Marriage is not a topic addressed in the federal Constitution- nor were women. :-) Blacks were considered 3/5's human...//State Constitutions varied on marriage, property rights, etc. which were originally biased against women. As far as I know (I am not an attorney), States retained the absolute right over its citizens in regard to property, conduct (wards of the State, etc.) and inheritance.// Relations between men and women have dramatically changed in the last 50 years and most of the biased laws have been overturned without addressing this ancient/new culture of gays and lesbians that are demanding equal rights/miseries as those of a husband and wife. It seems to me there are two issues: recognition (acceptance by society and religion) and financial. Most starry-eyed and lusty ones who marry never consider they are entering a legal contract until they divorce when the $$$ hits the fan. Of course this is a mysterious subject for most youth as it is not taught except by example which is unfortunate.
On Apr 4, 10:16�am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > For those of you who have not read the Opinion, I have attached it to this > post, and it is a rather long read, (69 pages). > > I can't help but think that it was some bright eyed young law clerk who > wrote this Decision, and still, the judges have not yet read the Decision. > Although the author of the Decision attempts to frame all of the magnificent > concepts of freedom and equality that our Constitution embraces, the Opinion > misses several major aspects of our Bill of Rights, as well as general > principles of Article I and Article III. > > �Although the writer touches upon the concept of Ordered Liberty, and the > Doctrine of Fundamental Fairness, the writer was obviously looking for �a > "Secularist Utopia" and its hard to believe that any learned Jurist has > endorsed this Decision, much less read this Decision. > > The Opinion glosses over a number of issues without addressing the issues > raised. � If this makes it to the Supremes, (which doubt) �I question > whether an Opinion such as this could stand. �I have just now read the > Briefs of the Appellees and one of the �*Amicus* briefs. � The court failed > to address most of the fundamental issues raised before the Court. �What the > Court did address, is interesting: > > The Iowa Supremes have now opened the door and made a distinction between > any single man's or woman's �"social status" as compared to �and as opposed > to being "married". �This court just opened up a huge can of worms with that > interpretation, (at least in Iowa) �(in general from page 26-31). > > � I think it was on page 21 that the Court got into "similarly > situated"......The Court determined (without much explanation) that a gay > man is "similarly situated" to a husband and a wife with 2.3 kids. > Interesting. > > The �Court never considers �the "Consequences" of what that dictate now > potentially means. (Again, only in Iowa) > > More important, is what this Court did not address. � Just for starters, the > Court failed to address: �(1) The real definition of marriage; (the Court > briefly touches upon the "civil marriage" definition, but never ties the > definition into what the five thousand year old concept of marriage means) > �(2) The history of marriage; (3) The religious connotations of marriage, > (therein lies the conundrum!!); �(4) How the State of Iowa �came to have > jurisdiction in the State of Iowa, (much less local communities') dominion > over �"Marriage Contracts"?? > > Curiously, and rather astutely, the Court always addressed "Marriage" as, > "Civil Marriage". > > I think it is around page 50 or 51 where the court begins to broach the > "heightened scrutiiny"; of such civil litigation, but failed to apply those > tenets of heightened scrutiny, and never addresses a number of the > issues that were briefed by the Appellees. > > Troublesome. > > Keith > > > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 7:21 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > There goes the myth about Iowa! Maybe not- last week there was a > > survey about manliest cities- Nashville came in first and Mpls., > > eighteenth. Maybe those Iowa farmers were into bestiality! > > > On Apr 4, 6:14 am, Ohio mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, says his state's Supreme Court actually > > > confessed to being guilty of "activism" in its opinion today paving > > > the way for same-sex "marriage" in the state. > > > > Iowa's high court said same-sex marriages "could begin" in as little > > > as three weeks, joining Massachusetts and Connecticut as the three > > > states formally recognizing homosexual duos. > > > > King was interviewed by Greg Corombos of Radio America/WND about the > > > decision. > > > > "[The opinion] strikes me as very much an activist reach to overturn > > > the will of the people of the state of Iowa," King said. "This turns > > > on its head the entire composition of human history and law." > > > > He called it the "most activist opinion that I have every read." > > > > Citing the court's boasts about how it had led in the fight against > > > slavery and for women's rights, and equating same-sex "marriage" with > > > those issues, King called the statement "a self-assigned confession of > > > activists." > > > > "It's the will of the people that's supposed to lead the way," he > > > said. "The constitution is not supposed to change unless it's changed > > > by the people." > > > >http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93859 > > > > �Varnum.v.Brien.pdf > 333KViewDownload- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
