What Happened to Iowa?
April 3, 2009 30 Comments
What a way to start a morning. I always thought of those other states where such indecencies were affirmed and fought over as far out, rebellious, liberal states – but far away from home. But our dear home state of Iowa? Where family farms and family values have surrounded us as we felt safe growing up? Where numerous churches can be seen in every city and small town and even on country roads; many still bustling with activity on Sunday mornings and Wednesday nights? Where in small towns, people still leave their keys in their cars and their cars unlocked while they run into the store? Where beautiful hymns of the past can still be heard bellowing from choirs in the auditoriums and gymnasiums of our high schools?
But living in the most liberal and sin-filled city in the state, I should have seen this coming. Sin is rampant and spreading like hot, deadly lava across our state and across our country.
This is a sad day for Iowa. This is a sad day for America.
It has never been the government’s job to root out sin, and make it illegal. In my opinion, it never should be.
http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/
Typical liberal response….
Without debating my being characterized as a liberal (we are closer to libertarian over here), I would like to know if you actually disagree with my opinion. Do you support government making sins illegal? If so, who gets to decide which sins are outlawed? Where and how do we draw the line?
Consider the acts that are considered sins by some. The consumption of pork products. Adultery. Gambling. The education of women. Are you ready to support legislation outlawing all these?
“Sin” is an unworkable basis for the law. That is why our country was founded, instead, on the principles of fairness, justice, equality, and individual liberty. That is our Constitution. And that is why the law was struck down in Iowa.
It doesn’t matter if it is a sin or not. The people of Iowa have voted and they say that marriage is between one man and one woman. It is unconstitutional for the court to trump the will of the people. Their job is to interpret the law and not make law. That is what the lawmakers do and that is called separation of power. That is our consitution.
Welcome aboard, iowapatriot. You picked a great subject to start with. I hope you have a strong stomach.
This is hopelessly confused. Have you read the opinion?
It is unconstitutional to write laws that violate the constitution. This one does. The court studied the law and the case for the law as advanced by Polk County. They did not make the law. They read the law and the history and they said the law must apply equally to gays as to child abusers (if I lost you there, go read the opinion).
Listen, I am not posting here to advocate for or against gay marriage, or for or against a ban on gay marriage.
I understand that some people want gay marriage banned, and of course those people will dislike the court’s ruling. That is their right.
But I do think such people should offer an explanation of how such a ban is Constitutional. Our nation was founded on principles of individual liberty and equal protection under the law. It is hard to reconcile such a ban with those ideals, no matter how much one favors it personally.
If what you say is true, then there shouldn’t be bans on any activities because it may infringe on someone’s “individual liberty.” Anyway, traditional marriage is not banning gay marriage; it is saying that it is between one man and one woman (so that means a lot of other relationships between people are left out). Homosexuals should think up their own institution and lobby the state and federal government to recognize it.
You are right about one thing: traditional marriage does not ban gay marriage. My marriage has no impact on yours.
But the state has banned gay marriage. For no good reason. . . . .unless maybe you have thought of a good reason. Have you?
“If what you say is true, then there shouldn’t be bans on any activities because it may infringe on someone’s “individual liberty.”
Things are banned because they cause harm to others. There needs to be a compelling state interest to balance the diminishing of individual liberty. This is exactly why the banning of gay marriage is hard (impossible?) to justify constitutionally. It diminishes individual liberty and fails the equal treatment test, without really avoiding any harm.
The harm is yet to be seen. All societies in history that have gone down this path have eventually self-destructed. This great nation was built on traditional marriage; it is the foundation of society. We have just destroyed that institution and I fear what it may lead to.
What societies have failed due to gay marriage? I must have missed that in history class.
So what do you fear it will lead to? What has it led to in Massachusetts and Connecticut?
I just read this on another blog, and I thought I would come back and share it here. This is from the Iowa Court’s decision: It goes along with my previous comment.
“We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination.
“We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2 denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by the Iowa Constitution.”–Iowa Supreme Court, Filed April 3, 2009
http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/
It is unconstitutional for courts to make law. Period.
The court did not make a law, they struck one down. THis has been going on since Marbury v Madison about two hundred years ago.
And that is when the problem of courts legislating from the bench began. They can offer an opinion; not strike down a law.
That is an ignorant response. They struck down segregation. They struck down the DC gun law. It happens regularly.
