She is correct that San Francisco started with a smoking ban which in turn inspired the state itself to adopt it, becoming the first state to do so. It spread from there. I disagree with her premise that the smoking ban example will also pave the way to impeach Bush in his remaining last year. Much as one may dislike him, that's smoking something else. (I don't even think a full ban that includes vice trades like bars and casinos are necessarily wise for health reasons, putting aside economic and civil libertarian concerns, but that's another debate for another thread).

__________________

See for me this is why the gay marriage ammendment has got to be a constitutional ammendment. What's good in San Fran isn't even goodfor the entire state; leave alone the rest of the land. This is sometimes the down side of federalism, and even if every state passes laws to ban it eventually some loony toons judge (like this one) will overturn it. Even in spite of a trillion judges upholding it befre him one somewhere will monkey it all up. At least with a constitutional ammendment it can't be undone by the judiciary.

But when something is tied to government that has a discriminatory element to it then it needs to either change or no longer be tied to government.

But its not discriminatory; Marriage was designed so a man and woman could wed, and in that context every man and every woman has every equal opportunity and possibility to marry.

Sometimes the judiciary does society a favour, as with dumping Jim Crow, creating incentives like suppression to stop illegal searches, etc. If you think the government is trying to screw you, you can bet the farm you'll be calling upon the courts to stop them. I also can't stress enough the plain constitutional truth that the judiciary is a co-equal branch with the other two. It states what the law means. That isn't monkeying with the law--that is doing its job. I'm far more concerned with the power hungry who bash the courts because they apparently like power too much.

And not every new idea is a bad one. The Constitution itself was cutting edge for its time. Good ideas are what leads to progress.
Some won't work out, but that is part of the growth process.

On gay marriage, I oppose the amendment banning it. The idea of "ban this-ban that" is a bipartisan problem. Rather than focus on nuts and bolts of fixing bridges, potholes, programmes, etc, and spending wisely, politicians would rather pick on gays, gun owners, flag burners, smokers, trans-fats, etc. The targets get framed as bad guys and pay the costs of this crap in their wallets and happiness.

I can't find a reasonable basis for denying gays the right to marry as heterosexuals do insofar a secular issuance of marriage licence (religious marriage rules and ceremonies belong to the respective groups and have a separate and independent character).

If this country values personal freedom and the pursuit of happiness, it has to put up or shut up on that absent compelling reasons. How does allowing gays to marry cause significant harm? If a strong and constitutional case can't be made how it does, and I can't think of one, then it really is a case of 'mind your own business' in my view.

__________________

No look its not the courts that are to blame, its the freaking judges! Some of them are totally out of whack. I have never had a problem with the judiciary being an independant co-equal branch of government, its the damn Congress i hate. This guy's ruling (in this instance) was a huge overstep on his mark, he was way out of line. Anyway why do you like judges, you're an attorney!

Not every idea is a bad one no, this one however is preposterous.

That idea never works with me, government always legislates to ban things, you'll always be in favor of banning things and you'll never be in favor of banning nothing will you? As for fixing bridges and potholes, good lord no! Congress just passed a near 300 billion dollar highway bill last year and yet a bridge collapses! How much of that money was pork? Its better when Congress does sit around legislating things that don't cost money, its CHEAPER!

So the traditional factor doesn't sway you? Nor the slippery slope argument nor the financial factor? Good of sciety/children raised by mom and dad? Good, because it shouldn't have to. Government reserves the right to regulate what it gives privellages on,marriage is not a god given right in most people's books otherwise there would be no restrictions at all.

It may not be a strong constitutional reason for ou but it is for a lot of others.

I don't know if the judge in Iowa is a whack. I know gratuitously saying he is one when he makes a ruling under his state law and its constitution is spurious without examination of his opinion, case law, and state constitution. Moreover, it's the total right of state courts to interpret their own state constitution. That was something that really peeved me about people bashing the Massachusetts court from other states, especially when they wanted their own state efforts to deny it recognised.

On banning, it depends on what is being banned and why.

On the infrastructure, government needs a role in it so it gets done safe and orderly. Privatisation is not a self-evident better option. To the contrary, it often leads to cronyism, pork, and spending more to get less due to conflicts of interest between the public necessities and maximising profit.

On gay marriage, tradition does not seem anything but a circular argument. Traditions are popular personal preferences but mandating others follow them is a different matter. Thanksgiving dinner is a tradition but should it be legally mandated? Not in my view. I see no slippery slope with gay marriages either. In fact, to me there is a social benefit on encouraging such unions just as with straight marriages because monogamous relationships bonded with legal affirmation aids personal happiness and reducing promiscuity that spreads diseases and helps stem serial and broken relationships. It also would reduce pressures on gays to hide their identity in straight marriages due to peer pressures that eventually unravel because 'fake it until you make it' fails just as it did for former Governor McGreevey and Senator Craig, at great cost to them and others, especially the defrauded spouses and any children they might have. I do not see the economic negatives you see, none that would be fair to keep for onesself at the expense of others anyway. Marriage as a concept is also not a privilege but has been long recognised as a fundamental right.
Gay adoptive parents have not been shown to be inferior either. How does a decent gay couple prove to be automatically worse than the heterosexual couple that had them and could not care for them? Similarly, how had gay marriage played any role in the high divorce rate and poor parenting of straight couples? It must come with great guffaws to gays to hear lectures about their superior status when straights have plenty of their own failings for which to be personally accountable. Most certainly their own relationships do not make straight ones fail. The government also cannot constitutionally mandate that people have children or that they have children as a prerequisite to getting married. Indeed, people often get married knowing they cannot or will not have them.

