« Newspaper investment for your mind | Main | High time to legalize medical marijuana »

April 07, 2009

Iowa ruling on gay marriage

Iowa has not legalized gay marriage (4/4, A-1, “Iowa court OKs gay marriage”). Their Supreme Court unanimously struck down a law that excluded gay couples from marriage, and rightfully so. Some have demanded an explanation for this allegedly radical decision. None is needed.

In a free society the government must only justify a restriction on freedom, not a bestowal of it. In other words, if you want gay marriage to be illegal, the burden is on you to explain why. A logical explanation to that effect is unavailable, because it doesn’t exist.

We resent governmental interference in our personal lives, so why do we accept it in the case of gay marriage? I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman, but I don’t think my government should pass a law requiring you to agree with me.

Good for Iowa. Hopefully someday Kansas follows suit.

Artur Bagyants
Overland Park

Comments

mike d

Once again, Since us Hetero's have done such a bang up job with the so called "sanctity" of marriage, I have to ask - Why should we have all of the fun?

Yet another case of this society being too damn worried about what everyone else is doing. Gays being married won't change any of our lives one damn bit. your ridiculous hypocritical religious arguments that gays shouldn't marry notwithstanding (don't get me started on the priest/child abuse), what reason other than your own racist BS can you deny gays the right to be married?

Keith Williams3

What follows gay divorce; Rosies gay/straight bastard kids. same as in a marriage between a man and woman except they don't have to worry about being excepted or being stoned to death or having their house TP'D or their kids put in lockers or .......................!

Why put your kids through that or yourself; I dont think most people have an issue with gay couples but to interfere with the sanctity of marriage?

whispering_to_kc

What follows "gay marriage"?

Answer: "gay divorce".

The lawyers are gonna be real busy.

Alex Koriakin

NoMoreMrNiceGuy,

By your logic, we should ban all public funding for any illness/disease that is caused in part by some behavior. No more heart disease research for McDonalds customers, no Medicare coverage for lung cancer if you smoke.

Congratulations Iowa.

Alex Koriakin

NoMoreMrNiceGuy,

By your logic, we should ban all public funding for any illness/disease that is caused in part by some behavior. No more heart disease research for McDonalds customers, no Medicare coverage for lung cancer if you smoke.

Congratulations Iowa.

Stifled Freedom

Wow! That is an excellent letter and a great reflection on how a Republic SHOULD be administered. Unfortunately, decades of bad judicial precedents (and appeals to get the majority to supressed a particular minority by popular vote) has most poeple with no real experience on how a Republic is supposed to work.

From that letter, I say prostitution should be definitely be legal.

The majority is not always right. Otherwise we would still have slavery and segregation....because afterall a majority still wanted it even when it was overturned.

Jim

"While the Court had the theoretical power to do what it did, it also had both the power and ample reason to exercise judicial restraint in favor of popular sovereignty..."

The Iowa Supreme Court is charged with measuring laws against the Constitution and deciding whether they are in accordance with it. If a law isn't in accordance, it's unconstitutional. With this decision, the court was discharging its duties properly. It's clear that the court's right to do what it has done isn't "theoretical" at all.

Your argument seems to be that a judicial decision that breaks with existing societal norms is a case of judicial "tyranny". But that notion is difficult to defend historically. Take the case of anti-miscegenation laws. These laws were on the books for a quite a while before any judge had the courage to strike them down. In 1948, the California Supreme Court struck down California's anti-miscegenation law, ruling that it violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. This was the first ruling of its kind and it led directly to the overturning or repeal of similar laws in a majority of states and eventually paved the way for the U.S. Supreme Court decision which overturned such laws in all states.

Had the California Supreme Court refused to rule the way it did (or had it upheld the law for fear of upsetting existing cultural norms) it not only would have been neglecting its duty, but it also would have slowed the country's progress toward meaningful equality. Today no one questions the correctness of the original 1948 decision from a legal standpoint, and that's important to remember. It proves that just because a panel of judges is the first to recognize something, just because a judicial decision upsets prevailing societal norms, doesn't mean it's an example of judicial activism or "tyranny."

Keith Williams3

Down low Brothers is what they call them; they have wifes and girlfriends(American dream family and all) but have sex with men. Its not cheating to them and they are not "gay" so they say.

But hey thats another topic for another day.

farmguy39

I just hope you realize the longer you make gay men want to hide in the closet the better the chance your daughter will marry one and get AIDS the best thing you can do is make gay marriage legal think about it !!!!!!!!!

Gary

No problem, Jim. To reach its decision, the Iowa Supreme Court had to override a decision reached the citizens of that state that, as a matter of state public policy, marriage can only take place between persons of the opposite sex. The Iowa Constitution does not contain any provision that specifically refers to marriage in general or to gay marriage in particular. It contains provisions and phrases that are basically broad generalities, such as "equal protection." In order to reach the conclusion it reached, the Iowa Supreme Court had to give more credence to its own opinion of what public policy should be than it accorded to the people of the state, who had already spoken on the subject. While the Court had the theoretical power to do what it did, it also had both the power and ample reason to exercise judicial restraint in favor of popular sovereignty, especially where the constitutional provision on which it relied is silent on the precise issue before it. I call that tyranny.

Keith Williams3

If and before you vote on these types of issues ask your self if you agree or disagree with the lifestyle not I don't care when you know you do care. Then and only then will you see more bans on Gay issues and other issues in America. If voted on the democratic way then it should stand; agreed or not.

We have gotten away from standing on facts and truths and got by with I don't care and its none of my business.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Well Jim, it is funny bring up democratic voting, ask that same question to thug unions. I could care less about gays being married provided we are not forced to pay for AIDS treatments for homosexual men that engage in sodomy, openly knowing the risk, then contract AIDS from that disgusting behavior.

Jim

I wonder if Gary could explain to me how the Iowa Supreme Court interpreting the state constitution is equivalent to "judicial tyranny."

Same thing with Vermont yesterday. After a stunned silence on Conservative blogs, the argument that the legilature was "hijacking democracy" seemed desperate and flailing. How is a democratic vote "hijacking democracy," exactly?

When these so-called federalists disagree with what the states do, they suddenly abandon federalism.

Marctnts

I'm a little torn on the issue, but I always wonder when I hear the "judicial tyranny" argument if these were the same arguments made after the Brown v. Board of Education decision.

Gary

The Iowa Supreme Court ruling was judicial tyrrany, plain and simple. Its author tried to dress up the opinion to make it seem more rational than it is, but at bottom it is another ukase from our berobed masters. I hope the people of Iowa will impeach the entire bunch.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Nor should government be mandating what your personal budgets should be, how much you must make in employment, etc.
Most within both gangs claim less governemnt yet BOTH iimplement laws that benefit their gang, lobbyists, beliefs, and agendas.
Who cares if gays marry so long as taxpayers are not forced to pay for their AIDS treatment.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright