The Tyranny of the Majority

[Selene]

I don't know how the rest of the country is doing, but here in Iowa we have voted against the State Constitution and against the right of a particular group of people to pursue their own happiness. If Ayn Rand was alive today she would be rolling over in her grave. I'm basing that on Tara Smith's description of the single rights obligation that we all have to each other - namely to respect those rights even when we see others doing something that we would rather they didn't do, but that didn't involve violating the rights of others.

Here is what "We the People" accomplished. We returned most of the incumbents to office (including Boswell who voted for Obamacare), exceptions being the governor and a few State Legislature seats.

We also voted to throw out three of our Supreme Court Justices based on the lie of "Judicial Activism". What the judges did: They determined that a law that was passed by the legislature to limit marriage to one man and one woman was unconstitutional on the basis of the "equal protection of the law" clause. Somehow a lot of people got the idea that the judges had themselves put gay marriage into law. They didn't. They just said that gay men and lesbians had the same right to marry as the heterosexuals in Iowa, BECAUSE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.

Then Bob Vanderplatts started a "Throw the Judges Out" campaign. The judges were from both Democratic and Republican persuasions and were unanimous in their decision. The anti-gay marriage groups made sure that everyone understood that this was "judicial activism". Part of their argument was that a wealthy homosexual from Colorado had dumped a whole lot of money into campaigning for Gay marriage in Iowa. What that money was supposed to have bought, I'm not sure. All I know is that no one in the legislature, nor the Governor made any attempt to stop the marriage license applications. I'm pretty sure that given the Court's ruling that would have been illegal or unconstitutional or something.

So because of this one issue, these judges are out and now the Democratic governor has the job, if he chooses to pursue it, of appointing new judges. If he doesn't, the new pro-life, anti-gay marriage Republican governor will have that task. I wonder what the result will be.

If you all hear about this, the vote was 54% no and 46% yes on retaining the judges. There are only 3 million people in the entire state, so figure around 1.55 million either didn't understand the issue, or don't want homosexual marriage in Iowa. However, they still haven't been given a chance to actually vote on that. Here's another weird thing. There was on the ballot a constitutional amendment about funding an ecological issue. But the legislature is apparently blocking the attempt to put the gay marriage issue on the ballot as an amendment. I think Iowa may have just punished three judges for what the legislature did. I wonder what kind of men and women will become Supreme Court justices in this state.

Here's something even weirder. Every ten years the people can vote to hold a constitutional convention. Some anti-gay groups were hoping to get this convention so they could amend the constitution to allow only one man, one woman to marry. Guess what? The state voted 67% to 33% to NOT call for the constitutional convention. Confusion reigneth.

Anyone from a state for which you feel the pride of accomplishment?

Anyone think that I've misunderstood the Objectivist way on this subject?

Mary:

http://samesexsunday.podbean.com/2010/11/06/post-election-analysis/

Iowa's statewide ballot situation was discussed on this show, and I thought that it would be interesting for you to hear this discussion.

The source is from the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), an extremely left wing/marxist organization going back to the Hubert Humphrey and farmer's grange roots.

It was a November 7th radio show, "Same sex Sunday," that, despite its cutesy alliteration, is a well listened to program in a number of niche groups.

They had a representative of the Log Cabin Republicans on the panel which indicated a serious attempt at good journalism and balance.

Enjoy.

Adam

[Selene]

Folks, a fascinating approach by these two British citizens This is from my daily ABA Law Journal

Constitutional Law

Straight Couple Suing for Civil Union Rather Than Marriage

Posted Nov 9, 2010 11:24 AM CST

On the cutting edge of constitutional law, a straight couple in the United Kingdom is suing for the right to tie the knot in a civil union rather than a wedding.

Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle say a civil partnership under British law is more in keeping with their personal style, even though marriage and civil unions provide the same benefits, reports the Associated Press. However, the two London residents, who are both 26, have been refused one because they are not a same-sex couple.

"In our day-to-day life we feel like civil partners—we don't feel like husband and wife, and we want the government to recognize that," says Doyle.

Their campaign is supported by gay rights activists, who say a win would likely help encourage the right of same-sex couples to wed, if they wish.

Adam

[equality72521]

Folks, a fascinating approach by these two British citizens This is from my daily ABA Law Journal

Constitutional Law

Straight Couple Suing for Civil Union Rather Than Marriage

Posted Nov 9, 2010 11:24 AM CST

On the cutting edge of constitutional law, a straight couple in the United Kingdom is suing for the right to tie the knot in a civil union rather than a wedding.

Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle say a civil partnership under British law is more in keeping with their personal style, even though marriage and civil unions provide the same benefits, reports the Associated Press. However, the two London residents, who are both 26, have been refused one because they are not a same-sex couple.

"In our day-to-day life we feel like civil partners—we don't feel like husband and wife, and we want the government to recognize that," says Doyle.

Their campaign is supported by gay rights activists, who say a win would likely help encourage the right of same-sex couples to wed, if they wish.

Adam

Victory is mine... Muahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahah

"Gay Rights" groups will be outraged when they find this hurts their cause. I read some polls that said support among gays for gay marriage drops off when Civil Unions are legalized. Yay for Civil Unions cant wait for them to become the norm.

[kiaer.ts]

Folks, a fascinating approach by these two British citizens This is from my daily ABA Law Journal

Constitutional Law

Straight Couple Suing for Civil Union Rather Than Marriage

Posted Nov 9, 2010 11:24 AM CST

On the cutting edge of constitutional law, a straight couple in the United Kingdom is suing for the right to tie the knot in a civil union rather than a wedding.

Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle say a civil partnership under British law is more in keeping with their personal style, even though marriage and civil unions provide the same benefits, reports the Associated Press. However, the two London residents, who are both 26, have been refused one because they are not a same-sex couple.

"In our day-to-day life we feel like civil partners—we don't feel like husband and wife, and we want the government to recognize that," says Doyle.

Their campaign is supported by gay rights activists, who say a win would likely help encourage the right of same-sex couples to wed, if they wish.

Adam

Oh, Jesus Christ. Kinda like telling the white folks they aren't allowed in the back of the bus?