Who would have thought it?

www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-gay-iowa-chicago-web,0,3371156.story




By Rex W. Huppke | Tribune reporter


Gays and lesbians in Chicago and across Illinois were thrilled – even a bit shocked – today when the Supreme Court in neighboring Iowa legalized same-sex marriages.

Rick Garcia, public policy director for Equality Illinois, said undoubtedly many Illinois gay and lesbian couples will be quick to take advantage of the Iowa decision, which should allow same-sex marriages to begin in about three weeks.

"People have traveled to Spain, they've traveled to Mexico and California and Massachusetts and Connecticut to be married," Garica said. "Now they can just jump over the border. Just a couple hour drive and they can go into a state and be married."

You do not have to be a resident of Iowa to receive a marriage license, according to the state's Web site.

62% of the people of Iowa oppose gay marriage according to one story today.  Don't confuse some unelected judges with Iowans as a whole.

I give credit to Vermont.  They're doing it the right way.  Massachusetts, Connecticut and now Iowa had the will of their people and their laws usurped by a few judges.

only a matter of time.

Shocked the hell out of me.

I'm glad though. :)

I would imagine the next step is a consitutional amendment in Iowa.

62% of the people of Iowa oppose gay marriage according to one story today.  Don't confuse some unelected judges with Iowans as a whole.

I give credit to Vermont.  They're doing it the right way.  Massachusetts, Connecticut and now Iowa had the will of their people and their laws usurped by a few judges.


I agree with the court's ruling, but I suspect you're right if the measure goes to referendum in Iowa.

62% of the people of Iowa oppose gay marriage according to one story today.  Don't confuse some unelected judges with Iowans as a whole.

I give credit to Vermont.  They're doing it the right way.  Massachusetts, Connecticut and now Iowa had the will of their people and their laws usurped by a few judges.


Judges are elected!!!  So the rights of a minority can be defeated by a majority?  I can't wait for the day when the present majority is in the minority.  Times are changing . . .

Judges are elected!!!  So the rights of a minority can be defeated by a majority? 

Yes, it is called representive democracy.

Yes, it is called representive democracy.


What if they majority took away your right to own guns or be involved in a religion?  Democracy is a fair weather friend. 

Yes, it is called representive democracy.


No.  Democracy in America is constructed to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.  After all the majority in the past denied me the right to vote, had me in shackles, and sold my child away from me.

No.  Democracy in America is constructed to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.  After all the majority in the past denied me the right to vote, had me in shackles, and sold my child away from me.


Well said.  Thank you for making the point much clearer.

Oh yeah, in some states the "states rights" would not have allowed me to learn to read what you have written.

What if they majority took away your right to own guns or be involved in a religion?  Democracy is a fair weather friend. 



No.  Democracy in America is constructed to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.  After all the majority in the past denied me the right to vote, had me in shackles, and sold my child away from me.


Nevertheless America is a representative democracy with rules of law.  Courts can interpret laws as they see fit.  Higher courts serve as a check and balance.

Representatives elected by the majority can pass laws that override court judgements.  If the court judgements are baed on constitutional principles, either elected representatives or the electorate itself can enact constitutional amendments.

So... at the end of the day... representative democracy means that the majority ultimately controls what is law and what is not.  It does not mean that the laws need to necessarily be "right" by somebody's viewpoint, but that they are anointed by the majority or its representation according to the rules of law set forth.

What if the majority said I could not own my guns?  Well first they would have to find them.  However we do live in a democracy so their decision (presumably in the form of a US constitutional amendment) would have the authority of decided law.

If you want to know what a constitutional gun ban would look like, just see what happened during prohibition.  Likely you would see the same dynamic go down.

Yes, it is called representive democracy.


While I do prefer that most officials are elected, I believe judges and district attorneys should not be elected.

I've also often felt that a jury of peers is inferior to a jury of experts.

One of the biggest flaws of our current system is that juries are often more swayed by emotion than by logic or facts.  A jury of experts would be more qualified to make a ruling, as would appointed judges.  Also, D.A.'s are often no better than glorified politicians.  See the Duke Lacrosse rape case for a perfect example of a D.A. more concerned about getting elected than serving justice.

