In truth, Supreme Court judges aren't supposed to vote the way they "feel."

They are supposed to review all evidence given (without bias), look to prior court precedence, and then make a ruling on whether or not they believe the law in question violates the Constitution or not.

Personal "feelings" are not supposed to be a part of their decision.

In fact, if I recall correctly, at least one of the judges handing down the ruling on that particular case didn't agree with same-sex marriage. However, that judge ruled the law unconstitutional because -- among other things -- NO compelling evidence was given that same-sex couples harmed anyone (including children), and the Iowa Constitution specifically states that you can't discriminate against people due to -- among other things -- sexual preferences.

So the only way appointing new judges to the Iowa Supreme Court is going to reverse that decision is if it is re-heard, and new evidence (which can be substantiated) showing that homosexuality harms society can be introduced. Since there IS no such evidence, the court will not even allow the case to be re-heard.

Exactly.

And the same people who are now calling for a public vote before allowing same-sex marriage were oddly quiet when the ban was put in-place without a public vote....

I agree Jan. There are times when decisions will be made that I may not agree with by the newly appointed judges but they are required to follow the law! Great comment

They have the right to adore, commune with, contract with anyone they choose. they do not have the right to demand benefits designed to enourage the expansion of, increase of the number of taxable assets, By definition... they are biologically incapable. The SC overstepped... the LAW was passed by the Legislature.... IF it was deemed to be problematic.... it should have been returned to the Legislature.
The Court is NOT EMPOWERED to CHANGE the Law.

Jeff J., The Supreme Court did NOT CHANGE the law. They did their job by determining that the law, as written, was unconstitutional. And, what in the world do you mean by "they are biologically incapable?"

Okay, Julie... lets go down that road... there is no prohibition for gay's getting married... they just need to marry somebody of the opposite sex. The concept of "marriage" is, and always has been to promote the benefits of the family structure, to insure that product of procreation has the best chance of surviving. Our tax code, and survivor benefits were put in place to encourage procreation.
Some say to enhance the survivability of the human race, others say to increase the number of taxable assets to insure revenue flow for the government.

Gay, or Lesbian... BY DEFINITION... diminish the positive outcomes of the act of procreation.
For that reason... do not meet the standards to enjoy the financial benefits put in place by our government.

You want equity... deny the financial benefits put in place to promote child creation for those who cannot... or remove those same benefits currently being given to people that DO have the capability to produce offspring.

You see Julie... this Crusade has nothing to do with Love and everything to do with monetary benefits.

Gee, Jeff J., my husband and I were childless by choice. Where does that leave OUR marriage in your *rosy* no-love-allowed, wedlock-for-tax-breaks-only scenario. I guess you would have made it illegal for us to marry?! Adoption should be illegal too, I guess. What about widows or widowers who are beyond child-bearing age? Nope, can't get married if you can't have children! The young married couple that can't conceive? Annul that marriage! I'll say it flat out...your reasoning is dumb.

Jeff J ... should heterosexual people be allowed to get married if they are unwilling or unable to have children? Should they be denied "benefits designed to encourage the expansion of taxable assets"? Procreation is way overrated and would not seem a legitimate basis for defining marriage ... the world has too mouths to feed as it is. Besides, same-sex couples can adopt children whose biological parents are unfit/unable to care for them ... which is a win-win! Are you opposed to same-sex marriages on moral or monetary grounds? The court did not overstep its bounds in interpreting the law, but haters seem hell-bent on discriminating against others simply because they don't meet their self-righteous criteria. Divisive and sad ...

Jeff J, you're not being honest. You want to deny same-sex couples the civil right of marriage. Why?

You cannot offer a single defense of your position which respects constitutional precedent or acknowledges this is a secular republic where we are free to live our lives without being hindered by sectarian mores being imposed on us through the law.

How can you say you are defending the "sanctity" of marriage when you propose that gays and lesbians can enter into sham contracts with people of the opposite sex whom they do not love?

LOL both of you... your protestations exhibit circular reasoning.

FACT: The Benefits, in place, were put there for exactly the reasons I stated.

The DRIVE for extension of those benefits to those unable, by definition, to meet the the purpose for the benefits is equality?

You are being driven by emotion. The concept of Love. The PUBLIC commitment to another... has NOTHING to do with State Recognition. State Recognition, licensing, has the purpose of revenue collection... the fee.... and, to prevent abnormalities that occur from CHILD BIRTH resulting form close relatives joining(antiquated, but there), and protection from STD's. It has NOTHING to do with promotion of Love and Commitment.

