Next post
Gay marriage became legal in Iowa today:
Same-sex marriages became legal in Iowa Monday, but non-Iowans likely won’t have the same rights in their home states as heterosexual couples, observers said.
Because Iowa’s law lacks a residency requirement, out-of-state, same-sex couples may join Iowans in seeking marriage licenses, the Des Moines Register reported.
State law requires a three-day waiting period before the license can be used, but judges can waive that provision.
However, gay rights advocacy groups warn that most states won’t recognize same-sex marriages that take place in Iowa.
“It’s one of the first things we told couples,” said Rick Garcia, a spokesman for Equality Illinois, a Chicago gay rights group. “It’s a great ruling, and we’re thrilled for Iowans.You can get married in Iowa … . But when you get back to Illinois, in the eyes of the law, you are strangers.”
Marital law attorneys and scholars said they think the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage eventually could spawn other court cases that could either clarify or muddy the issue, the Register said.
Now, when it comes to gay marriage, let me just clarify my position here. I, to this day, honestly don’t know how I feel about gay marriage. It’s not very high on my radar, for one — I think we have much more pressing issues than whether or not two guys can marry each other. I really can go either way on the issue, although I think I’m a little bit closer to the “against” side. In any case, the big problem I’ve had with the gay marriage issue across the country has been the judicial activism. That pisses me off. I’d be a hell of lot more inclined to accept gay marriage laws if they were voted in by the residents of these various states. But when you’ve got Supreme Court justices making up laws, rather than enforcing them, you’ve got problems. It is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide what is and isn’t allowed. Their job is to enforce the laws present in the Constitution, no more. This is a gross abuse of power by the Supreme Court justices in Iowa, along with the several states that came before them, and that is the issue for me. The whole reason we have three branches of government is to keep that power from being abused. And the judicial branch is not there to create laws. The voters can, and the legislative branch can. That’s it. And what we’re seeing in the Supreme Court is extremely worrying to me. Because if they can get away with this, what will they move on to next? And I’m not talking about marriage provisions. I’m talking about justices deciding that they suddenly can govern however they want to. What will they decide next? We really don’t want to be starting down this slope, and we need to be keeping these justices in check.
This is judicial activism, and that’s what worries me… not so much the fact that now two guys can go get married.
Meanwhile, Republican spokeswoman and intellectual lightweight heavyweight Meghan McCain is all for it:
Big shoutout to Iowa today for legalizing gay marriage which can now officially be performed today! Gives me lots of hope for the country!
Perez Hilton was very pleased with her statement.
Bob says: Your ideas are sound ones, actually. Legalizing gay marriage would actually make things a WHOLE lot easier for health care, HR drones, and lawyers. We spend way too much time and effort (and money) by carefully skirting around the issue and carefully wording documents about “domestic partnerships” and stuff. It could help make the tax code simpler too.
And in reality, the ones that are going to go and get married are generally lesbian couples. Over 60% of the gay couples that wed in MA so far have been lesbian couples, and not gay male couples. They’ve been together for an average of 15 years, too. That’s a whole lot longer than many heterosexual couples.
And even then, there were only a few thousand couples. There’s over 300,000,000 people in the country, and only a fraction of them are gay couples that want to get married.
I say “let them.”
Tomare Utsu Zo says: Gay marriage is quite simple to me. If Gays are stupid enough to want to reduce their relationships to government contracts, so be it.
Cylar says: I think the funniest part about this social experiment called “gay marriage,” is this…
It’s rather telling that in all but two cases (VT and CT), it had to be enacted by judicial fiat rather than by an up-or-down vote of the people’s legislature. (Such as here in California as well as Iowa.)
It’s also rather telling, that in NO case have “the people” passed this bollywonkers idea into law, when given the chance to enact it directly at the ballot box.
Good ideas shouldn’t require a court to force them to fruition. Rather, that is the hallmark of bad ideas. Bad ideas such as upending the social order (and overturning thousands of years of human understanding) so that some aggrieved minority can feel better about themselves.
Cylar says: Your ideas are sound ones, actually. Legalizing gay marriage would actually make things a WHOLE lot easier for health care, HR drones, and lawyers. We spend way too much time and effort (and money) by carefully skirting around the issue and carefully wording documents about “domestic partnerships” and stuff. It could help make the tax code simpler too.
Meanwhile, I’m going to be paying more for my health insurance premiums, to make up for all these new “spouses” who are now covered by their partners’ policies. The ones who weren’t covered under domestic partnerships. Funny how nobody mentions this when arguing for or against gay marriage.
Sorry pal, no sale.
Cylar says: Cassy sez…
“Their job is to enforce the laws present in the Constitution, no more. This is a gross abuse of power by the Supreme Court justices in Iowa, along with the several states that came before them, and that is the issue for me.
You’re on the right track, but I’d like to point out that the judicial branch does not have the authority to “enforce” any law. That’s the job of the executive branch. Rather, the courts’ job is to “interpret” or explain the meaning of law. That means to adjudicate it based on precedent and/or the US Constitution. Period.
This business of judges and justices simply writing new regulations from the bench has got to stop.
WayneB says: Let me start out by stating: I am NOT religious. That is to pre-empt the “You’re just a religious fascist” type of argument.
Homosexuality is a non-survival trait. Therefore, it is wrong on it’s face. However, I don’t have anything against homosexuality itself personally. That said, I do not believe that gay marriage should be legal because of the side issues, such as adoption. Studies have shown that children should have a parent of BOTH sexes to develop properly. In a same-sex household, they cannot have this setting. I don’t believe we should be proactively making it easier for such a “family” unit to be created. And no, I don’t believe that the fact that there are so many single parents out there is an argument for ADDING another class of improper family environment to the world.
I find it so funny that people still live in this ’50’s stepford society that you need two opposite sex parents in the household in order to have a decent child. I know kids that have had both parents in the household of the opposite sex and ended up pregnant or in rehab. I’ve known kids that have had same-sex parents that turned out to be role model students, ended up being open minded towards society and new things, and even a couple that are heading to pretty well off colleges and futures. It all just depends on what’s going on in the household.
Like my mom was better as a single parent then she is now with a husband. They do nothing but fight all the time and make my life a living hell by taking their anger out on me and it’s all because they believe that whole crap that two parents need to be together so they don’t believe in divorce.
I just think people can’t speak on what’s healthy for a child because each child turns out differently first off. And then until you’re actually involved in the household setting and hanging out with the kid on a daily basis to see how they’re turning out and how they work in society, you can’t really speak on what’s healthy and unhealthy for them.
I also would like to add that I don’t see how anyone can be against gays having rights. It’s not like they can control their orientation. I feel like saying gays shouldn’t have the same rights as straight is like saying a black male shouldn’t have rights because of his race. It’s just pointless to treat people who can’t control who they are as second class citizens.
I still do find the idea of marriage pointless but I still think everyone has the right to put the government even more in their business.
10 Comments