I think Danoota was saying you got your "representative democracy," but it depends on who REALLY gets to decide who and what gets "represented."
::)

I think Danoota was saying you got your "representative democracy," but it depends on who REALLY gets to decide who and what gets "represented."
::)


True.  While I do prefer that the majority rules most of the time, there are obvious cases where that had to change for society to progress.  (ending slavery, ending segregation, giving women the right to vote, etc.)

It seems like the Justice System is a perfect example where majority should not rule but that instead consistency of law should.

While I do prefer that most officials are elected, I believe judges and district attorneys should not be elected.

I've also often felt that a jury of peers is inferior to a jury of experts.

One of the biggest flaws of our current system is that juries are often more swayed by emotion than by logic or facts.  A jury of experts would be more qualified to make a ruling, as would appointed judges.   Also, D.A.'s are often no better than glorified politicians.  See the Duke Lacrosse rape case for a perfect example of a D.A. more concerned about getting elected than serving justice.


I agree with the judges and DA's not being elected.  The jury of experts would be troubling.  It is tough enough keeping track of judges who are bought and paid for, to have professional juries would only open up a whole new area of abuse. I believe most people on juries are reasonably able to assess the information given.  They make mistakes, but that would happen no matter who was sitting in judgement. 

I agree with the judges and DA's not being elected.  The jury of experts would be troubling.  It is tough enough keeping track of judges who are bought and paid for, to have professional juries would only open up a whole new area of abuse. I believe most people on juries are reasonably able to assess the information given.  They make mistakes, but that would happen no matter who was sitting in judgement. 


My support for juries of experts is due to the fact that the average person is not an expert in forensics or law.  Explaining the finer points of an investigation to the average person is like trying to teach a cat to read.

The average person really is kind of dumb and easily manipulated by emotion.

My support for juries of experts is due to the fact that the average person is not an expert in forensics or law.  Explaining the finer points of an investigation to the average person is like trying to teach a cat to read.

The average person really is kind of dumb and easily manipulated by emotion.


According to a law professor of mine...


If you are really guilty, ask for a jury trial
If you know that you are innocent, ask for a bench trial

The average person really is kind of dumb and easily manipulated by emotion.


Hey, I resemble that remark!
:\'(

My support for juries of experts is due to the fact that the average person is not an expert in forensics or law.  Explaining the finer points of an investigation to the average person is like trying to teach a cat to read.

The average person really is kind of dumb and easily manipulated by emotion.


A quote from Men In Black which I tend to agree with:

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

Carry on with your convo. :D

Nevertheless America is a representative democracy with rules of law.  Courts can interpret laws as they see fit.  Higher courts serve as a check and balance.

Representatives elected by the majority can pass laws that override court judgements.  If the court judgements are baed on constitutional principles, either elected representatives or the electorate itself can enact constitutional amendments.

So... at the end of the day... representative democracy means that the majority ultimately controls what is law and what is not.  It does not mean that the laws need to necessarily be "right" by somebody's viewpoint, but that they are anointed by the majority or its representation according to the rules of law set forth.

What if the majority said I could not own my guns?  Well first they would have to find them.  However we do live in a democracy so their decision (presumably in the form of a US constitutional amendment) would have the authority of decided law.

If you want to know what a constitutional gun ban would look like, just see what happened during prohibition.  Likely you would see the same dynamic go down.




"Sometimes a majority simply means that all the fools are on the same side."

We'll get there someday guys.  One step at a time. 

"Sometimes a majority simply means that all the fools are on the same side."



Boy have I seen that in action!
::)

"Sometimes a majority simply means that all the fools are on the same side."

We'll get there someday guys.  One step at a time. 



Boy have I seen that in action!
::)


http://www.contactpressimages.com/portfolios/leibovitz/main_pix/leib_port6b.jpg

http://www.contactpressimages.com/portfolios/leibovitz/main_pix/leib_port6b.jpg


Karma for that one!

Being a heterosexual young man from Southeastern Iowa, I can not be happier about this decision that Iowa has made.  I am very proud and honored of my state for their fair decision of allowing homosexuals the same treatment as heterosexuals.

I've found that the majority of people who have a problem with homosexuals recieving the right to marriage, and with homosexuality in general are Christians.  Christians who theorize and preach values such as acceptance, love, concern and care but yet practice alienation, hatred, intolerance and superiority in forms of segregation over opposing beliefs.

