|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Feb 10, 2010 2:37:35 GMT -5
BRINGING THIS BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND.
To make gay marriage illegal in Iowa is a much more difficult process than California or Maine. The issue must be floated at the ballot twice (because it requires changing the state constitution) as well as approval by the Senate, House and Governor, all of which are currently Democrats as well as supportive of gay marriage.
With the measure voted down, this means the anti-equality cunts must wait 2 more years to try again. Bringing the vote to Iowans now would result in a referendum similar to the Maine Prop 1 results and California Prop 8 results, but is expected to favor the equality side in the future. Amongst the populace, people are beginning to realize just how insignificant such a law can be to the average Iowan, and over 3/4 of the state doesn't give a rat's ass.
Governor Chet Culver is currently in his first term, and he has said he will fight of equality while he is in office. He is up for reelection in 2012 (I think) and will be challenged by single-issue candidates for now, and is widely favored to be reelected.
In short, the anti-gay side has no chance in hell of this issue. The absolute earliest anyone can attempt to overturn gay marriage is 2015, and by then, the people would most likely come to their senses about this issue.
EDIT: Just to clarify, the 2015 will only occur if:
(A) The referendum to ban marriage passes twice in 2012 and 2014.
(B) Governor Chet Culver loses his seat in 2012.
(C) Both the House and Senate turn Republican in 2010.
|
|
|
|
Post by Whore of Spamylon on Feb 10, 2010 8:49:12 GMT -5
But if such a public vote actually means anything for the ruling then it does mean there can be tyranny of the majority. At the risk of sounding like a broken record: From my analysis, with the nature of mob anger, tyranny of the majority is still a looming threat today and probably will always loom. If you have a strategy of doing away with it once and for all, I am all ears. When coming up with your strategy, I should point out my personal philosophy that the enemy of the good is the perfect. When contemplating how to build a system in which tyranny of the majority is an absolute non-threat to civil rights, think of the potential resources in which this effort would require and ask yourself if said resources are better spent working within the current framework of government and public opinion to advance your cause instead. Yes, and it is almost guaranteed that they will be enraged if you don't engage the public all together. I never said my strategy is easy or would guarantee victory for civil rights, however, in my opinion, disregarding public consensus almost guarantee's defeat. |
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Feb 10, 2010 18:21:14 GMT -5
But if such a public vote actually means anything for the ruling then it does mean there can be tyranny of the majority. At the risk of sounding like a broken record: From my analysis, with the nature of mob anger, tyranny of the majority is still a looming threat today and probably will always loom. If you have a strategy of doing away with it once and for all, I am all ears. Have a constitution that is difficult but not impossible to amend so that 51% of the population can't push things through over the objections of the other 49%. Which seems to me to be exactly what's going on here. |
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Feb 11, 2010 9:59:04 GMT -5
In the meantimes, 2 lawmakers have attempted to pull a anti-bullying measure currently protecting LGBT students in state schools (which includes my alumnus). If that gay marriage law didn't pass though, I don't see how this will. tinyurl.com/yayhopb |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Feb 11, 2010 11:33:33 GMT -5
In the meantimes, 2 lawmakers have attempted to pull a anti-bullying measure currently protecting LGBT students in state schools (which includes my alumnus). If that gay marriage law didn't pass though, I don't see how this will. tinyurl.com/yayhopbThis is worse than I'd originally heard. I heard they were opposing a bill specifically "favoring" gays. Which is bad enough, and I assumed "favoring" meant "asking for equality." This is worse. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Feb 11, 2010 13:54:19 GMT -5
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow. If anyone wanted to run against these two idiots just bring this up and the election's in the bag. One of the thing I've noticed about politicans is that there are a few areas they won't ever touch, just because it'd be political sucide. Kids are one of those areas.
Ironbite-why is it that the GOP is so intent on killing itself these days?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Feb 11, 2010 14:11:43 GMT -5
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow. If anyone wanted to run against these two idiots just bring this up and the election's in the bag. One of the thing I've noticed about politicans is that there are a few areas they won't ever touch, just because it'd be political sucide. Kids are one of those areas. Ironbite-why is it that the GOP is so intent on killing itself these days? I think you're underestimating the anti-gay animus among the GOP base. They're all for bullying gay kids into turning straight. |
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Feb 12, 2010 12:23:01 GMT -5
In the meantimes, 2 lawmakers have attempted to pull a anti-bullying measure currently protecting LGBT students in state schools (which includes my alumnus). If that gay marriage law didn't pass though, I don't see how this will. tinyurl.com/yayhopbSo they are pro-bully? I want to hurt them. I want to hurt them so fucking bad. You just have no idea. I want to make those cunts suffer. |
|
|
|
Post by mice34 on Feb 14, 2010 4:39:43 GMT -5
In the meantimes, 2 lawmakers have attempted to pull a anti-bullying measure currently protecting LGBT students in state schools (which includes my alumnus). If that gay marriage law didn't pass though, I don't see how this will. tinyurl.com/yayhopbI just came in here to post that link. I'm under no illusions these days their goal is anything other than gay people DEAD. ETA: Probably don't want to start a new thread just for this but it's so absurd I had to mention it. Were politicians always this dumb and crazy? The things that come out of elected representatives' mouths amaze me. www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgDWAvLh0yoFACEPALM. Not how it works, honey. |
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Feb 14, 2010 10:47:42 GMT -5
Psst, someone tell them that repealing gay marriage is not the same as reinstating sodomy laws. And that rape is still as illegal as always, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Feb 14, 2010 11:50:50 GMT -5
only the ones who bully gays. Remember the Hate Crime bill arguments? Where people would effectively argue that if HC legislation was passed, it would be bad because if you hit someone who was gay, you could go to jail? You know, as though you could walk up to a judge, say "but he was a homo" and get off with assault before the law was proposed. They want homosexuality to be dangerous. They're going to scare us straight or make us dead. |
|
