Congratulations Iowa! (only 47 states to go).

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What substantive and incisive commentary!

The miracle of brevity is evidently unknown to you, Cyclo, but that's YOUR problem, not mine. You're so clearly unequipped to operate in any quantitative field, where not only brevity, but also ELEGANCE (mathematically speaking) are prized, that I feel sorry for your bride, and tried to come up with an idea for an occupation for you: maybe you can join Brown-Munoz and write psycho-fiction in his version of Spanish, disowned by Spaniards themselves - not that YOU would know the difference

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What substantive and incisive commentary!

The miracle of brevity is evidently unknown to you, Cyclo, but that's YOUR problem, not mine. You're so clearly unequipped to operate in any quantitative field, where not only brevity, but also ELEGANCE (mathematically speaking) are prized, that I feel sorry for your bride, and tried to come up with an idea for an occupation for you: maybe you can join Brown-Munoz and write psycho-fiction in his version of Spanish, disowned by Spaniards themselves - not that YOU would know the difference

Brandon, actions are considered legal unless they are specifically made illegal. You do not need specific permission from the Constitution or other documents to do whatever you like; on the contrary, you need specific language to BAR something from taking place.

The right denied to people of trans-racial marriage and gay marriage, is to marry the person you love. Now I know that's meaningless to a cold-hearted bastard such as yourself; but it isn't meaningless to them or the rest of us.

Cycloptichorn

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Get educated on the ruling then come back. Don't waste people's time until then Brandon.

T
K
O

In other words, you are unable to refute any of my arguments.

No 9000. The point is that I don't need to waste my time arguing with someone who isn't educated on the ruling. You can say whatever you like here, but it's of no consequence unless it's based on reality.

Why should I waste my time having to correct all the details you have wrong about the history of this and the details you have wrong about the ruling?

Get educated, then come back.

T
K
O

Quote:

and there is no wording in the Iowa State constitution which grants the right to gay marriage.

According to the Iowa Supreme Court, it seems there is such wording in the constitution.

You still haven't read the ruling, have you Brandon?

Our equal protection clause requires more than has been
offered to justify the continued existence of the same-sex marriage ban
under the statute.

civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional
standards of equal protection

We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law.
Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa
Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise
would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people
must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive
justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal
protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2
denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by
the Iowa Constitution.32

Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has
been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding
plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage.

If there's some way in which I substantially misrepresented it, which is pertinent, just spit it out.

The court "passed" the law, because the Iowa state constitution doesn't protect gay marriage as they claimed it does. Because the electorate consistently votes this down, your side did an end run around the voters, which, parenthetically, indicates a lack of respect for democracy.

Would you also say that it is a violation of the "Equal Protection Clause" to not allow unmarried couples the same tax benefits and insurance benefits as married couples?

Diest TKO wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Get educated on the ruling then come back. Don't waste people's time until then Brandon.

T
K
O

In other words, you are unable to refute any of my arguments.

No 9000. The point is that I don't need to waste my time arguing with someone who isn't educated on the ruling. You can say whatever you like here, but it's of no consequence unless it's based on reality.

Why should I waste my time having to correct all the details you have wrong about the history of this and the details you have wrong about the ruling?

Get educated, then come back.

T
K
O

I made an argument, and you countered with, "you don't know what you're talking about," which isn't an argument. Thefore, you forfeit the argument.

You assert that the court didn't take it upon itself to introduce a new law. Very well, find me either:

1. anything in the Iowa Constitution which indicates that there is a right to same sex marriage

or

2. anything in the statute banning gay marriage which grants a right to one group which it denies to another.

My position is that your side has done an end run around the voters because the majority disagrees with you. The court didn't block a law passed by the voters' representatives because it violated the constitution, they blocked the will of the people by pretending that the Constitution says something which it blatantly doesn't say.

Would you also say that it is a violation of the "Equal Protection Clause" to not allow unmarried couples the same tax benefits and insurance benefits as married couples?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Get educated on the ruling then come back. Don't waste people's time until then Brandon.