You know if the real problem here is terminology then that I respect.  If Christians are Hell bent on homosexuals not using the term "marriage" within their civil union because the word is from the Bible, meaning, "between a man and a woman" then that's fine.  I don't have a problem with two homosexuals getting together, having the same rights as a heterosexual couple but yet not using the term "marriage"

But for most, that's not the issue.  The issue is, they don't want to see two people of the same sex in a loving/romantic/sexual relationship. 

My question to Christians is simply this.  Do you chose who you're attracted to?  I know from a personal standpoint I don't chose who I'm attracted to.  I didn't consciously wake up one morning and tell myself that I'm going to have a thing for cute little redheads with humerous personalities.  I also didn't force myself into being unattracted to obsesity.  Fact of the matter is, plain and simply,  I'm subconsciously attracted to redheads and I'm unattracted to obesity.

Gays are the same way.  They aren't attracted to people of the same sex because they chose to be that way, they just are. 

So here's what really puzzles me.  Most Christians come to the agreement that the "sin" that their God hates the most is lying.  God hates to be lied to.  Well wouldn't a homosexual, who is homosexual, who feels homosexual,  be lying to God and lying to other people if he or she forced themselves into a heterosexual relationship?  They'd be living a lie.

So who does God hate more?  Homosexuals or Liars?  All sin is equally bad in his eyes?  Isn't this a lose/lose situation?

I'm not saying one way or another that there is a God or there isn't a God.  What I am saying is that people need to take a step back and realize that Christianity while it has done some very good things in this world,  that I will not deny, is also the driving force behind such factions as the KKK.

Being a heterosexual young man from Southeastern Iowa, I can not be happier about this decision that Iowa has made.  I am very proud and honored of my state for their fair decision of allowing homosexuals the same treatment as heterosexuals.

I've found that the majority of people who have a problem with homosexuals recieving the right to marriage, and with homosexuality in general are Christians.  Christians who theorize and preach values such as acceptance, love, concern and care but yet practice alienation, hatred, intolerance and superiority in forms of segregation over opposing beliefs.

You know if the real problem here is terminology then that I respect.  If Christians are Hell bent on homosexuals not using the term "marriage" within their civil union because the word is from the Bible, meaning, "between a man and a woman" then that's fine.  I don't have a problem with two homosexuals getting together, having the same rights as a heterosexual couple but yet not using the term "marriage"

But for most, that's not the issue.  The issue is, they don't want to see two people of the same sex in a loving/romantic/sexual relationship. 

My question to Christians is simply this.  Do you chose who you're attracted to?  I know from a personal standpoint I don't chose who I'm attracted to.  I didn't consciously wake up one morning and tell myself that I'm going to have a thing for cute little redheads with humerous personalities.   I also didn't force myself into being unattracted to obsesity.   Fact of the matter is, plain and simply,  I'm subconsciously attracted to redheads and I'm unattracted to obesity.

Gays are the same way.  They aren't attracted to people of the same sex because they chose to be that way, they just are. 

So here's what really puzzles me.  Most Christians come to the agreement that the "sin" that their God hates the most is lying.   God hates to be lied to.   Well wouldn't a homosexual, who is homosexual, who feels homosexual,  be lying to God and lying to other people if he or she forced themselves into a heterosexual relationship?   They'd be living a lie.

So who does God hate more?  Homosexuals or Liars?   All sin is equally bad in his eyes?   Isn't this a lose/lose situation?

I'm not saying one way or another that there is a God or there isn't a God.   What I am saying is that people need to take a step back and realize that Christianity while it has done some very good things in this world,  that I will not deny, is also the driving force behind such factions as the KKK.







http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/happy/applause.gif

I wanted to give you your first karma but someone beat me to it.


And welcome to the boards. 



Cat

http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/happy/applause.gif

I wanted to give you your first karma but someone beat me to it.


And welcome to the boards. 



Cat


Thank you.

I am happy to be here.

I was talking on yahoo chat rooms with someone and saying that I want to go to a board where I can talk about issues with people.  She said this is a good place to start.

Anyone up for talking about History?  That's a subject I enjoy a lot.

Thank you.

I am happy to be here.

I was talking on yahoo chat rooms with someone and saying that I want to go to a board where I can talk about issues with people.   She said this is a good place to start.

Anyone up for talking about History?  That's a subject I enjoy a lot.



There are quite a few History buffs around here (myself included). You may want to check out the Before The 70s, section. http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?board=2.0 



Cat

Thank you.

I am happy to be here.