You can raise all the strawdogs you want about, childless couples, old widowers, infertility, whatever. No one is saying the marriage has to annulled... the BENEFITS were put in place to promote procreation. IF, your life style biologically precludes that.. then you DO NOT QUALIFY for the benefits.

Again... this drive by the LGBT community has NOTHING to do with LOVE... everything to do with monetary benefits.

Your post makes absolutely no sense, Jeff J.

*Disgusted sigh*

Jeff, just because Bob Vander Plaats accuses proponents of retention of being "emotional" does not lend the charge credibility or weight. This is a civil rights issue, and as the Iowa court argued, yes, there are monetary and nonmonetary benefits to marriage. You still haven't explained why gays and lesbians can be excluded from those benefits consistent with the Iowa and US constitutions.

Bob Vander Plaats is Iowa's equivalent of Alcibiades, just without the eloquence. Invading Syracuse was a bad idea, but that didn't prevent many Athenians from being snookered. Similarly, Vander Plaats cannot make a case based in secular law, but that hasn't prevented him from snookering many Iowans.

Iowans like YOU...

Jeff J. said, at 10:35 am on Sunday, October 14, 2012
"The SC overstepped... the LAW was passed by the Legislature.... IF it was deemed to be problematic.... it should have been returned to the Legislature.
The Court is NOT EMPOWERED to CHANGE the Law."

The court did NOT "change the law." The court only struck down the law as being unconstitutional. Which is EXACTLY it's job.

The legislature, at any time, could have done a couple of things. They could have attempted to reword the law to make it fit within the framework of the Iowa Constitution. Or they could have started the process for an amendment to the State Constitution.

They didn't try to re-word it because they understood that there was no way to reword it where it wouldn't be in violation of the Iowa Constitution. Discrimination is discrimination.

They didn't make much of an effort to get the process of an amendment going because they understood that the wording of any such amendment was only going to make things worse.

"RESOLVED: The Constitution of the State of Iowa shall be amended to prohibit discrimination in all cases OTHER THAN homosexuality." Since amending the Constitution is so difficult, perhaps we should have added "and any other groups we may, at some future time, decide we don't like" as well?

Read my posts people... the State has no concern for the "sanctity of marriage," the State does not care if the two people love each other. The State has NO interest in the benefits of marriage, save one. To encourage the family structure and procreation
The State has extended benefits to those indivuals that are CAPABLE of having children.

You want equity... press to remove the discriminatory preference displayed by the State. Remove the monetary benefits extended to married people. Then I have no problem. You want your hand in my pocket because you have an agenda for State Validation of your life style... the creation of a Class.... based on personal choice, I will fight you every step of the way. I on't care if John wants to marry Steve as long as you don't expect me to cover some future expense, because your position is you are "married."

My position has NOTHING to do with religion... it has to do with your drive for monetary benefits based on your choice. There is NOTHING you can't have with a civil contract, arranged between two parties.... that married couples have.... with the exception of survivor benefits and child deductions. Oner supported by your neighbor's taxes... the other, an avoidance of paying taxes..

When you want to bring an HONEST dialogue, let me know. IF you think that State recogition of your commitment to another is important to the relationship, you live in a dream world.

LOL! I bet you're a blast at weddings, Jeff J.!

Jeff J., should heterosexual parents of adopted children receive tax credits for their having adopted children? Should I, as a childless widow, have received death benefits after my husband died? You know... like an insurance policy, or collecting upon his surving spouse benefits or Social Security? Would you disallow a gay person to visit their partner in the hospital? What about same sex couples making medical decisions for their partners? Do you believe single people should adopt? If not, why not?

Face it, Jeff, you're losing this argument.

Yes, extending the privileges and rights associated with civil marriage does extend social recognition to same-sex couples. I get it: you cannot stand that idea. Your opposition to same-sex marriage is just as irrational, and constitutionally wrong, as the opposition many had to interracial marriage when the Loving v. Virginia decision was handed down.

You're wrong, and on the wrong side of history, Jeff. Get over it. And yes, American christians who oppose gay civil rights and same-sex marriage are the American Taliban.

Hear about the Burlington preacher who announced, FROM THE PULPIT, that he wanted to "slap" one of the women in his congregation? Does that make you proud?

Klinzman---
LOL Interracial Marriages did/does involve Cival Rights. We had a Class of citizens being discriminated against.That Class distinction was RACE. You demanding CLASS stauts because of your choice holds no water. Again... the Crusade to award a class distinction to those that suffer gender confusion is a joke.

A Hint--- There are ONLY TWO genders. Male and female.