T
K
O

In other words, you are unable to refute any of my arguments.

No 9000. The point is that I don't need to waste my time arguing with someone who isn't educated on the ruling. You can say whatever you like here, but it's of no consequence unless it's based on reality.

Why should I waste my time having to correct all the details you have wrong about the history of this and the details you have wrong about the ruling?

Get educated, then come back.

T
K
O

I made an argument, and you countered with, "you don't know what you're talking about," which isn't an argument. Thefore, you forfeit the argument.

You didn't make a valid argument though. Your false argument was tailored against things that were incorrect about the ruling and nature of supreme court rulings in general.

It's a waste of my time to get you to the point where you can begin to make your argument. I've forfeited nothing. You haven't even entered the ring yet.

As an example:

Brandon9000 wrote:

You assert that the court didn't take it upon itself to introduce a new law. Very well, find me either:

1. anything in the Iowa Constitution which indicates that there is a right to same sex marriage

or

2. anything in the statute banning gay marriage which grants a right to one group which it denies to another.

Your words show a very juvenile understanding of the EPC, and the test you offer shows that you lack an understanding of the nature of law itself.

You won't find a law with specific language about a Iowa citizen's right to watch pornography either. Laws cannot be tailored as a list of what you CAN do. It would simply be an infinite list. Instead, we define acts that are illegal. The equal protection clause must exist in Iowa's constitution because we live in a republic.

You further go on to embarrass yourself multiple times by referring to the court ruling as creating a new law.

Why would I waste my time on you? You don't have an educated opinion on this matter, and worse, you seem to lack any understanding of how the court works.

I could never get around to making my case to you, because I'd have to dedicate so much time in the beginning (1) correcting your misconceptions about the legal process and (2) reguiding you to what the ruling actually said, not what you THINK it said.

Brandon9000 wrote:

My position is that your side has done an end run around the voters because the majority disagrees with you. The court didn't block a law passed by the voters' representatives because it violated the constitution, they blocked the will of the people by pretending that the Constitution says something which it blatantly doesn't say.

The voters who put this law into effect in 1998 failed to justify how this law could coincide with the EPC. That test was this ruling, the law could not be reconciled in the Iowa court's eyes.

Now, go get educated.

T
K
O

Under the statute in question, everyone was allowed to get married to someone of the opposite sex and no one was allowed to get married to someone of the same sex. This is not a case of granting people different privileges.

I don't thing the law violated an equal protection requirement, since the law never granted a right to one group but forbade it to another group.

I don't thing the law violated an equal protection requirement, since the law never granted a right to one group but forbade it to another group. . . . Under the statute in question, everyone was allowed to get married to someone of the opposite sex and no one was allowed to get married to someone of the same sex.

Millions of dollars in tourism and tax revenue could flow into Iowa as a result of the Iowa Supreme Court's historic decision to legalize same-sex marriage, according to a range of scholars and business people.

The unanimous but controversial ruling announced Friday overturned a 10-year-old ban on same-sex marriage and made Iowa the third state where gay marriage is legal.

Iowa counties will begin to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples as early as this month.

Unlike Connecticut and Massachusetts - the other states that permit gay marriage - Iowa has no nearby competitors for same-sex couples who want to marry.

Businesses could see $160 million in new wedding and tourism spending over the next three years, according to a study from researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles.

"Iowa pretty much has the Midwest all to itself," said Lee Badgett, a University of Massachusetts economist who co-authored the 2008 report. "It's in the middle of a lot of states that have a lot of same-sex couples. It's in a good position."

Budget impact for same-sex marriage
The following figures estimate how much money the state will collect per year from same-sex marriages:

- Income tax: $1,254,000
- Inheritance tax: -$1,391,000 (Iowa would lose money because of a marital deduction for state inheritance taxes)
- Sales tax: $2,668,000 (annually for the first three years)
- Public assistance savings: $2,786,000

TOTAL: $5,317,000 net gain

Source: The Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles

In the case of the statute which was struck down by the court, it really boils down to a definition of marriage.