for states to allow voters to recall them, or for the states or U.S. Congress to pass any constitutional amendments to overturn their decisions. If you believe checks and balances should not have to apply to the judicial branch, you have the freedom to try to put that in the Constitution.
No, I don't believe judges should be held to majority rule, but they need to have a certain amount of humility and not assume that their "enlightenment" necessarily overrules thousands of years of universal human experience either. That becomes arrogance. But if you think they should not have to worry about overstepping that line, by all means put that unaccountability in the Constitution.
Like it or not, Iowa gave voters the right to dismiss judges. If they were afraid the voters would do so for bad reasons, then they could have not given them that right.
“if you like the idea of judges being held to have the absolute final say in all matters, then you can change the constitution to make it illegal for states to allow voters to recall them, or for the states or U.S. Congress to pass any constitutional amendments to overturn their decisions.”
ReplyDeleteDid I say I want judges to have the absolute final say in all matters? In fact, though, when it comes to legal matters, they kind of do have final say about whether a law is constitutional or not. Who else would be qualified? Not the people: they don’t have law degrees, generally, haven’t read the constitutions that they so vocally “defend,” and it’s not their job anyhow.
What the people can do is change their constitution or their laws to reflect their wants. Create laws that don’t violate somebody’s constitutional rights and you won’t have to worry about judges striking down those laws! Problem solved!
“If you believe checks and balances should not have to apply to the judicial branch, you have the freedom to try to put that in the Constitution.”
I don’t have to, it’s already there.
“No, I don't believe judges should be held to majority rule, but they need to have a certain amount of humility and not assume that their "enlightenment" necessarily overrules thousands of years of universal human experience either. That becomes arrogance. But if you think they should not have to worry about overstepping that line, by all means put that unaccountability in the Constitution.”
You don’t know what you’re talking about, as usual. Judges can strike down thousands of years of injustice with the stroke of a pen, and have. Typically they do try not to get too far ahead of people like you, frightened of change (or worse) because you turn violent when crossed. Obviously the revenge against the Iowa judges shows the depths of hatred and anger on the part of religionists and conservatives when they don’t get their way. It’s rather childish, but we’ve seen this before.
“Like it or not, Iowa gave voters the right to dismiss judges. If they were afraid the voters would do so for bad reasons, then they could have not given them that right.”
I think the right to retain judges was granted with a more sensible citizen in mind, not a vengeful one. Plus they probably didn’t anticipate how much money would flow into the state from hate-based groups like NOM, interfering in state politics and misguiding people into thinking that judges are supposed to rule according to the majority’s feelings.
Did I say I want judges to have the absolute final say in all matters?
ReplyDeleteSo tell me, how do you want checks and balances to be applied to the judicial branch?
Even in Massachusetts, the SJC held that the voters could vote on Marriage, despite its past decision with Goodridge. It was the state legislature that stopped the vote from going forward on the ballot. While it should be noted, that Massachusetts didn't win any Congressional seats, it did pick up 20 new Republican state reps and many conservative Democrats held their seats. It was the socially liberal Republicans that lost the gubernatorial race and in my congressional district.
ReplyDeleteI doubt even we change gay marriage, but rather work on focusing father involvement in the family, eventually then things can follow through.
"Judges can strike down thousands of years of injustice with the stroke of a pen, and have." It works both ways. They can strike down thousands of years of justice and reason with a stroke of a pen also. I'm sure you must have noticed that judges are forever contradicting each other, overturning earlier decisions. Remember Dred Scot?
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of judges have found no Constitutional problem denying ss"m." Yet it really doesn't take a judge to determine the meaning of marriage and that it can apply only to the complementary union of the sexes. It cannot be a mono-sexual relationship and never has been. The people of Iowa realize this and ousted the confused judges. And in every state where the people have been allowed to vote on the subject it has been the same expression of wisdom.
Today many are stealing the name of marriage to apply it to non-marriageable relationships. It's primarily a political attempt to gain special privileges for homosexuals and obtain social affirmation of their long recognized aberrant sexual practices. Given enough media propaganda homosexualists might eventually succeed in confusing a majority of the public also, eh, as they've confused themselves.
Peace.
“The vast majority of judges have found no Constitutional problem denying ss"m."”
ReplyDeleteThat’s not true. While more state courts have ruled that it is constitutional to discriminate against same-sex couples, about the same number of judges have found a constitutional equal protection/due process violation as have not found one, in toto. That’s because states where judges have found a violation have often been unanimous (which should tell you something). No state that has found marriage discrimination constitutional has ruled unanimously, except for Minnesota, in 1971.
“Yet it really doesn't take a judge to determine the meaning of marriage and that it can apply only to the complementary union of the sexes.”
