3 Iowa Supreme Courst Justices Voted Out

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

All they legally could do was say the law was not constitutional

If they say the law was unconstitutional, does that mean that same-sex marriages still couldn't happen? Why couldn't they?

Wendy P.

That is writing law

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,588]

I don't understand your answer.

If the law is unconstitutional, doesn't that mean it's not a valid law?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I don't understand your answer.

If the law is unconstitutional, doesn't that mean it's not a valid law?

Wendy P.

Correct. Therfor the issue should go back to the legislature to fix

They can stop a law from being enacted or enforced

They can not put a law into place to replace it

There is today no law in Iowa that recognizes same sex marriage

There is a law that states the marriage is between a man and women


The court could order the state to fix the law

It can not define the fix

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Three cheers for Iowa voters!!!!!

People who actually stood up for their beliefs!

They, like you, are on the wrong side of history on this one.

Huh?????
You have a problem with people standing up for their beliefs? I assume yours are different?

I hope this upsets you:

http://www.gaypolitics.com/2010/11/03/record-number-of-lgbt-candidates-elected-to-office/

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[wmw999 2,588]

The law that states that marriage is between a man and a woman is invalid (that's what the court decided). It cannot be enforced.

What law therefore prevents marriages between men and women? The supreme court directed that laws applied equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples. They found that the law that said that heterosexual and homosexual couples had different rights was invalid.

Doesn't that therefore mean that they have the same rights? What valid law still existed to prevent same sex marriages? Or was it just clerks' unwillingness to marry folks, which would probably be illegal also. Kind of like that JP in Louisiana who wouldn't marry mixed-race couples.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

I hope this upsets you:

So, by your own admition, you are intentionally trying to cause unrest.

I thought the forum rules precluded these actions.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The law that states that marriage is between a man and a woman is invalid (that's what the court decided). It cannot be enforced.

What law therefore prevents marriages between men and women? The supreme court directed that laws applied equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples. They found that the law that said that heterosexual and homosexual couples had different rights was invalid.

Doesn't that therefore mean that they have the same rights? What valid law still existed to prevent same sex marriages? Or was it just clerks' unwillingness to marry folks, which would probably be illegal also. Kind of like that JP in Louisiana who wouldn't marry mixed-race couples.

Wendy P.

Had nothing to do with the clerks
They simply followed the orders of the Govenor.

Your statements of what the court ruled are correct

(wether a body agrees with it or not)

But all they can do is order the state to fix the law based on the ruling that states why they invalidated it

That does not make the state obligated to start marring same sex couples at that point

And it may be argued that marriages should have stopped altogether until it is fixed because that law is not valid right now

See what I mean by a mess?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,588]

Quote

That does not make the state obligated to start marring same sex couples at that point

What stops them from marrying same sex couples?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

That does not make the state obligated to start marring same sex couples at that point

What stops them from marrying same sex couples?

Wendy P.

I think better stated would be
should it stop same sex marriages?

I think there is an argument for that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,588]

should what stop same sex marriages?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

should what stop same sex marriages?

Wendy P.

By the fact that the law ( that states marriage is between a man a wormen) was deemed unconstitutional by the Iowa SC

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[livendive 8]

Quote

Correct. Therfor the issue should go back to the legislature to fix

They can stop a law from being enacted or enforced

They can not put a law into place to replace it

There is today no law in Iowa that recognizesprohibits same sex marriage

There iswas an unconstitutional law that statesd the marriage is between a man and women


The court could order the state to fix the law

It can not define the fix

Fixed. The court struck down a law they found unconstitutional. What else are you suggesting they did?

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Correct. Therfor the issue should go back to the legislature to fix

They can stop a law from being enacted or enforced

They can not put a law into place to replace it

There is today no law in Iowa that recognizesprohibits same sex marriage

There iswas an unconstitutional law that statesd the marriage is between a man and women


Fixed. The court could order the state to fix the law

It can not define the fix

The court struck down a law they found unconstitutional. What else are you suggesting they did?

They ordered the state to marry same sex couples

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,588]

So the fact that the law was declared unconstitutional should make it still be in force?

Rush, I realize you're angry about the court stating that same-sex marriages could take place, but it was the only possible result of a law forbidding them being struck down.

If a city has a 10mph speed trap set up and the judge declares it unconstitutional, does that mean that people have to keep going 10mph there?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

So the fact that the law was declared unconstitutional should make it still be in force?

Rush, I realize you're angry about the court stating that same-sex marriages could take place, but it was the only possible result of a law forbidding them being struck down.

If a city has a 10mph speed trap set up and the judge declares it unconstitutional, does that mean that people have to keep going 10mph there?

Wendy P.

No
I am saying it shold not be in force
That is why I stated that there is an argument to stop the state from marrying same sex couples

At least until it passes another law aimed at fixing what the SC said was broken

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Correct. Therfor the issue should go back to the legislature to fix

They can stop a law from being enacted or enforced

They can not put a law into place to replace it

There is today no law in Iowa that recognizesprohibits same sex marriage

There iswas an unconstitutional law that statesd the marriage is between a man and women


The court could order the state to fix the law

It can not define the fix

Fixed. The court struck down a law they found unconstitutional. What else are you suggesting they did?

Where is the new definition of marriage now?
The court doesn not have the right to dictate that. That is what legislation is for.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,588]

What should stop same-sex marriages from happening in Iowa before the legislature has the chance to put a new law in?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

So the fact that the law was declared unconstitutional should make it still be in force?

Rush, I realize you're angry about the court stating that same-sex marriages could take place, but it was the only possible result of a law forbidding them being struck down.

If a city has a 10mph speed trap set up and the judge declares it unconstitutional, does that mean that people have to keep going 10mph there?

Wendy P.

No
I am saying it shold not be in force
That is why I stated that there is an argument to stop the state from marrying same sex couples

At least until it passes another law aimed at fixing what the SC said was broken

What the SC said was broken was the prohibition on same sex marriages. Therefore, that prohibition is not in force.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

What should stop same-sex marriages from happening in Iowa before the legislature has the chance to put a new law in?

Wendy P.

The court already has IMO by declaring the law invalid

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,588]

Why does the court declaring a law invalid mean that it still has to be followed?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Why does the court declaring a law invalid mean that it still has to be followed?

Wendy P.

It doesn't, it means that NOTHING is legal until the paramaters are defined again.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,588]

So no one at all can get married?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

So no one at all can get married?

Wendy P.

To be fair, no, not by Rushmc's line of logic.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[livendive 8]

Quote

Where is the new definition of marriage now?
The court doesn not have the right to dictate that. That is what legislation is for.

The definition of marriage is in the same state now that it was before the unconstitutional law was enacted. The court did not define marriage, they simply told the legislators that they would need to amend the constitution in order to enact a law that runs contrary to current equal protection provisions.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Why does the court declaring a law invalid mean that it still has to be followed?

Wendy P.

It doesn't, it means that NOTHING is legal until the paramaters are defined again.

How so? The legislature crafted a law that the court found unconstitutional. Said law was struck down pending a constitutional amendment that allows it. If your state government passed a law stating that gun ownership must be restricted to .22 caliber and smaller, and the courts found this in violation of the constitution, are you suggesting that all guns should become illegal until the constitution can be amended to restrict them to .22 caliber and smaller?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)