I know it happens regularly and our lawmakers today have been cowards. The judicial branch is the least powerful of the three. Just because they declare a law unconstitutional does not mean that it ceases to exist or is overturned. It means that the lawmakers take it as an opinion on how to proceed next. They could tell the judges to go fly a kite or they could agree with them and proceed to change the law. The courts have no way to enforce their decision to strike down a law. It is their job to uphold and interpret the law.
Think about it, why would our founding fathers’ intentions be that a mere seven individuals who were not elected but appointed have the tremendous power of changing what millions of voters and elected officials have decided? The court is there as checks and balances.
You need to look at the consitution and the courts’ role. I used to believe as you did until I researched it more. Do you really want a few people who you had no say in their appointment have this much power? They are human just like you and I.
Yes, a sad, sad day.
As a state we won’t have to worry about having gambling money to spend as all the homosexuals will be ascending on our state and spending money for their marriage licenses.
This is why I posted the court’s actual language. The court’s job is to determine if a law is unconstitutional, and that is precisely what they did. That is not making a law. They did their job. I have not read, in your comments here or others’ elsewhere, any criticism of the court’s reasoning. Did they incorrectly interpret the constitution, and if so, in what way, specifically?
Listen, I respect that you oppose gay marriage. I respect that you support the Iowa Legislature’s law. I respect that you wish it were constitutional. But I do not think it is fair to blame the court. You need to blame the Iowa constitution.
Iowans who believe as you do should seek to amend it, and not blame the court for doing its job and doing it properly.
http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/
Fine, put it on the ballot. Guess what, the vote will be the same to uphold traditional marriage. Traditional marriage has never failed on any ballot in any state, and that includes liberal California. The liberals know this and that is why they have activist judges to push the measures that they know will never pass with the voters.
Sure, let’s make just one exception to the notion of equal protection of the laws. Just one. Let’s ban inter-racial marriage.
The activist judges you are talking about (in the Iowa case) were appointed by Republicans!
Good point.
You know the definition of “activist judge,” don’t you? — any judge who rules against my beliefs.
http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/
It’s not “overturning a ban on gay marriage” it’s “forcing recognition of gay marriage.”
I came to this site wondering if anybody has connected the dots between gay rights multi-millionaire Tim Gill’s legislative purchases in Iowa and the Supreme Court justices who made the decision. Where might I find leads?
I see two of the justices were appointed by Republican Gov Branstad, so you might ask him.
Perhaps you don’t realize this, but that is incorrect. One of the principle checks-and-balances of our government system is the role of the courts to strike down unconstitutional laws.
Check the constitution. They are only supposed to offer an opinion and interpret and uphold the law. That is their role in the checks and balances. The courts have the least amount of power of the three branches.
Interpreting a law does not mean “striking” it down. The courts have become a monster and it is our own elected officials who are letting it become that way. Legally, the courts can’t get rid of a law or make a law. They could be impeached and it is our lawmakers’ job to uphold the constitution and reject the courts’ illegal laws. You can argue that the Iowa Supreme Court did not make a new law, but they did by creating same sex marriage in our state, and it doesn’t need to be recognized or followed because it didn’t go through the legislature.
Will this ever happen? Never. No one today has the guts our fore fathers did.
http://spectator.org/archives/2005/11/08/no-more-striking-down-constitu
Go figure that the post about sin is getting the most comments. Perhaps it struck a nerve.
Just one suggestion to all you liberals out there. Since you are all for equal protection and rights under our constitution, how about getting on board with me in protecting the unborn? It looks like we’re on the same page with that one.
@ Iowa Rock: It isn’t that simple, though. On the one hand we have your idea, namely, constitutional protection for the unborn. The Constitution is silent on this matter; any such rights must be inferred.
On the other hand, we have the constitutional rights of the mother, including the right to privacy. This also is an implied right that must be inferred from the Constitution.
So it is left for us to balance these two inferred rights. At present, as a society we have decided in favor of the mother. Every Gallup poll ever conducted on this subject shows consistent majority public support for the pro-choice position.
I am not saying society is right, or that we have chosen wisely, or even morally. But I do think your idea that a constitutional assessment leads absolutely to a “pro-life” position — as that term is used — oversimplifies the issue.
Polling information on abortion debate: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/wtprw_repro.html
http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/