__________________

Some devout christians are the only people I know who are offended by the idea of homosexual unions being called marriage but not by the idea of unions. That's why I made the assumption I did. So whose feelings are you trying to protect with your PC crusade?

Actually you have not given reasons for your views. I've been hoping you would because I've been searching for any rational objection to gay marriage for a long time.

__________________
The most important political office is that of the private citizen.
Justice Louis D Brandeis

Seems to me that truly devout Christians are offended by homosexuality, period.

Personally, I am not opposed to gay unions and have no bias against homosexuals. I simply prefer clarity of language. As far as I am concerned, same sex unions are not 'marriages' therefore they should not be called marriages. Marriage is reserved for one man and one woman, period. I see myself as a traditionalist on this issue.

I would imagine that most gays would be thrilled to accept 'civil unions' (or something similar) that offered the same legal protections/benefits as marriage. So what's the big hangup?

__________________
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

One of my favorite movies. Watched it just the other day.

Vizzini: Finish him. Finish him, your way.
Fezzik: Oh good, my way. Thank you Vizzini... what's my way?
Vizzini: Pick up one of those rocks, get behind a boulder, in a few minutes the man in black will come running around the bend, the minute his head is in view, hit it with the rock.
Fezzik: My way's not very sportsman-like.



Matt

The folks who would need to adjust their view won't bother reading it anyway.

My reputation is safe.

Matt

Most are. But some are capable of separating their religious views from questions of civil liberties.

At this moment it is reserved for one man and one woman. At various times in history it has meant many different things. The fact that it has a present meaning is not, in itself, a rational argument for keeping it unchanged.
Giving it a different name allows for the possibility of changes in the law at any time so as to make the civil union inferior to "marriage". Just as I said in my last post.

I see no good reason to establish two institutions when one will work better.

__________________
The most important political office is that of the private citizen.
Justice Louis D Brandeis

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this but after that dig i thought i'd better check out the finer details of the case and opinion.

Turns out this judge himself, 2 hours after his ruling, put a stay on the ruling allowing opponents to appeal it.

He, in the case, but not in his opinion cited when the Iowa Supreme court upheld the ban. Anyway he doesn't seem to think he's bound by a higher court ruling but does that make him a whack? I dunno, maybe he over-stepped his mark? Your thoughts?

Edit: That was specifically asked to OSB, no disrespect to anyone else its just i'm asking him specifically from a legal POV, which is where his expertese lie.

I'm going to read the actual opinion if I can find it online. If you can find it please link it and I'll give you my opinion. Reading it may affect my thoughts.

As for the stay, I find it responsible that he gave the stay pending appeal. Trial courts often have to make the initial call in these kinds of cases because they are the judges of the courts where suits must be first filed. Thus, they are the initial reviewing court in such cases.

But, on big legal issues and novel claims of large import, they usually know their cases will be appealed by the loser and that eventually the highest court will need to resolve them. Thus, to avoid having split decisions on a countywide basis that would create an intrastate paradox and encourage forum shopping to the favourable county that furthers it, and to avoid causing the winning and losing parties and any expected piggybackers any time and/or financial prejudice should the decision be reversed on appeal, they will often grant a stay pending final review by a higher court that makes binding decisions for the entire state. This way, everyone in Iowa can hold their horses and await the final decision on appeal and see what the ultimate result will be and act accordingly.

As an example, in 2000, I won a case in Pennsylvania on the county level that required our state Department of Transportation to expunge its records relating to DUI charges where the drivers completed a pretrial first offender programme. The programme promised the applicants that their records would be expunged; however, the Department claimed they could keep their records of it because it said they were not a criminal agency and expungement only pertained to records held by criminal agencies. I claimed that they acted in these cases as arms of the criminal prosecution and courts because the programme actually required their participation in it and that the programme's court rules and statutes at issue, when read together, required them to expunge their records after a set period of time. I won on the county level, but a stay pending appeal was granted because the decision would have required it to start expunging its records in my case and others of similarly situated individuals in the county, and this would be irreversible if it immediately complied and I lost on appeal. I eventually won on appeal in a decision having a binding effect on the whole state, and then the records were expunged. The state legislature eventually clarified the statutory law in my favour by statutorily mandating that the Department expunge the records after a set period of time consistent with the court's decision.

__________________

Sure i'll see if i can find the opinion online.