There isn't any argument for me to lose. I understood perfectly from your first post... You prefer boys, while I prefer women. The OPINIONS you have cited by various Judges, in various cases are going to do nothing to convince me that the "public ritual" you and your partner want to experience, professing your undying love and devotion to each other, is a marriage. That endeavor is one that is restricted to a man and a woman, committed to a Union, for the purpose of having children.

Wow! Jeff, why do you assume I am gay? You are making the same mistake that opponents of les/bi/gay rights have been making about me for almost 30 years. I support black civil rights, but that's not because I'm black!

Gays and lesbians are a class. Go ahead and dismiss judicial opinions, but those opinions, based on trained and experienced lawyers interpreting the law, are normative of what the law is. Those opinions are based on professional experience and legal authority, unlike yours, which are unfounded and based on, well, nothing except your prejudice against gays and lesbians.

BTW, you did know homosexual behavior has been observed in some 1500 animal species? What I find hilarious is the description some animal behaviorists use to describe bighorn rams who do NOT engage in homosexual coupling: "effeminate!" Seems THOSE rams wind up at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy, and have the lowest probabilities of mating and passing their genes on!

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

I think Jeff J. is living in the twelfth century.

How sadly narrow-minded that vote was. It is not the justices job to get out and campaign to be retained. It is YOUR job to be paying attention to the issues on which the are making decisions, and to know enough about Iowa's Constitution and the law to decide if those they are making have been appropriate.

In large measure judges are prohibited from engaging in political discourse by Iowa Riles of Judicial Conduct. The can not solicit campaign funds. They can not become beholden to any one person/contributor and give up impartiality. This makes Iowa Justice good. Keep it that way.

What and not do the due diligence to find out who they are and what they stand for? That does not sound like you Joe......

I agree Joe, why should we vote for them blindley? They are not supossed to vote thier fellings, they are supossed to vote by the constitution. Or are we supossed to research each and every judge before voting? Who has time for that?

Oh, of course... Our 'Christian forefathers' you say?

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion”
John Adams,
Contributor to the Declaration of Independence
1st Vice-President of the United States
2nd President of the United States
Father of the 6th President of the United States

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
Thomas Jefferson
Author of the Declaration of Independence
3rd President of the United States

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."
Benjamin Franklin

Now, when you say 'forefathers', do you mean those from the Mayflower who arrived and set about doing pretty much nothing but attempting to increase their wealth? Because if you mean our FOUNDING Fathers who secured our independence and built our government, you are sadly mistaken.

Several of the Founding Fathers were DEISTS, not THEISTS. They believed 'a god' must have created us, but they certainly did not follow the tall tales, mythology, or dogma of the Judaic 'God' born out of Canaanite mythology.

Also, CatchMyEye, based-on your statement regarding your Bible banning gay marriage, can we then assume:

You do not eat shellfish?
You do not eat pork?
If male, you do not 'round the corners of your beard'?
If female, you do not 'adorn' yourself with jewelry or flattering clothing?
You believe a woman should be stoned to death if found to not be a virgin at marriage?
You think that rabbits chew their cud? (they don't....)

The list can go on and on and on....

Absolutely! And if "procreation" is a requirement for marriage, what about those who cannot or choose not to have children? Marriage is a legal partnership; let churches decide semantics for how their faith of choice recognizes such unions ... where is the love?!

Ditto that, Barbara!

LOL out-of-state-activists?

Who do you think it is that is pushing this Gay Agenda down our throats??

The name Tim Gill mean anything to you?

Tim Gill the "Quark" guy? I used that page layout software for years and years!

Big difference, Jeff. Lambda Legal came in here to expand the circle of freedom, and you conveniently omit that all 12 plaintiffs in Varnum v. Brien are Iowans. Groups like Family Research Council and National Organization for Marriage want to destroy the independence of Iowa's judiciary to diminish our freedoms.

Let's see, I'll gladly identify with an out-of-state gay rights group over people who have rightly been labelled "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Let's see, wasn't it people on YOUR side who proposed kidnapping kids who have been adopted by same-sex couples?

That's not love you're preachin', pardner...

Jeff... Where in any of my posts am I preaching "Love?"

You want to create a "class" in our society based on personal choices... With that :class" you want to demand equity and scream discrimination if others don't want to comply Canda is prosecuting a Minister for preaching from the Bible in his church, and you demand that it be classified as "hate speech." In California they are running a dversity program in a school district based on "Why Johnny has Two Daddies, " to Kindergartners. You want to explain to me why it's necessary to indoctrinate five year olds with your sexual preference agenda? You thinking they have already determined whether they are straight or gay, at five? Parents ARE NOT being allowed to prohibit their child from attending the presentation.

