Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iowa goes Liberal

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Iowa goes Liberal

    Oddly enough, sometimes I would feel better if I wasn't dead-on - I used to feel very secure in my opposition against gay marriage, but I'll be goshdarned if my moral righteousness has waned in its ability to trump my feelings on Equal Protection over time.

    Honestly, I'm just sick of the issue. If this decision was some liberal, Nancy Pelosi-esque deal, I would be against this as sure as white is on rice. But I don't sense a clear line of "judicial arrogance" here; I sense a clear and reasonable argument being made for something that's going to happen eventually anyway. I've been waiting for a legal argument to be articulated against gay marriage for a long time - each time it just devolves into moral feelings. Which is fine - I agree with those feelings, I just don't see how they can be relevant in a legal argument.

    *American Hat - Off. Republican Hat - On*

    ...But I have to snicker, just a bit, at how perfect this decision could be for the 2010 Congressional Elections for the Republicans. The best case scenario would be for the Supreme Court to take this under someone's petition, and then rule in favor of the Iowa Supreme Court. Gay marriage wouldn't be the issue - it would be the perfect trifecta of a liberal court, liberal Congress and liberal Executive branch. History is against the Democrats growing, yet alone sustaining, their current level of control in Congress, but if we could synthethize that argument with the backdrop of failed economic policies...

    Er, anyway, yeah, it was a good legal decision. I started to ramble a bit there.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Iowa goes Liberal

      [quote author=Nil Satis Nisi Optimum link=topic=4170.msg175692#msg175692 date=1239139479]
      First Iowa, and now Vermont too (see: legislature overriding Governor's veto on legalizing gay marriage). Does this signal a new shift in the gay marriage debate? I think so. Conservatives (mainly the far right) is beginning to realize that they're on the wrong side of this one, or at least that it's not worth the fight because there are more important things to worry about.
      [/quote]

      I agree that that the general mood in the country is shifting, both on homosexuality in general, and on same-sex marriage in particular. But the groups opposing same-sex marriage are no less forceful in their opposition now than they were in 2003 (when Lawrence and Goodridge came down).

      I certainly don't expect those groups (Alliance Defense Fund, Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel, etc.) to give up the fight because "there are more important things to worry about." You have to understand how they view these types of issues. To them, the so-called "culture war" threatens the moral fiber on which this country is based. They genuinely believe that if the culture "degenerates" (as they would define that term), the country as a whole will also crumble. So I don't expect the groups spearheading the fight against the so-called "Homosexual Agenda" (a truly ridiculous term, but that's a topic for another day) to let up anytime soon.
      Mock Trial with J. Reinhold! Mock Trial! Mock Trial with J. Reinhold!

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Iowa goes Liberal

        [quote author=mocksluzer link=topic=4170.msg175684#msg175684 date=1239133195]
        I'm disappointed, Newt:

        http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
        [/quote]

        Why? All he really said was that enacting social change through the People's elected representatives is preferable to doing it through the courts. With that, I agree 100%.
        Mock Trial with J. Reinhold! Mock Trial! Mock Trial with J. Reinhold!

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Iowa goes Liberal


          ...I really abhor having to agree in any capacity with an argument that forces social change in such a manner, but would schools have been desegregated if the issue had been left to elected representatives? Would the Armed Forces been desegregated if an Executive Decision hadn't forced it to happen? Maybe, but it's rather difficult for me to say that minorities should have to wait for elected representatives to rely on their morality rather than what benefits them in the current political environment. There are situations when the rights of Americans are being infringed flagrantly - in those situations, our preferences should be removed in favor of practicality and a will to get enforce the laws.

          [quote author=Nil Satis Nisi Optimum link=topic=4170.msg175692#msg175692 date=1239139479]
          First Iowa, and now Vermont too (see: legislature overriding Governor's veto on legalizing gay marriage). Does this signal a new shift in the gay marriage debate? I think so. Conservatives (mainly the far right) is beginning to realize that they're on the wrong side of this one, or at least that it's not worth the fight because there are more important things to worry about.
          [/quote]

          While I think this is a very correct assumption, I think it's missing a critical point. This presumed "shift" isn't being caused by some litmus test of the public - in fact, if Prop 8 serves as anything, it demonstrates that the public still doesn't favor gay marriage. National polls might show a different tale, but I take those with a grain of salt. The truth is, folks still don't want it to happen in their backyard - that's what Prop 8 demonstrated.

          The most potent shift isn't in terms of public opinion or how conservatives/liberals view it. The shift is in terms of importance and relevance. How many people actually remember the coverage over Prop 8? Had that vote happened in 2004 we would have heard about it forever. This is a shift forced by circumstances, not by attitudes.

          So, yes, you're totally correct to say that conservatives and others may no longer see gay marriage as an impotant issue right now. But I think it's wrong to believe that any political leader's views have changed at all. The Democrats aren't going to waste their political capital pushing for it and the Republicans aren't going to waste their's fighitng. It's just not the right card to play at the moment.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Iowa goes Liberal

            [quote author=billyez link=topic=4170.msg175693#msg175693 date=1239139792]
            ...But I have to snicker, just a bit, at how perfect this decision could be for the 2010 Congressional Elections for the Republicans. The best case scenario would be for the Supreme Court to take this under someone's petition, and then rule in favor of the Iowa Supreme Court.
            [/quote]

            As far as I know, there's no basis for the Supreme Court to hear this case. The case was decided based on Iowa state law, and the Supreme Court doesn't review decisions that are based purely on state law, unless there is somehow a federal question presented. Here there is not.
            [url]www.findjoshua.com[/url]

            "The joy is in the journey."
            -Frosty Westering

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Iowa goes Liberal

              Actually, given all of the comprehensive civil rights legislation that was passed within a decade, I'd say, yes, my guess is that the schools would have been desegregated even without Brown. But that's complete speculation, I admit.

