Amendment eliminates many rights

Jan 21, 2011 Full story: Http 19

Republicans in the Legislature were expected to roll out a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Iowa.

Full Story

“TMA&CRR One Love One Marriage ”

Since: Sep 09

port orange

#1 Jan 21, 2011
if it passes the law suites should be swift every gay person who wishes to marry (in all 50 states) should file a law suit and bankrupt the state and this should be done in any state that has an anti-marriage equality law or constitutional amendment
Won Hung Lo

Philadelphia, PA

#2 Jan 21, 2011
Won have new funny ha ha joke.

Bye bye I.

Ha ha. Won thank everybody. Won hope all person likee. Ha ha.

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#4 Jan 22, 2011
Won Hung Lo wrote:
Won have new funny ha ha joke.
Bye bye I.
Ha ha. Won thank everybody. Won hope all person likee. Ha ha.
Won, shut up and put it in already--while it's still hard!
Homosapian

Minneapolis, MN

#5 Jan 22, 2011
Why are some people, Repubigots, so fervent about their bigotry that they feel the need to put their disgusting bigotry and hate into law?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Jan 22, 2011
If successful, this move will set up a Prop8 type lawsuit in Iowa.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#7 Jan 22, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
If successful, this move will set up a Prop8 type lawsuit in Iowa.
And will also have a hint of the Romer issue as well......not good!!!

You'd think these people would learn, but instead they keep making the same pathetic bad decisions.

The Republican control House should understand that no matter what they want......this type of Discrimination won't be allowed in the Senate.

Let's hope the Republicans in Iowa take the same approach as those in New Hampshire.

Since: Jan 07

Plymouth, MI

#8 Jan 22, 2011
The proposed amendment in Iowa i hardly anything new. 19 states have amendments that ban recognition of anything but one man/one woman marriage - mine included.

Unless things have shifted dramatically since the last round of marriage amendments were adopted, I would expect this one to pass as well if it makes it onto the ballot.

These amendments are easy to pass, and hard to repeal. By way of contrast, protection or legal recognition for gay people is hard to pass, and often easier to repeal.(Marriage in Maine and California, for example)

No one should be surprised that Republicans in Iowa are trying to repeal marriage recognition for same-sex couples, and no one should be surprised when they succeed, either.

“TMA&CRR One Love One Marriage ”

Since: Sep 09

port orange

#9 Jan 22, 2011
Inquisitarian wrote:
The proposed amendment in Iowa i hardly anything new. 19 states have amendments that ban recognition of anything but one man/one woman marriage - mine included.
Unless things have shifted dramatically since the last round of marriage amendments were adopted, I would expect this one to pass as well if it makes it onto the ballot.
These amendments are easy to pass, and hard to repeal. By way of contrast, protection or legal recognition for gay people is hard to pass, and often easier to repeal.(Marriage in Maine and California, for example)
No one should be surprised that Republicans in Iowa are trying to repeal marriage recognition for same-sex couples, and no one should be surprised when they succeed, either.
actually i think if it comes to a vote there's a good chance we will finally win...

Since: Jan 07

Plymouth, MI

#10 Jan 23, 2011
Travis A wrote:
<quoted text>
actually i think if it comes to a vote there's a good chance we will finally win...
Seemingly few people thought we'd lose on Prop 8 in California. Complacency is as much a foe as the people pushing the anti-gay agenda.

I hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#11 Jan 23, 2011
Inquisitarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Seemingly few people thought we'd lose on Prop 8 in California. Complacency is as much a foe as the people pushing the anti-gay agenda.
I hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it.
However, what you missed is that the Iowa Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. To Eliminate this right now, would certainly create another Prop 8 type lawsuit.

If Iowa had NEVER issued a Marriage License to a Same-Sex Couple, then yes, they could add a Constitutional Amendment with little problem and it probably would pass and be hard to repeal........BUT that's no longer the case and over 4,000 Same-Sex Couples have been legally married in Iowa and those can't be undone, which would create a Prop 8 type of situation.

The first thing that would have to happen is that both the House and the Senate would have to pass a bill by a simple majority. That's possible in the House, but it won't even get a vote in the Senate......but for argument sake, let's say it got a simple majority in the Senate as well for 2011. The second thing that would have to take place is another vote in 2012, which both the House and Senate would have to pass by a simple majority. It still could not go to the voters until the NEXT GENERAL ELECTION, which wouldn't be until 2014. By this time Same-Sex Couples would have been legally marrying for over 5 years.

It just isn't going to happen, no matter how hard the GOP would like because even though the House will vote for the Amendment......the Senate isn't going to and that makes it essentially a dead issue for the next couple of years at least.