You say you want tolerance... Your actions scream Indoctrination and Validation

It ain't tolerance your preachin', pardner

Jeff J, religion affiliation is a "choice," and is protected under civil rights law. Strange how many evangelical christian preachers want to have it both ways: they want to enjoy the benefits of being exempted from taxation, meaning you and me subsidize their operations by providing them municipal services they don't pay for through property taxes, yet they now want to defy federal law by endorsing electoral candidates and ballot issues.

I dismiss the evidence you cite as being dishonestly presented. I'll go further: it is radical religious hate groups like the American Family Association, National Organization for Marriage, and the Family Research Council which want to impose indoctrination by opposing anti-bullying policies which would protect gay and lesbian kids from bullying by junior members of the fundamentalist American Taliban.

What aren't you griping about THAT!?

American Taliban?? How ridiculous are you going to get?

I'll stipulate that your are "different." I don't have a problem with that. You seem to.
I could care less if you want to spend your life with Johnny.... doesn't concern or bother me at all. I don't adhere to religous dogma... so take your rant about religion to somebody that cares.

As for bullies... I was taught growing up that I had to stand up for myself... I might get my ass whipped, but they'd think twice about trying me again. You didn't get that memo, huh? Your "school protection programs" are robbing a lot of kids some very important lessons about life.

My suggestion to you is... Be a Man... whatever that means in your dialect... Recognize your strengths, your weaknesses... understand that Life isn't fair, and your happiness is dictated by your ability to deal with it. Quit thinking that someone else is going to make it all better for you.

Wow, Jeff, you're coming unglued! I've been married for 32 years: why did you assume I'm gay? And why are you opposed to school programs which deal with bullying?

Why in the world would you always vote no? Do you think all justices are incompetent? What would it take to get you to vote to retain a justice?

The ONLY intelligent approach... OR... we end up with life-time Judges, the opposite of what OUR Judicial Format designed to prevent.

So, Jeff, are you going to demand the impeachment of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, since they have lifetime appointments and also have a pattern of NOT recusing themselves?

I understand the pretense of "lifetime appointments.' Hasn't seemed to accomplish the task, has it. NO ONE should be empowered to hold a lifetime position.

All of you have FAILED to address the issue.

The Judges DID their job... right up to the point where THEY failed to return the Law with advice to the Legislature.

At that point, their decison became political.
The "System" became adulterated when Gronstal... a Paid Lacky of Tim Gill... made the determination that NO CORRECTIVE Legislation would be considered on the floor of the Senate.

The process of correcting/changing the Constitutional Construct of the State is being PREVENTED by the seven Judges and the Senate Majority Leader.

The RIGHTS of the People are being denied by 8 people.

We CANNOT touch Gronstal, unless we live in his Senate District... Tim Gill has gone out of his way to prevent that. We CAN voice our opinion of the 7 judges that have opted to restrain our Rights in providing governmental oversight.

Jeff, you know nothing about the role of the courts. The Iowa Supreme Court did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do: it struck a law which was in conflict with the Iowa and US constitutions. The Iowa Supreme Court DID return the law to the legislature. It's right there in Varnum v. Brien: have YOU read the decision?

The ONLY constitutional remedy is to amend the Iowa constitution. Chris Rants, who opposes same-sex marriage but has also voted to retain Wiggins, said there was insufficient support in the legislature to amend the constitution. You're being a sophist here. You are on the losing side of this issue, and you're just mad because you cannot, by fiat, write your sectarian morality into the law.

Jeff, you cannot provide ONE reason to show how same-sex marriage diminishes your freedom. You only want to deny freedom to others. As the original Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, said, peoople who would deny freedom to others don't deserve it themselves.

Think about that...

I haven't put myself in favor denying anyone anything.... except access to my pocket.

Push for Legislation removing the monetary benefits to married couples... I'll jump on your bandwagon.

When you choose to redefine marriage, for the sole purpose of accessing those benefits... you are being less than honest.

I'm being perfectly honest, Jeff. You're being unreasonable.

What next: are you going to demand that public libraries only pay for books you approve of? Public schools can only teach subjects and perspectives which meet your narrow ideological criteria? Are you going to want to raid university libraries and burn every copy of Marx, Darwin, Bertrand Russell, Rousseau, etc, because you don't want to subsidize ideas you abhor?

Gay and lesbian couples deserve the civil right of entering into a marriage contract. Their doing so does nothing to diminish youir freedom. If you want to stew in resentment of their "getting into" your pocketbook, tough. Deal with it.

When you correct the tax code so that I don't have to foot the bill for you... then you have the right to discuss my freedoms. Until that time... live with the choices you've made in life.

*Evil laughter*

Jeff, you do know your taxes pay my salary, right!? BTW, I will be teaching a unit, soon, focused on Varnum v. Brien.