              Nevertheless, desegregating schools after Brown wasn't exactly a fluffy process. There was fierce, violent resistance, even on the part of elected officials. And part of the reason for that resistance was that people felt (wrongly, in my view, when it comes to this particular issue) that the courts had overstepped their bounds and usurped their power. In addition, the bloated, complex decades-long litigation in many areas and the tens (if not hundreds) of billions pf taxpayer dollars spent to ensure compliance with court orders shows that desegregation doesn't always involve the courts at their best.

              In any event, my (and Newt's, I gather) position is not that ALL court decisions mandating change are wrong. It's that enacting change through accountable elected officials, when possible, is infinitely preferable to doing it through the courts.
              Mock Trial with J. Reinhold! Mock Trial! Mock Trial with J. Reinhold!

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Iowa goes Liberal

                Oh, I'm aware of how difficult it was to enforce the decision. But it might have been just as difficult had they waited for the elected representatives to make the choice to desegregate. Most importantly, I don't see the value in waiting for the public opinion to change in order for the most preferred way of doing things to occur.

                But, I'm kind of just picking at a dead horse here - I understand your sentiment entirely and in most cases I would agree with you (and Newt!).

                [quote author=FundamentalPrecepts link=topic=4170.msg175697#msg175697 date=1239141632]
                As far as I know, there's no basis for the Supreme Court to hear this case. The case was decided based on Iowa state law, and the Supreme Court doesn't review decisions that are based purely on state law, unless there is somehow a federal question presented. Here there is not.
                [/quote]

                Then it's a non-issue in 2010 - which sucks. Darn.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Iowa goes Liberal

                  [quote author=billyez link=topic=4170.msg175696#msg175696 date=1239140951]
                  ...I really abhor having to agree in any capacity with an argument that forces social change in such a manner, but would schools have been desegregated if the issue had been left to elected representatives? Would the Armed Forces been desegregated if an Executive Decision hadn't forced it to happen? Maybe, but it's rather difficult for me to say that minorities should have to wait for elected representatives to rely on their morality rather than what benefits them in the current political environment. There are situations when the rights of Americans are being infringed flagrantly - in those situations, our preferences should be removed in favor of practicality and a will to get enforce the laws.

                  While I think this is a very correct assumption, I think it's missing a critical point. This presumed "shift" isn't being caused by some litmus test of the public - in fact, if Prop 8 serves as anything, it demonstrates that the public still doesn't favor gay marriage. National polls might show a different tale, but I take those with a grain of salt. The truth is, folks still don't want it to happen in their backyard - that's what Prop 8 demonstrated.

                  The most potent shift isn't in terms of public opinion or how conservatives/liberals view it. The shift is in terms of importance and relevance. How many people actually remember the coverage over Prop 8? Had that vote happened in 2004 we would have heard about it forever. This is a shift forced by circumstances, not by attitudes.

                  So, yes, you're totally correct to say that conservatives and others may no longer see gay marriage as an impotant issue right now. But I think it's wrong to believe that any political leader's views have changed at all. The Democrats aren't going to waste their political capital pushing for it and the Republicans aren't going to waste their's fighitng. It's just not the right card to play at the moment.
                  [/quote]

                  Dude, Proposition 8 got a TON of coverage by any reasonable measure, probably moreso than any of the marriage amendments that were passed in 2004. The movement to overturn also got a lot of (recent) coverage, which is why the California Supreme Court chose to broadcast the argument live. And if Proposition 8 gets overturned, there will be a major uproar from the groups that favored it and probably a recall effort against whichever judges vote to overturn it.
                  Mock Trial with J. Reinhold! Mock Trial! Mock Trial with J. Reinhold!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Iowa goes Liberal

                    [quote author=The Gelf link=topic=4170.msg175698#msg175698 date=1239141962]
                    In any event, my (and Newt's, I gather) position is not that ALL court decisions mandating change are wrong. It's that enacting change through accountable elected officials, when possible, is infinitely preferable to doing it through the courts.
                    [/quote]
                    I completely agree and, on most issues, I'll be right their by your (and Newt's) side. Here's what I wonder, though... what on earth is the Iowa Supreme Court supposed to do when it is presented with the case? If it turns it down, it effectively upholds the District Court's opinion, and we're effectively back in the first place- the courts taking action (in this case, deciding to NOT hear the case) and affecting social change. If it takes the case, as it did, then it has to rule on the law, which it did. I'm trying to see the judicial arrogance here, and I simply don't see it.

                    I've seen it many times before, too, just not here, certainly.
                    We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Iowa goes Liberal

                      [quote author=The Gelf link=topic=4170.msg175695#msg175695 date=1239140494]
                      Why? All he really said was that enacting social change through the People's elected representatives is preferable to doing it through the courts. With that, I agree 100%.
                      [/quote]

                      Eh, it's iffy. When the Yes2Marriage Propositions passed by overwhelming majorities.... Tyranny of the majority is an ugly thing, and sometimes a rational court can override the irrational hate mongering. And voting to legally sanction homosexuals as second-class citizens by effectively making them the only minority banned from a federally recognized contract is nothing but "sophisticated" hate mongering.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Iowa goes Liberal

                        Was in the mood and decided to put some Eminem on my iPod. He couldn't have been more clairvoyant:

                        "But if we can hump dead animals and antelopes, then there's no reason a man and another man can't elope." Well put, Slim.

                        We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Iowa goes Liberal

                          Update from NY:

                          http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...UtsPQD97JNING1
                          We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X