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

[NickD 203]

I see Wisconsin as a dark red state, a couple of years ago, we had a referendum on gay marriages and the people voted against it, they also voted for the death penality, two good reasons to leave this state along with a high income tax rate over high property taxes.

I voted against the death penalty, we didn't have one because there has been too many instances where innocent people were given life sentences for murders they did not commit. With my own personal experience, believe that Wisconsin leads the nation in incompetent attorneys. I do not feel our government can bring the dead back to life.

I voted for gay marriages because I became very familiar with our marriage laws with my divorce, and commented, if they read those laws during the marriage ceremony, about 99.9% of the people would walk out. If the gays want to make that same mistake, let them, why should they be privileged?

Wisconsin was a great state until about 30 years ago, been downhill ever since, does have natural beauty, and my roots date back 150 years, plus most of my family is here.

Also feel it's incredibly stupid we have 50 states with 50 different set of laws, we should be one country. While we have our own school board and alderman, a waste of money with so-called local control, have to go by state laws in every instance, and most of the state laws are based on federal laws, just a bunch of parasites eating up our tax buck.

[mawilson 2,133]

For a second I thought Iowa had legalized marriages between one man and two or more women.

[SonoranSongbird 3]

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.

When I was born, the "will of the people" in 1/3 of the States of this country was to prohibit interracial marriages. That might well still be the law in a few of them were it not for a Supreme Court case holding that they can't infringe on the rights of individual citizens to marry the person of their choosing, no matter how big a majority thinks it's okay to do so.

Incidentally, many state judges are elected. Not that it's relevant---the salient point is that constitutional rights---including the rights to due process and equal protection, which is what's at issue here---actually do trump state laws.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

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.

When I was born, the "will of the people" in 1/3 of the States of this country was to prohibit interracial marriages. That might well still be the law in a few of them were it not for a Supreme Court case holding that they can't infringe on the rights of individual citizens to marry the person of their choosing, no matter how big a majority thinks it's okay to do so.

Incidentally, many state judges are elected. Not that it's relevant---the salient point is that constitutional rights---including the rights to due process and equal protection, which is what's at issue here---actually do trump state laws.

Eloquence. I like that

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

"If you are against gay marriage, do not go and marry a gay person"

End of the problem and a better peace of mind

[Ban Hammer 13,619]

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?

you mean kinda like the debate about guns?

[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?

you mean kinda like the debate about guns?

That's exactly why I brought it up...because as I recall, Danno, in the case of our 2nd Amendment Rights - believes that it is absolute. How about the 14th Amendment? Shouldn't it also be absolute, in Danno's POV?

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

And for clarity, Charles - I don't believe that any of our constitutional rights are absolute. There are always conditions and acceptions. In the case of gay marriage, an outright ban is discriminating one group of citizens the right afforded to others.

[NickD 203]

Just heard our governor remarking about our neighboring state, a bit disappointing to him as Wisconsin and Iowa have so much in common. But with a reminder to Wisconsin residents they have to follow Wisconsin law on this issue and cannot run off to another state, if those state laws are against ours. With severe penalties if I may add that.

Still say, having 50 different states is stupid.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If marriage isn't limited to one man and one woman, it's no longer marriage. This country is circling the bowl.

[dalegg 143]

For a second I thought Iowa had legalized marriages between one man and two or more women.

See!

That's what I thought at first too!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I don't understand why it's one man and more than one woman. One woman and more than one man works, too.

[PlatyPius 5]

To those who are opposed to gay marriage..... why?

Is it because you think it's "icky"?

Is it because it goes against YOUR religion?

Is there really any rational, definitive reason that it shouldn't be allowed?

How does it hurt YOU? That's what I really want to know. In what way does it affect your life?

[Ban Hammer 13,619]

I don't understand why it's one man and more than one woman. One woman and more than one man works, too.

as long as the woman has access to a wheelchair

[Chica Yeyé 41]

What? No takers for Platy's question?