*More evil laughter*

Does that mean you are in favor of censoring Gronstal for refusing to allow a marriage amendment on the floor? To allow the people of Iowa, with a vote, to determine whether a marriage should be limited to one man, one woman?

Wrong, Jeff. You don't get to vote on who does, and does not, have rights.

Oh but we do, Klinzman... it IS entirely appropriate for the Legislature to say to the SC... take your OPINION and go play on the highway. Pass legislation that is "non-reviewable." Let Tim Gill foot the bill and take it to the US SC.

That's your goal anyway.... lets get it started.

BTW... the Congress has the SAME capabilities.

I agree, Gayle. He must be a control freak.

The name Tim Gill mean anything to you?

Ya Jeff everyone should have equal protection. Brother and sister should be allowed to marry as long as they are 18 and older. Why be a biggot??

Once again, you present us with a red herring. You cannot offer a single rational reason, founded in constititional law, which prevents two consenting adults from marrying each other.

Jack, there is no way to reasonably compare a gay or lesbian couple with an incestuous one. BTW, the Bible DOES approve the incestuous relationships betwen Lot and his daughters, and Noah and his. Funny how christians (and YOU) don't cite THOSE scriptures!

Jeff... I just said don't be a biggot Christian hater or hypocrite. Let 1st cousins marry and brother and sister. Let them keep the family lines PURE. You claim every argument except your own as a "red herring". I like staw man better because that is what Obama is doing to scare people into voting for him. Just like your gay marriage argument is a staw man. No substance and no reason to allow a marriage between two men or two women. It is some perceived right instead of a privilege. Next, you will take my land because someone else has none and say it is their right to own free land not a privilege to pay for it.

Okay, Jack, I'll be by to take your house. Maybe I'll let you sleep in the garage...

Sadly, you are misinformed... Gronstal... a paid lacky of Tim Gill prevented ANY consideration of an Amendment to the Constitution.

It is good to know there is intelligent thought being put into the issue by folks such as yourself, Jack F. In your world, then, we would have no justices at all? Then what happens? I think you need to plan ahead a bit better.

Jo... The plan (ahead) is simple... Appoint another judge or judges until they do what they are required, interpret the law not make the laws. Simple.

Since most people agree that is exactly what's happening now, I guess this all worked out! We really HAVE reached agreement! It's nice when discussions end this way. Thank you! :)

James, there was no involvement by any intelligence in the "design" of mammalian reproduction. However, there IS an evolutionary purpose in the appearance of homosexual coupling in some 400 species, including humans: creating bonds between individuals and social cohesion, which improves the chances for species' success. Sex: it's not just for reproduction anymore!

Baloney, Julia. You have obviously bought Vander Plaats's propaganda hook, line, and sinker, and don't realize you have been duped by how the anti-Wiggins campaign lied by yanking something Wiggins said out of context.

If we used your reasoning, interracial ,marriages may still be illegal. The US Supreme Court did exactly what the Iowa court did: struck a law that was unconstitutional. Why do you want to deny gays and lesbians civil rights, and why do you think our rights can be compromised by the legislature?

LOL Common Law, Nature's Law, God's Law.... ALL pre-date Your Constitution.

The concept that "Marriage" NEEDS to be defined by government is ludicrous.

This whole movement has NOTHING to do with Rights and everything to do with Monetary Benefits.

You go Judy!

Most of todays judges are in cohoots or in bed with the liars, thiefs, and phonies. If they aren't impartial anymore they should be kicked out or impeached. I suppose you've heard that the obozos gave up their law licenses, the only reason they did was to cover up more corruption and vice, now that will be hidden from the public, like his whole life is hidden. How can you stand such lies, deceit or corruption or are you corrupted???

BECAUSE... they didn't complete the job.

THEY should have advised and directed the Legislature to FIX DOMA.

It is not the Supreme Courts responsibility to "advise and direct the legislature." It's the legislatures job to write laws.

It's the courts job to determine whether or not they are in violation of the Iowa Constitution, when challenged. That's ALL.

What is your point, Marilyn? This post is illogical. What is your reasoned argument, based on law and constitutional principles?

Why are you so anxious to deny gays and lesbians equality under the law?

Just the emotion driven.

This whole argument is a slippery-slope fallacy. Animals cannot give consent or enter into contracts. That you even reference your dog in this context shows you cannot extend any respect to gay or lesbian relationships. Interracial marriages were once considered "unacceptable" and were outlawed in many states until the US Supreme Court struck them in Loving v. Virginia.