If you’re talking about legal marriage, well, yes, it does take a judge to determine if it is legal to discriminate against gay couples in awarding marriage licenses.
“It cannot be a mono-sexual relationship and never has been.”
Well, you better tell the government of the Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia, because all these places thing marriage is a mono-sexual (does that mean same-sex?) and dual gender legal contract.
“The people of Iowa realize this and ousted the confused judges. And in every state where the people have been allowed to vote on the subject it has been the same expression of wisdom.”
All eight Iowa judges who ruled on the topic got it wrong? All eight misinterpreted their state’s constitution, as well as overstepped their authority in striking down an unconstitutional statute? You really believe this?!
“Given enough media propaganda homosexualists might eventually succeed in confusing a majority of the public also, eh, as they've confused themselves.”
Yeah, well, given enough hate-group propaganda, Americans now believe that judges who do their jobs and determine if a law is constitutional or not can be fired if their ruling doesn’t meet the wishes of the majority. This is a major change to America’s legal system, one imposed through a media process rather than constitutional convention. Oops! If you want to change America’s legal system, do so through legal means, ok?
The legal system in the US is just fine, overall. The Iowans used their legal system just as the law allows. The ousted the confused judges. If all eight had been up for review they probably would have ousted all eight.
ReplyDeleteYou don't seem to minimally understand our legal system. A great many judges are voted into office and may also be voted out. If you don't like this then you must make the effort to change it. I'm overall satisfied with what we have.
It is simply a silly ad hominem to brand defenders of marriage as "hate groups." Please try to understand that I do really love you and all homosexualists. I think most defenders of marriage feel the same way. We just don't like many of the things that you do or believe so we use our great legal system to defeat your goals.
For me there is only one definition of marriage, but as I said, many today are stealing this word to ennoble a mono-sexual relationship. Why don't you select another word to refer to mono-sexual relationships? The word marriage was throughout the ages already used to refer only to a sexually complementary relationship. Why don't you simply refer to the mono-sexual relationship non-euphemistically as the "homosexual relationship"? Then you do not create this costly confusion that judges and public are battling over. Try to obtain your special privileges and benefits through an objective appellation for mono-sexual relationships rather than by stealth and confounding terms.
Peace.
“The ousted the confused judges.”
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think the judges were confused about? The Iowa Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for all Iowans? How are Iowa voters better informed about their state’s constitution than judges whose job it is to know the state’s constitution?
“A great many judges are voted into office and may also be voted out.”
While elective judges is troubling enough, what’s more troubling is the reason these judges were not retained: a majority of voters didn’t like their interpretation of Iowa’s constitution. Yet the voters aren’t qualified to determine the constitutionality of laws: most voters haven’t read Iowa’s constitution, nor have they read the court’s decision in Varnum v. Brien. I would think it would be hard for voters to have the ability to second-guess these judges when they don’t know what Iowa’s constitution says, or what the decision rendered said.
“It is simply a silly ad hominem to brand defenders of marriage as "hate groups."”
When a hate group is a group which targets a specific group for diminished status. From what I can tell, “marriage defenders” aren’t interested in actually “defending” marriage, because they have no opinion about legalized adultery or divorce. They have no plan to strengthen marriage for existing married couples, nor in limiting the number of times someone can marry, nor in giving more incentives to encourage couples to marry. Their only program appears to want to stop gay people from marrying.
“We just don't like many of the things that you do or believe so we use our great legal system to defeat your goals.”
Typical of hate groups. You’ve targeted a group you don’t like and attempt to impose your values over its values. That’s why you’re a member of a hate group. I guess you defined it better than I did. Thanks.
“The word marriage was throughout the ages already used to refer only to a sexually complementary relationship.”
Well, property ownership throughout the ages was the domain of males only. That changed. We didn’t find a different word for property ownership when females started doing it. If your objection is simply over the use of the word, well, why? Is it your dislike of homosexuals that makes you worry that marriage will become less appealing to straight people if homosexuals can get married? Because I don’t think most straight people won’t get married because gay people can.
“Try to obtain your special privileges and benefits through an objective appellation for mono-sexual relationships rather than by stealth and confounding terms.”
Gay couples are looking for the same privileges and benefits as straight couples get, not special privileges and benefits. Obviously, you have been misinformed. You remind me of a friend I had years ago who wanted to own a Mercedes-Benz someday and then changed his mind once he saw a black woman driving one. Evidently, the appeal of that automobile declined once he saw someone from a group he didn’t like driving one. Could that explain at least part of your aversion to same-sex marriage? That you don’t want someone who belongs to a group you don’t like being treated equally as you?
The Iowa judges were confused about the meaning of marriage.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing in the Iowa Constitution about marriage. It is law established by the State legislature that properly recognized marriage as the relationship of one man with one woman. But the judges' outlandish proclamation asserted: “The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.”
