Awhile back I wrote a post praising Iowa for banning smoking in bars and restaurants and making fun of them a bit while making fun of Wisconsin as well for not following Iowa’s lead. I grew up on the border of Iowa and Illinois – Back grew up on the Iowa-Wisconsin border - and in my time I’ve done a good bit of making fun of Iowa, I mean, it’s IOWA?!? But they continue to astound me. Having seen Milk and really being taken by the story, I care a bit more about this subject then I might have prior.
Then I saw this exchange between Jon Stewart and Mike Huckabee and thought Stewart nailed it for me. Seriously, watch it. I had intended to write a post on it but I never got around to it.
Then Iowa of all places goes and does it again. This story from their Senate majority leader about his 20 year old daughter says it all:
In my mind they didn’t legalize gay marriage so much as strike down a law that disenfranchised Iowa citizens. Unfortunately, polls seem to point to the topic as polarizing in Iowa – it’s polarizing everywhere – and while it seems like it is secure for 4 to 5 years it will really depend upon a stable Democratic majority. /sigh
~Forth
UPDATE: The Bearded Man linked this in his comment below but I love this scene (as he knows) and I love this show (he knows this, too).
4 responses so far ↓
TheBeardedMan // 7 April 2009 at 10:06 am |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqgD7lGneU
Another little something for you. I think this point is not given enough consideration. The Bible can be a great tool for teaching right and wrong, good and evil; but ultimately it was penned by humans who knew nothing more than what existed in their very small world.
Dani // 9 April 2009 at 8:13 am |
first of all I want to clearly state that I’m not a homophobe. I have a lot of gay friends who sit on both sides of the political fence. With that beings said, I have to strongly disagree with what Iowa did. This matter should be brought forth to the people ie. Vermont. See Vermont did it right, they let the elected State legislature decide and they overturned the governor. Thats how this should be handled. The people of California spoke on Prop 8, yet the 9th Circut Court of Appeals (they’re wonderful bunch of people *insert sarcastic laugh*) is going to decide for the people? These are judges, many of whom are not elected officials. They’re job is to enforce the law not create it. Hence why I agree with Vermont, and disagree with Iowa and CA.
Forth // 9 April 2009 at 9:30 pm |
I’m a little confused then on what a Supreme Court is supposed to do… It struck down a law as unconstitutional. They (unanimously) said , we have a constitution that guarantees equal rights and this law chooses a certain group of people in Iowa and says “except you.” Supreme Courts are not courts the way the lower ones are. They don’t enforce the law (that’s the executive branch bytheway.) The lower courts adjudicate but the supreme courts decide the constitutionality of rulings and the laws.
Here’s another question, why do we do anything any judge tells us to do? None of them are elected. Does that mean nothing they say ever matters? Police officers aren’t elected either? Why do we do what they say? Should we take no orders from a government official that is unelected? You can see by my line of questioning that I’m going to the most absurd representations of this theory.
Supreme Court Justices (in Iowa) are appointed to an eight year term (basically) by the Governor, who gets a list from the legislature. So if the other two branches say these guys are qualified to make this sort of decision, why is it that anytime that decision disagrees with the right judicial activism is decried? What the hell were they supposed to do? Not rule on it? “Oh, um we’re sorry this law – this one in particular -we can’t tell you if its constitutional or not… ”
If they weren’t meant to have to power then change the constitution or regain the legislative body and executive head, get a constitutional amendment and make the withholding of happiness constitutional. And while we’re defending marriage, let’s get an anti-divorce bill in there just to make sure marriage gets the respect it deserves.
Dani // 10 April 2009 at 7:29 am |
Legislative Branch- Makes Laws
Judicial Branch- Enforces Laws
I think the way Vermont did it was right. These are people who are voted into office by people. In my personal opinion I think the courts overstep there bounds on a lot of issues. I’m not saying that the Courts are bad, but I do think we have a lot of activist judges out there who need to re-read the Constitution that they’re sworn to uphold.
Was it right for the Supreme Court to get involved in the DC gun case? Yes, because DC was violating the 2nd Amendment (which btw, according to a CNN report Gun Control support is down to 33%). Is it right for courts to tell us what we can and cannot do in our bedrooms? NO! Thats private. Is it right for the courts to overrule the people when they vote (ie. Prop 8 in CA) NO! The people spoke. Was it right for the Courts to get involved in the 2000 election? Yes, because the claim of “every vote should count” shouldn’t be limited to 3 counties in Florida.
Like I said, I think the way Vermont handled the gay marriage situation was the right way.