Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman

[DairyFarmer 1]

What do the colours represent?

looks like the graphic shows which state's voters were polled on the issue, with black states allowing, and red states not allowing, with some difference in degree by shade of red.

I don't think so Michigan is black and they don't allow it.

I guess I'm more curious about the shades of red.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Here we go again.

I am surprised so many people rejoice when the "will of the people" is disregarded in favor of the will of a few unelected Judges.

Wouldn't you feel much better if the laws were made by "law makers" who represent "The People"?

But we know what happens in almost every case where people get a "say" or vote on this issue.

Well we can see right here the trend.

Of course these types of legal actions such as today (and roe v wade) only add to the hostility and fracturing of our already divided country.

One has to admit the **'s are clever and determined; locate some small town with a small budget, with limited legal resources and run these cases (as they are doing in every state) through, with their largely free legal team.

And this is how you change the landscape of America.

-when we are convinced we are right in our cause, any means ....will justify the end.

Its a shame this continues to be characterised as a matter that should be decided by some sort of public referendum. It isn't (and shouldn't be).

[justashooter 430]

Here we go again.

I am surprised so many people rejoice when the "will of the people" is disregarded in favor of the will of a few unelected Judges.

Wouldn't you feel much better if the laws were made by "law makers" who represent "The People"?

But we know what happens in almost every case where people get a "say" or vote on this issue.

Well we can see right here the trend.

Of course these types of legal actions such as today (and roe v wade) only add to the hostility and fracturing of our already divided country.

One has to admit the **'s are clever and determined; locate some small town with a small budget, with limited legal resources and run these cases (as they are doing in every state) through, with their largely free legal team.

And this is how you change the landscape of America.

-when we are convinced we are right in our cause, any means ....will justify the end.

Its a shame this continues to be characterised as a matter that should be decided by some sort of public referendum. It isn't (and shouldn't be).

so you want to invoke a "community standards" philosophy when you can bolster your side of an argument with some such schpeil, but deny the value of such when the current is running against you?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm saying that this issue is one that has no business being determined by a popular vote.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am surprised so many people rejoice when the "will of the people" is disregarded in favor of the will of a few unelected Judges.

Danno, should the Supreme Court in its rulings on the constitutionality of laws, bow to the will of the people?

[PlatyPius 5]

Allowing gay marriage hurts no one.

Denying gay marriage hurts many.

How is it bad, then?

[almaty 19]

touche....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Allowing gay marriage hurts no one.

Denying gay marriage hurts many.

How is it bad, then?

Yeah - its not really been established how preventing gay marriage would damage our society or the people in it.

[dalegg 143]

The Iowa Supreme Court this morning upheld a Polk County judge’s 2007 ruling that marriage should not be limited to one man and one woman.

Does this mean that one man can marry three women now?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The Iowa Supreme Court this morning upheld a Polk County judge’s 2007 ruling that marriage should not be limited to one man and one woman.

Does this mean that one man can marry three women now?

I doubt it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Iowa Supreme Court this morning upheld a Polk County judge's 2007 ruling that marriage should not be limited to one man and one woman.

Does this mean that one man can marry three women now?

I think that part can be defined and discriminant. The problem with outlawing gay couples to marry is denying them their 14th Amendment Rights.

[Peikko 1,575]

Logic failing Dalag? Never mind - all the slippery slopers are on the edge now, slip, slip, slip. Yeah, I hate America so much, I want everyone to enjoy the rights and freedoms that are constitutionally protected How absolutely SCANDALOUS!!!

[dalegg 143]

Logic failing Dalag? Never mind - all the slippery slopers are on the edge now, slip, slip, slip. Yeah, I hate America so much, I want everyone to enjoy the rights and freedoms that are constitutionally protected How absolutely SCANDALOUS!!!

You must be fun at parties. C'mon, the headline says no longer limited to one man, one woman. It's an obvious stab at sarcasm for me to play on this as meaning that one man, two women might now be allowed. In fact, when I first read the headline, I actually thought this was a victory for Mormons, not that it had anything to do with Gay Marriage.

If I was going to play the slippery slope arguement, I would have said something like, "is it now okay for a man to marry a child, or a man to marry a dog" or something like that. I have commented on this issue before and stated clearly that I don't think a slippery slope applies.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am fun at parties, how did you guess?

[Marina-Del 10]

Go Iowa! That's not a state I would have picked to do something like this...but good for them!

And I mean no offense to Iowa...I just tend to imagine those midwestern states as mostly super conservative. Don't hate on me because I don't know anything about Iowa!

Edited April 3, 2009 by Marina-Del