The judges simply created legislation and through out the actual law that the legislature, under its Constitutional authority, had created. The judges claimed that the legislature did not have "sufficient justification" though this has been the meaning of marriage since time immemorial and it is clearly an entirely different form of relationship.
Eight judges decided that the entire legislature—many of whom are lawyers, all of whom study the Constitution and vow to uphold it—were simply wrong. They decided to award mono-sexual relationships the status of marriage because they have been an "historically disfavored class." What nonsense! So, the public exercised its right not to retain these judges. It was a "throw the bums out" response.
Sorry that rather than apologizing for your ad hominems you continuing spewing them.
Your analogies and assumptions amount to more nonsense and really not worth responding to.
You cannot call yourself a medical doctor unless you have the proper qualifications. Mono-sexual relationships simply do not have the qualifications to be called marriages and they never will.
Why don't you just call the mono-sexual relationship what it is? "The Homosexual relationship," "mono-sexual union or partnership," "committed same-sex relationship," anything but marriage.
Are homosexuals ashamed to call themselves what they are? Must they confound what they are through the misnomer of marriage? They end up only fooling themselves and the naïve. Like the transvestite they can only produce an impersonation, a mock marriage.
They should seek the special privileges and benefits of marriage by properly defining their mono-sexual relationship as something distinct and separate from marriage. They should campaign honestly and not through some hoax.
Peace.
“The Iowa judges were confused about the meaning of marriage.”
ReplyDeleteReally? All eight of them? Doesn’t that strike you as a little unlikely? What does that say about our legal system, if judges can so misread and misunderstand the constitutions they are sworn to uphold and defend? It says to me that we have much bigger problems with our legal system than we have with same-sex marriage!
In fact (yes! Let’s look at facts, for once!) these judges personally may have very much opposed same-sex marriage, just as you do, but the Iowa Constitution says you can’t treat citizens differently without a sound public purpose. Since the Iowa Attorney General’s office could come up with no good reason to give marriage licenses to straight couples, but not to gay couples, the Iowa judges had no choice but to strike down the existing marriage statute as at odds with the state’s constitution.
The judges didn’t see a right to same-sex marriage but rather a right to equal treatment. Why? Because Iowa’s constitution says so in black-and-white! That’s why it was a unanimous decision.
“But the judges' outlandish proclamation asserted: “The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.””
What is outlandish about this statement? It seems rather factual to me.
“The judges claimed that the legislature did not have "sufficient justification" though this has been the meaning of marriage since time immemorial and it is clearly an entirely different form of relationship.”
What IS the sufficient justification, in your mind, to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying?
“Eight judges decided that the entire legislature—many of whom are lawyers, all of whom study the Constitution and vow to uphold it—were simply wrong.”
Well, that’s what judges do. You have a misguided need to rely on “majority rules” theory to support your assertions. A president can veto legislation with a stroke of a pen. Does that make him usurping the power of the legislative branch? When the Supreme Court struck down laws against inter-racial marriage, was it overstepping its bounds? I’m sure many people at the time thought so.
“So, the public exercised its right not to retain these judges. It was a "throw the bums out" response.”
I think it was an act of revenge, lacking only pitchforks and torches! The Iowa judges were doing their jobs.
I can only suggest that you reread what I have written as I do not wish to go around in circles.
ReplyDeleteJudges make all sorts of contradictory and even nonsense decisions. They obviously have the power, not the right, to make outlandish decisions and even to create laws, usurping the power of the legislature. You of course like the judges who decide in your favor. The people of Iowa do not.
I do not believe that because a majority agrees on something it makes it right. Right now the majority agrees that only the relationship of man and woman can form a marriage. Relentless propaganda may alter that in the future.
There are a few states now in which mono-sexual relationships receive a marriage license original intended only for complementary relationships. Most states have not yet accepted a warping of the meaning of marriage and wherever the people have had a chance to vote they have affirmed marriage.
The danger is that even one judge has the power to undermine the power of the legislature and the power of the people. This is a catastrophe for democracy.
"Judges make all sorts of contradictory and even nonsense decisions. They obviously have the power, not the right, to make outlandish decisions and even to create laws, usurping the power of the legislature. You of course like the judges who decide in your favor. The people of Iowa do not."
ReplyDeleteReally? They do? All sorts? C'mon, if that's true then our system is a joke. The problem is that it's bad enough how stupid Americans are about their own country and it's legal system. Now they think that rulings on constitutionality are supposed to be decided according to what the people want, instead of what the law requires.
"The danger is that even one judge has the power to undermine the power of the legislature and the power of the people."
