GAY MARRIAGE LEGALIZED BY HEDONISTIC COASTAL STATE... Iowa?

[_Calculus Crusader]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D213209143.PDF

A unanimous decision in favor of equality under the law.

As usual, the Morgbots on the other board are frothing about 'judicial tyranny'. Interesting that they use that last word, because the original tyrants were often leaders who trampled on the interests of minorities with the consent or blessing of the majority. Sound familiar, guys?

I prefer 'judicial activism,' judicial oligarchy,' and 'legislating from the bench.' By the way, Iowa is not that conservative of a state on the whole.

The people who are whining about judicial tyranny apparently believe that the rules of Napoleon and Hitler were laudable because, even though both had little respect for minority rights, they were both popular leaders.

I like Napoleon but not Hitler. Neither helps your case, though.

Whatever. History will not be favorable to them.

Oh no!!!

Whenever some buffoon says something like that I say "I can't be bothered with the noxious mediocrities of today. What makes you think I concern myself with the noxious mediocrities of the future?"

[Analytics]

There is significant overlap between what's immoral or undesirable and what's unconstitutional, but those terms are not congruent.

Oh, absolutely. I just had the silly impression that this thread was talking about a legal decision by some justices in Iowa and how it's preferable to the rules of Napoleon and Hitler (not that I disagree about that extreme coparison). If that's the case, I would have thought that legal expertise was relevant. But maybe not. I'm obviously not clairvoyant.

[_asbestosman]

What other examples of institutionalized discrimination has the legislative branch actually tackled?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (original link privided by Smac97).
.
.
.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I prefer 'judicial activism,' judicial oligarchy,' and 'legislating from the bench.'

Do you have a reason for this preference, or do you just have a taste for unfounded characterizations?

By the way, Iowa is not that conservative of a state on the whole.

It's one of the more liberal Midwestern states, sure, but we're still talking about small-town America, here. Bush won the state in 2000, and Kerry only won it by a few thousand votes four years later. I don't think it contains any cities of more than half a million people.

I like Napoleon but not Hitler. Neither helps your case, though.

Irrelevant and conclusory statements -- brilliant argumentation!

Oh no!!!

Whenever some buffoon says something like that I say "I can't be bothered with the noxious mediocrities of today. What makes you think I concern myself with the noxious mediocrities of the future?"

I'm just saying that you're not going to like being the equivalent of a racist yokel when 2060 rolls around.

[_JohnStuartMill]

There is significant overlap between what's immoral or undesirable and what's unconstitutional, but those terms are not congruent.

Oh, absolutely. I just had the silly impression that this thread was talking about a legal decision by some justices in Iowa and how it's preferable to the rules of Napoleon and Hitler (not that I disagree about that extreme coparison). If that's the case, I would have thought that legal expertise was relevant. But maybe not. I'm obviously not clairvoyant.

I don't have the slightest clue as to the provisions of the Iowa state constitution. My defense of the legal decision relevant to this thread has been made on moral and, more broadly, political grounds. It has not been made on legal ones.

[_asbestosman]

I don't have the slightest clue as to the provisions of the Iowa state constitution. My defense of the legal decision relevant to this thread has been made on moral and, more broadly, political grounds. It has not been made on legal ones.

That being the case, I think complaints about "judicial tyranny" are justified. The judicial branch should make rulings to uphold constitutional law, not to further their personal moral or political opinions. At least that's what I was taught about how the government is supposed to work.

[_rcrocket]

Also, how hilarious is it that the guy who thinks that morality comes from a magic man in the sky is accusing me of deriving my moral standard from something I made up?

My standard is based upon 4000 years of written development, and it isn't whimsical. You may disagree with Moses and the New Testament prophets, but their writings exist and have served as the moral framework for the law for eons.

I don't consider utilitarianism a particularly persuasive or time-enduring standard to support gay marriage. (In fact, does classic utilitarianism ever argue for gay marriage? Certainly your cited Mill treatise does not.) Why not as easily follow Montesquieu, who argues that homosexuality weakens society and the general welfare?

[_JohnStuartMill]

That being the case, I think complaints about "judicial tyranny" are justified. The judicial branch should make rulings to uphold constitutional law, not to further their personal moral or political opinions. At least that's what I was taught about how the government is supposed to work.

You're responding as if I had said or implied that the ruling was jurisprudentially incorrect. I didn't. I just said that I wasn't analyzing it along that dimension in my posts in this thread.

[_JohnStuartMill]

My standard is based upon 4000 years of written development, and it isn't whimsical. You may disagree with Moses and the New Testament prophets, but their writings exist and have served as the moral framework for the law for eons.

To the detriment of those who followed them, yes, they have been followed for a very long time.

I don't consider utilitarianism a particularly persuasive or time-enduring standard to support gay marriage. (In fact, does classic utilitarianism ever argue for gay marriage? Certainly your cited Mill treatise does not.)

Not directly, but Mill himself thought of a broad libertarian position as being a corollary to his system of ethics. See his masterpiece, On Liberty: http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html

Why not as easily follow Montesquieu, who argues that homosexuality weakens society and the general welfare?

It's only "as easily" if Montesquieu's reasons are as good as Mill's, which I doubt that they are. So, instead of trotting out another famous name behind an unfounded assertion, why not give Montesquieu's reasons for opposing homosexuality?

[_asbestosman]

You're responding as if I had said or implied that the ruling was jurisprudentially incorrect. I didn't. I just said that I wasn't analyzing it along that dimension in my posts in this thread.

I assume you mean "jurisprudentially correct" instead of incorrect--that is that I supposed that you implied that the ruling was correct according to the state constitution. I did indeed think so--apparently wrongly.

I was thinking specifically of this:

As usual, the Morgbots on the other board are frothing about 'judicial tyranny'. Interesting that they use that last word, because the original tyrants were often leaders who trampled on the interests of minorities with the consent or blessing of the majority. Sound familiar, guys?

Now, I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that you can't divorce the notion of "judcial tyranny" from that of the proper jurisprudence of rulings. If I am wrong about this, I am open to correction. Besides, it's obvious that my clairvoyance is lacking today. I'm just trying to explain where my thoughts on this came from.