Be honest: you have no respect for gays and lesbians, you want to deny them equal protection under the law because you are prejudiced against them, your prejudice is no different than disliking blacks, and you cannot offer a single argument, based in law, to defend your position.

Change your mind and heart.

Well, thanks Keith, this added a lot to the discussion. Clearly, you have no idea about how the Iowa judicial system operates. You need to go back to government class.

If ya don't want to print that out and email it.... then at least send the link, plz.

Recipients: Miller, Atty Gen.
Gronstal, Sen Majority Leader
Wiggins, SC of Iowa

Oh, and for good measure... ya might wanna send a copy to Tim Gill

Jeff, I'll see your Tim Gill and raise you a Bryan Fischer and a Tony Perkins. Remember Sal Giunta? He's the Iowan who was rewarded the Medal of Honor for saving some of his fellow soldiers in Afghanistan. Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association denounced Giunta's winning the medal, claiming that awarding it to Giunta for "saving" lives "feminized" the Medal of Honor. Seems, in Fischer's sick mind, heroism is only to be recognized if you kill people. Fischer is lead spokesman for AFA, one of the groups working with Vander Plaats.

Perkins is the spokesman for Family Resarch Council, which has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its strident homophobic rhetoric. Perkins is not a foaming-at-the-mouth hater, he is more dangerous by (like you) trying to present a sophistical argument against gays and lesbians being treated equally in this society. Perkins and Fischer represent those elements of the religious right which base their version of christianity on the proposition that gays and lesbians must be relegated to second-class citizenship. One of those two men (think it was Fischer) even went so far as to propose that "christians" should kidnap children who have been adopted by same-sex couples.

You're keeping lousy company, bro...

From the US Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, one of the precedents cited by the Iowa court in its Varnum v. Brien decision: "'Separate but equal' is inherently unequal." A "civil union" is not an equal replacement for a civil marriage, thus is unconstitutional.

Dont you hate it when I confuse you with the facts?

Again, I'm not confused.

Before you took on the task of feeding at the Public Teat(that explains a lot, by the way), you should have spent a little more time with Shakespeare.

Hero?? No... but I did appreciate his assessment of Lawyers.

Logical??

I have raised my complaint, and validated it.
You have two options for correction.
REMOVE what benefits that you think are discriminatory, from the tax code...
OR... PREVENT parties that do not QUALIFY for those benefits from receiving them.

Then, I have no problem with the State sanctifying(sic) Johnny marrying Sam.

Sorry, Jeff J., You're not a tinpot dictator.

A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, Judy!

With all due respect, Marilyn, I contend that you have a deficient understanding of American history and government. You use the word "communists" like a swear word: EXACTLY what do you mean by the term? BTW, I qualify, since I consider myself a Trotskyist.

I suppose you're going to go ballistic when I mention that universal public education was one of the demands Marx made in "The Communist Manifesto..."

Derp, Jeff J.

Ever read Joe Haldeman's "Forever War," Julie? Haldeman's premise was that a unified Earth government starts a war with an alien race: it's Haldeman's satire of Heinlein's atrocious "Starship Troopers."

Haldeman's troops are transported through space in ships through "jumps," locations near stars where you can, in relativistic terms, take shortcuts through space. But not through time: each time Haldeman's protagonist, an officer named Mandela, goes to campaign, while months pass in his life, decades and centuries pass on Earth.

In time, homosexuality becomes the norm, and people are reproduced through artificial insemination. The soldiers under Mandela's command on one "jump" call him "Old Queer" because he's the only heterosexual in the unit!

The war eventually is ended when humans are a cloned species, as is the alien species they've been fighting for centuries. It's at that point the humans understand the war was started by individuals because of their unique psychologies.

Maybe Jeff J. writes what he does because he's read too much paranoid mid-1950s science fiction!

I might write what I do to tweak the noses of ignorant liberals. The blather they seem to come up with is most amusing. My apology... It's become apparent that you would prefer the term proletariat... but then, the philosophy is the same, the name only raises the distinction between the eras. Always about class warfare... historically, it's been about economics...more recently you've decided to spice the caldron with ethnicity, now you've pushed battle against the foundational institutions of society. You lost your vision of Revolution in Europe directed your eyes to the West. Fled to the States where you could hide behind the freedoms that you detest.
Concluded that your only hope for a future was to remain hidden while covertly spreading your virus in the educational institutions. With a foothold there, you've begun to attack the religious and social norms of the American Psyche appealing to those youthful minds that you trashed in the universities. You've been so successful with your indoctrination and division that one icon of the last generation couldn't be nominated as a dog catcher in his own Party, another, long forgotten by the race, his own, that he ultimately died for, Seems that Old Joe McCarthy was a prophet, doesn't it? Cont

Your incursion has progressed for almost a century, now. Have you dumbed down the youth enough that you think the Final Battle is nigh? Is it going to take place in the courts.... you think the populace will finally just roll over and say, "Feed me, keep me warm and dry, you can do what ever you want?" Do you think the divisions that you've created in the American Culture are going to forget the victimization that you've bestowed on them? Will you be able to control that by teaching Kumbayaa in the grade schools? The Incremental Creep has been amazing... but I think you have misjudged the slumbering strength that is the American Psyche.
Time will tell, I guess.