I was talking on yahoo chat rooms with someone and saying that I want to go to a board where I can talk about issues with people.   She said this is a good place to start.

Anyone up for talking about History?  That's a subject I enjoy a lot.


You said the "H" word!!!

Oh another history buff.  What eras are you fond of?  I'm a Civil War buff, hence my name. (After Union General John F. Reynolds and the date of the battle of Gettysburg)

*takes deep breath and a puff of her inhaler*

Welcome to the boards. :)

You said the "H" word!!!

Oh another history buff.  What eras are you fond of?  I'm a Civil War buff, hence my name. (After Union General John F. Reynolds and the date of the battle of Gettysburg)

*takes deep breath and a puff of her inhaler*

Welcome to the boards. :)


Actually Reynolds, I'm a fan of all War history.  As far as the Civil War goes I can keep up with you in the big points and big concepts.  If you want to get into details, we're going to have to switch to WWI, WWII or The Cold War.

I am more than happy to talk about the Civil War though, just as long as you don't expect anything more than the major battles, the major names and overall concept.

Actually Reynolds, I'm a fan of all War history.   As far as the Civil War goes I can keep up with you in the big points and big concepts.  If you want to get into details, we're going to have to switch to WWI, WWII or The Cold War.

I am more than happy to talk about the Civil War though, just as long as you don't expect anything more than the major battles, the major names and overall concept.


i just posted a crazed rant about world war ii the other night!

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=36660.msg1970097#msg1970097

Let's hope that this is the beginning of the end for all of the other forms of marriage discrimination that are out there in Iowa.

Let's hope that this is the beginning of the end for all of the other forms of marriage discrimination that are out there in Iowa.


Iowa's kind of a weird state.  We don't have a lot of Big Cities in Iowa.  Des Moines being our largest, is rather dinky in comparisson to even Kansas City.  If you notice, traditionally states that are small town dominated, like Iowa are generally strong right and stick to the conservative views.

Our most liberal city in the state, I believe in Iowa City.  That's where you see the most support behind gay marriage, but even Iowa City has it's homophobics.   

I don't condone homosexuality as being any better or any worse than heterosexuality.  I just plain and simply believe that two people of mutual love and consent ought to have a right to be together. 

Being with another man is something that I'd never want to do, but I've come to realize that not everyone thinks the same way I do. 

Iowa's kind of a weird state.   We don't have a lot of Big Cities in Iowa.  Des Moines being our largest, is rather dinky in comparisson to even Kansas City.   If you notice, traditionally states that are small town dominated, like Iowa are generally strong right and stick to the conservative views.

Our most liberal city in the state, I believe in Iowa City.   That's where you see the most support behind gay marriage, but even Iowa City has it's homophobics.   

I don't condone homosexuality as being any better or any worse than heterosexuality.   I just plain and simply believe that two people of mutual love and consent ought to have a right to be together.   

Being with another man is something that I'd never want to do, but I've come to realize that not everyone thinks the same way I do.   


You seem like a very open minded person. 

I have a Ph. D. in Latin American History (Rutgers U, 1975) and taught history until I retired a few years ago - early retirement.

Welcome.

You seem like a very open minded person. 

I have a Ph. D. in Latin American History (Rutgers U, 1975) and taught history until I retired a few years ago - early retirement.

Welcome.


Well we all have our biasis.  I suppose you get me on a certain subject, you'll find me a bit more opinionated.  I try to keep an open mind about most issues though.

Thank you for welcoming me aboard, Don Carlos.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe Iowa City was actually one of the first cities to pass anti-discrimination laws for gays, way back in the 1970's. It's also very artsy and literary. My older brother went to college there, and it's a really great city!

People tend to group Iowa in with Nebraska and Kansas and the other conservative breadbasket states, but culturally, I think it's more like Minnesota and Michigan - generally liberal in kind of a blue-collar way. At least, that's my general impression of it.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe Iowa City was actually one of the first cities to pass anti-discrimination laws for gays, way back in the 1970's. It's also very artsy and literary. My older brother went to college there, and it's a really great city!

People tend to group Iowa in with Nebraska and Kansas and the other conservative breadbasket states, but culturally, I think it's more like Minnesota and Michigan - generally liberal in kind of a blue-collar way. At least, that's my general impression of it.


Never been there, but I understand it's an enclave of hipness in the prairie.  Kenneth Gaburo (1926--1993) taught music at the university there. I love his work!
8)