Hopefully by then we will have California back and have added possibly Rhode Island, Maryland and maybe New York.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#12 Jan 23, 2011
Rose T-H wrote:
<quoted text>
However, what you missed is that the Iowa Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. To Eliminate this right now, would certainly create another Prop 8 type lawsuit.
If Iowa had NEVER issued a Marriage License to a Same-Sex Couple, then yes, they could add a Constitutional Amendment with little problem and it probably would pass and be hard to repeal........BUT that's no longer the case and over 4,000 Same-Sex Couples have been legally married in Iowa and those can't be undone, which would create a Prop 8 type of situation.
The first thing that would have to happen is that both the House and the Senate would have to pass a bill by a simple majority. That's possible in the House, but it won't even get a vote in the Senate......but for argument sake, let's say it got a simple majority in the Senate as well for 2011. The second thing that would have to take place is another vote in 2012, which both the House and Senate would have to pass by a simple majority. It still could not go to the voters until the NEXT GENERAL ELECTION, which wouldn't be until 2014. By this time Same-Sex Couples would have been legally marrying for over 5 years.
It just isn't going to happen, no matter how hard the GOP would like because even though the House will vote for the Amendment......the Senate isn't going to and that makes it essentially a dead issue for the next couple of years at least.
Hopefully by then we will have California back and have added possibly Rhode Island, Maryland and maybe New York.
Agreed. Which is another reason we need the 9th Circuit to rule that Prop 8 violates the constitution by removing a right previously established. While that wouldn't in & of itself overturn other state constitutional amendments, it would set a precedent to prevent states like Iowa from amending their constitution to take away our rights.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#13 Jan 23, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. Which is another reason we need the 9th Circuit to rule that Prop 8 violates the constitution by removing a right previously established. While that wouldn't in & of itself overturn other state constitutional amendments, it would set a precedent to prevent states like Iowa from amending their constitution to take away our rights.
Look, I do agree that the 9th Circuit needs to rule on Prop 8, but my fear is that the CSSC may not give standing to the proponents of Prop 8 and the 9th Circuit will simply dismiss, leaving Judge Walker's ruling in place and that's what will be used as precedent for now........but I could be wrong........either way, I just don't see this Constitutional Amendment taking place in Iowa for awhile and if it does happen, I foresee another Prop 8 type legal lawsuit and challenge.......probably with a very similar result to what we are dealing with now regarding Prop 8.

“TMA&CRR One Love One Marriage ”

Since: Sep 09

port orange

#14 Jan 23, 2011
Inquisitarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Seemingly few people thought we'd lose on Prop 8 in California. Complacency is as much a foe as the people pushing the anti-gay agenda.
I hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it.
the difference is now we have majority support...52% support marriage equality

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15 Jan 23, 2011
Travis A wrote:
<quoted text>
the difference is now we have majority support...52% support marriage equality
But the trick is getting those 52% to the polls. In the past that's been our problem. The anti-gays are EXTREMELY good at getting their supporters to actually vote, whereas many of those who tell a pollster they support same-sex marriage, they don't all actually go out and vote for same-sex marriage.

We probably need at least a polling approval of 60% or more to ensure that we are successful at the polls. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have the vote, but we need to be realistic in our expectations when the polling with within the margin of error, because that "error" tends to go against us every time.

“TMA&CRR One Love One Marriage ”

Since: Sep 09

port orange

#16 Jan 23, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
But the trick is getting those 52% to the polls. In the past that's been our problem. The anti-gays are EXTREMELY good at getting their supporters to actually vote, whereas many of those who tell a pollster they support same-sex marriage, they don't all actually go out and vote for same-sex marriage.
We probably need at least a polling approval of 60% or more to ensure that we are successful at the polls. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have the vote, but we need to be realistic in our expectations when the polling with within the margin of error, because that "error" tends to go against us every time.
we should turn the tables...make the voters vote yes marriage should be between two none related consenting adults or No it shouldn't be recognized at all...and also LIE we should say that the "traditional marriage" said is all about raping kids and incest

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Jan 23, 2011
Travis A wrote:
<quoted text>
we should turn the tables...make the voters vote yes marriage should be between two none related consenting adults or No it shouldn't be recognized at all...and also LIE we should say that the "traditional marriage" said is all about raping kids and incest
We're probably better off sticking to the truth. Their lies will catch up with them eventually.

Since: Jan 07

Ann Arbor, MI

#18 Jan 24, 2011
Rose T-H wrote:
<quoted text>
However, what you missed is that the Iowa Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. To Eliminate this right now, would certainly create another Prop 8 type lawsuit.
On the contrary - I'm well aware of that. I don't think the Prop 8 case will get beyond the standing issue. Walker's ruling doesn't hurt, but I'm not sure how much help it would be if we ended up with a similar case in Iowa.

I was not aware, however, that getting an amendment on to the ballot in Iowa would require multiple votes in their house & senate. So thanks for addressing that. The longer it takes for them to get it onto the ballot, the better for us.

Since: Jan 07

Ann Arbor, MI

#19 Jan 24, 2011
Travis A wrote:
<quoted text>
the difference is now we have majority support...52% support marriage equality
Source? Unless that's a poll of regular Iowa voters, it doesn't mean much. Even then, it's a low enough majority to probably be within the margin of error. It would need to be a much higher number to reflect solid support at the polls for equal marriage.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#20 Jan 24, 2011
Inquisitarian wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary - I'm well aware of that. I don't think the Prop 8 case will get beyond the standing issue. Walker's ruling doesn't hurt, but I'm not sure how much help it would be if we ended up with a similar case in Iowa.
I was not aware, however, that getting an amendment on to the ballot in Iowa would require multiple votes in their house & senate. So thanks for addressing that. The longer it takes for them to get it onto the ballot, the better for us.
Well, you're welcome for the information:)

You might be right about the standing issue, but either way, I believe that Judge Walker's ruling will stand and it could help down the road. I know that when the ISSC made it's ruling on allowing Same-Sex Couples to marry, that they referenced the decision by the CSSC in the re Marriage ruling in May of 2008.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Iowa Government Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Quinnipiac: Little change in Iowa Senate, guber... Oct '14 Ace McMillan 1
Sarah Palin to Headline SHE-PAC Iowa Rally for ... (Apr '14) Oct '14 Eron 26
Jurors to see Iowa prison's graphic films at trial Sep '14 Really 1
AIDS Researchers Among Dead In Malaysian Flight... Jul '14 Money is God 1
La Raza Demands Amnesty Vote from New Maj. Lead... (Jun '14) Jul '14 S K R E W Them 2
McCarthy elected new House majority leader (Jun '14) Jun '14 barefoot2626 34
Capital Journal Daybreak: U.S., Iran Near Talks... (Jun '14) Jun '14 Jeff Brightone 1
More from around the web