I am curious though.... Do you view yourself as one of the Elitist Ruling Class?

When does the five year plan start?

For everyone but you Julie.
It is extremely hard to cast light into the darkness of ignorance.

Derp... Tin-pot Dictator.

Why, Jeff J.? If the marriage contract is solely for the purpose of procreation and tax deductions--why would you (in your tin-pot dictator world) allow single people (except me, of course) to adopt?

The "rant" that you commented on, is exemplified by your last reply.

Do a Google on "Cultural Maxism"... then do some reading about Alinsky... the philosophical mentor of both H Clinton and B Obama. The move to dumb-down and indoctrinate the American Public through the educational system is almost complete. The drum beat for "Equality" based on perceived victimhood denies the premise that we are ALL individuals driven by our own concept of happiness and success. By forcing the concept of "equal outcome" for all, you penalize individual thought and motivation. Once you reach the tipping point of :majority rule (an abhorrant circumstance for our Country's Founders), and arrive at everyone being the same, we all become nothing more than consummable assets of the State. The State "owns" us and our future.

I'd rather work to bring revolution to THIS country, Marilyn. I was born here, it's my country, too, and I'm not going to cede its future to greedheads like Romney.

The only way you'll get me to leave is by throwing my cold, lifeless body over the nearest international border...

Well Marilyn...like it or not, believe it or not, THAT is exactly what Obama is trying to turn the US into. ......Communisim.

How on Earth can you say this, maxine, when Obama refused to include a "public option" for health insurance in the ACA? How can you claim he is "communist" when he prevented Chrysler and GM from being liquidated through bankruptcy? How can you say he is "communist" when he continued GW Bush's TARP in order to get credit flowing again so markets could once again function?

Calling Obama "communist" is baseless prejudice.

LOL no public option.... the unions profited from GM and Chrysler.... mgt, stockholders and bond holders got the shaft.... the bailout was for the benefit of foreign banks

Watch 2016 LOLOLOL

You can't have it both ways, Jeff. You can't contend Obama is a "communist," then complain about his ties to Wall Street or claim he helped "foreign" banks. The UAW accepted deep cuts in its pension plans and helath benefits for retired members: the managed BK was hardly the giveaway to unions your fevered imagination seems to think it is. I just read that housing starts are up nationally: I suppose you're going to label homebuilders and Realtors "fellow travellers" now.

Jeff, you are so far right that of course Obama, who is very centrist in his politics, seems "left" to you. That's the problem: it is "conservatives" like you and the GOP which have become so extreme that any reasoned position seems "leftist" in comparison.

That's only part of the story...

By their own rules, the Iowa Bar isn't supposed to "vote" their assessment of a sitting judge unless they have appeared before that Judge. There were over 500 ballots cast in assessment of Wiggins. By admission of a member of the Iowa Bar... that number is "unreasonably high." Now.... are we to assume that the righteous members of the Bar..... lawyers (LOLOLOLOL) have been bought to degrade the the good judge's ratings, or to enhance it?

Shakespeare had it right in Richard III

Actually I wouldn't have known about that site, if it wasn't for Justice Mansfield informing me of it at the Iowa State Fair. He endorsed it, so I endorsed him for retention, not based on any one decision, but based on his "peer reviews". Wiggins numbers aren't that much greater that than the others. Even if they were artificially inflated, he must have torqued someone off.

It's not fair to give people extra deduction and not treat others equally just like gays have a right to marry, then a childless couple should get a standard 2.5 child deduction. My kids are gone but the Obama poor management has kept them from getting good jobs after college. I have to help out and I want my deductions. If gay marriage Is ok and they have access to marriage bennefits then why can't Everyone??? As a matter of fact, if someone is out of work and lost their healthcare and want to marry their brother for equal access to his healthcare and social security, who are you to say no? No boundaries. Why is your opinion the righteous one? Let's jut keep running down the rabbit hole. Brother and sister, 1st cousin should have marriage rights or hypocrisy will be then standard.