ReplyDeleteOne judge does have the power, as does one executive with veto power, such as a governor or a president. Read up on the American legal system and the American system of government. You'll find America has an interesting system of government!
I taught the "American system of government" for years. I'm afraid you must have some utopian illusion about how our government works. Judges make all sorts of absurd decisions. They contradict each other all the time. Get real.
ReplyDelete(PS: Try also to understand how hyperbole works.)
"Judges make all sorts of absurd decisions. They contradict each other all the time. Get real."
ReplyDeleteFair enough. Since when do we fire them for making decisions we don't like? Don't you worry that you might belong to a minority some day, in some way, and the majority will vote YOUR rights away, or the legislature will create a law that discriminates against YOU?
Why are federal judges given life-time appointments?
Writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh made the rather obvious but astute point that the retention vote does nothing to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage — a decision made under the Iowa state constitution.
ReplyDeleteSo, asks Volokh, why didn’t voters just try to amend the Iowa Constitution rather than closing the barn door after the horses had run free?
According to Volokh’s post:
"[A]n alternative mechanism for constitutional amendment would have made all the difference in Iowa. The retention vote was not the most straight-forward path for opponents of gay marriage. Rather, it was the last resort.
In sum, the majority of Iowans who were opposed to the decision were denied any outlet for a vote at every turn and told their objections were illegitimate and they should silently accept the decision. Thus, at the end of the day, they concluded that the retention vote was the only venue left to them."
"The retention vote was not the most straight-forward path for opponents of gay marriage. Rather, it was the last resort."
ReplyDeleteActually it was revenge. It sent a number of signals about the Iowa populace:
1. We're vengeful when we don't get our way
2. We are easily manipulated by New Jersey-based hate groups.
3. We don't understand our legal system and how it works.
4. We don't know what the role of judges is.
I hope Governor Culver re-appoints these judges at the earliest possibility.
3. We don't understand our legal system and how it works.
ReplyDeleteYou dont seem to know are legal system and "how it works"
4. We don't know what the role of judges is.
The role of judges is to apply the law. The same-sex marriage ruling was a afront to the clear weight of precedent and those judges know that.
“The role of judges is to apply the law.”
ReplyDeleteExactly. Here is what the Iowa Constitution, against which all Iowa laws must be measured, says:
“Laws uniform. SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
“Laws uniform. SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
ReplyDeleteYep, checked it again. Nothing in there that requires marriage to become less equal by removing its expectation of one man and one woman.
The judges were clearly reading things into that part of the constitution.
“Yep, checked it again. Nothing in there that requires marriage to become less equal by removing its expectation of one man and one woman.”
ReplyDeleteMaybe you need new glasses. If Iowans insist that all citizens be treated equally, then it’s hard to make the case that straight Iowans be allowed to marry, but gay Iowans can’t. Extending a right to one group, but not to another, obviously violates Iowa’s constitution.
Perhaps you should read the Varnum decision. It would explain the court’s thinking, and might change yours. Unless, of course, you’re more interested in maintaining your position, rather than understanding theirs.
Sean: > [...] it’s hard to make the case that straight Iowans be allowed to marry, but gay Iowans can’t [...]
ReplyDeleteBut you should try anyways, how are straight Iowan's allowed to marry but gay Iowans not allowed if marriage expects equal gender representation in the marriage (i.e. one man and one woman)?
“But you should try anyways, how are straight Iowan's allowed to marry but gay Iowans not allowed if marriage expects equal gender representation in the marriage (i.e. one man and one woman)?”
ReplyDeleteBecause your premise is a false one: that marriage “expects” equal gender representation. That’s the point at hand. You want to ignore the very topic of discussion: does marriage have to be limited to dual gender couples, and the legal discussion about whether the state can prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.
Like voting, marriage is an institution whose practices can easily be altered to adhere to social change.
Me: >> “But you should try anyways, how are straight Iowan's allowed to marry but gay Iowans not allowed if marriage expects equal gender representation in the marriage (i.e. one man and one woman)?”
ReplyDeleteSean: > Because your premise is a false one: that marriage “expects” equal gender representation.
Then don't take it as a premise, take it as a postulation.
Well, then "if" marriage expects equal gender representation (i.e. one man and one woman) how are straight Iowan's allowed to marry but gay Iowans not allowed?
When marriage rules impose an opposite-sex gender requirement, it needlessly discriminates against gay people, who form same-sex couples, and wish to legalize their relationships.
ReplyDeleteBut how "if" marriage expects equal gender representation (i.e. one man and one woman) are straight Iowan's allowed to marry but gay Iowans not allowed?
ReplyDeleteThe reason I ask is that you said above, "it’s hard to make the case that straight Iowans be allowed to marry, but gay Iowans can’t".