Yeah Jack, lighten up.... Geez.... with "adoption assistance" they can qualify for up to $30 a day subsidy for "adopting a child with problems." That's around $1800 a month, Tax Free... just another avenue for the motivated to game the system and drain your pocket. There are cases where the "adoptive parent" has returned the child to DHS "because the child's problems were more extreme than I realized, " and the County wasn't able to REMOVE the adoption assistance paid to the "parent."

Laughable and inconceivable, right? It happens.

Feel free to specify what law you think 'it' was that Wiggins created.

Jim, "humble" is the last adjective I'd use to describe your opinions. You are being illogical: Wiggins did exactly what he was required to do as an Iowa Supreme Court Justice. He reviewed the law at hand, the Iowa "Defense" of Marriage Act. Along with six other members of the court, he ruled that the law was in fundamental conflict with the Iowa and US constitutions. He struck the law, which was the ONLY impediment preventing gays and lesbians from marrying.

How can you logically conclude "Wiggins has to go?" Have you even READ the Varnum v. Brien decision? I have, get back to me when you're done reading. Don't chicken out by claiming "it's the NY Times!" This is a link to a PDF:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20090403iowa-text.pdf

Wggins and the Court didn't write a new law.... they just created a new class pf people.
And, have told that "class" that their 2% of the population can make the other 98% adjust their lives to comport with what makes this "new minority" feel validated. By giving this minority, based on choice, Class status.... enables them to put their hands in the back pockets of the rest of the tax payers. NOTHING they claim they are being denied cannot be handled with a "contract" between the two love-birds. Save Survivor Benefits, and tax deductions.

I'd love to know how MORE PEOPLE PAYING MORE marriage license FEES to marry, and PAYING MORE MONEY in expenses TO PRIVATE BUSINESSES that are arrange weddings, receptions, vacations, etc., are taking money out of my pocket? Especially when you add-in MORE PEOPLE PAYING TRAVEL-related EXPENSES to even more private businesses in the state if they travel here specifically for the purpose of marriage... Every airline ticket... Every hotel/motel tax... Every drop of gasoline in a rental car or taxi... Every penny of sales tax on anything from soda to tux rental is generating revenue....

Oh, I just thought of it- Their vehicles are tearing-up the roadways and that comes out of my pocket as a homeowner. Oh, no, wait..... taxes on gasoline cover that....

I'd love to know just how they are costing taxpayer money? I'd wager more was spent on Branstead’s actions to create the Executive Order banning same-sex marriage, then adding-in the costs to the State associated with the Supreme Court having to turn-over an unconstitutional action/ban, then adding-in costs to every voting district as a result of Vanderplatt's paranoia campaign each and every election round he goes witch hunting...

If you are addressing or replying to a specific individual or comment, you need to learn to address them, or hit the 'Reply' button within their comment. Just throwing-out seemingly directed comments that have no target is not how you carry-on a discussion.

Wow, Jeff, your argument came off the rails. Claiming that you should receive disability benefits without yourself being disabled, and that said denial is illegal discrimination, is so illogical as to require no further rebuttal.

If you had bothered to read the Varnum v. Brien decision, one of the precedents the Iowa court cited was Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 school desegregation case. The court argued "separate but equal is inherently unequal" in strking Plessy v. Ferguson: Brown is relevant here because civil partnerships are separate, unequal alternatives to civil marriages.

Jeff, it is you who has lost control over his emotions, simply because you refuse to admit that marriage has ALREADY been redefined (a man can't sell his daughters for goats, have plural wives, dominate his wife, keep her assets as his own, etc.), and that you refuse to see gays and lesbians as citizens who deserve equal protection under the law.

Pathetic, and sad.

"......Your crusade is monetary...."

Detail how.

Typical.
I do tire of the Progressive, Liberal, Democrat, Fellow Traveler.... whatever name that you have adopted now, fall back ploy. When confronted with a logical, intellectual opposition.... attack the character of that opposition.

Quiet their opposition by shaming them.

I have displayed NO hate.... no jealousy, no resentment... just a logical explanation of my opposition to your crusade. Because I don't see things from your world view, I have to be a bigot, a racist, a homophob, an Old Rich Whie Guy, that only cares about himself..... Yeah.... I've listened to all the fall back whines. You are all the same.You like that? That assessment shouldn't bother you. Your drive to make us all alike... no individualism, no personal beliefs that aren't approved by your conclave. That's the goal isn't it? Let me see... damn, I can't think of any of the Bill of Rights that you don't have under attack. All under the pretense that they "infringe" on your personal freedoms. When are you going to barrack your thought police in my house? I think that's the 3rd amendment Coming soon?

Jeff J.
+1, I never could have said it that well!

Todd, why can't I post an argument based on constitutional law?