Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Iowa, Same Sex Marriage and the 2012 Presidential Race

The decision today by the Iowa Supreme Court that ruled a ban on same-sex marriage in the Hawkeye State unconstitutional is certain to have an impact on the state's critical Republican presidential caucuses in 2012.

The unanimous decision, delivered this morning and immediately greeted with strong reactions among partisans on both sides of this very divisive issue, sets the stage for a years-long legal fight over whether the court overstepped its boundaries.

As Bleeding Heartland, a Democratic blog in Iowa, notes, it will be difficult to overturn the ban anytime soon. (Hat tip to the irreplaceable Ben Smith.)

According to the blog:

"An amendment banning gay marriage would need to be approved by two consecutive legislative sessions (the 2009/2010 session and the 2011/2012 session) before going to the public in a general-election referendum. So, the earliest Iowa voters would be able to weigh in on this issue would be in November 2011."

Assuming that time line is right, the fight over the constitutionality of banning same sex marriages would fall right in the heart of the run-up to the 2012 presidential caucus.

And, with the Republican caucus typically dominated by social conservatives, you can imagine the long-term impact today's ruling could have on the presidential jockeying.

At first glance, the decision should help candidates -- like former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won the Iowa caucuses in 2008, and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- who are closely aligned with the social conservative wing of the Republican party.

Huckabee called the decision "disappointing", adding: "All Iowans should have a say in this matter, not a handful of legislative judges. This issue is too important to not be made by the people of Iowa. It is my hope that the Legislature will take the necessary steps to properly resolve this matter."

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who ran unsuccessfully for the nomination in 2008 and is an almost-certain candidate in 2012, did offer a comment on the decision when asked by the Fix.

"I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and the definition of marriage should be left to the people and not to activist courts," Romney said.

Romney struggled to convince social conservatives of his bona fides during the 2008 campaign due to his past statements in support of gay rights. He is making sure there is no such uncertainty in the minds of social conservatives next time around.

One person who could potentially be hurt by today's ruling is Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R) who has staked out a moderate position on the issue -- expressing his support for civil unions earlier this year despite the fact that large numbers of Utah voters oppose the idea. "I'm a firm believer in the traditional construct of marriage, a man and a woman," the governor told the Deseret News. "But I also think that we can go a greater distance in enhancing equal rights for others in nontraditional relationships."

It remains to be seen whether Huntsman's position -- against same-sex marriage but in support of civil unions -- is too nuanced to pass muster for social conservative voters. But the Iowa decision almost certainly means Huntsman will be on the spot to explain his position as he prepares to run for president.

As we have seen time and again in politics, external events -- and how politicians react to them -- have as much if not more to do with who ultimately wins than any other single factor. (See Hurricane Katrina, the war in Iraq, the economic downturn etc.)

Make no mistake: The Iowa same-sex ruling is one of those critical moments in the making of the next Republican presidential nominee. Watch to see how the frontrunners handle it.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 3, 2009; 3:41 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2012  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Friday Governors Line: A "Once in a Generation" Election
Next: A Dead Heat in New York Special Election

Comments

Fall of Rome was brought on by the total Degeneration, make the Incineration, of normalcy or morality if you prefer. Open man to man (woman to woman) sex ran rampant and the Roman Societal Fabric came apart bringing about the Fall of Rome.

Further back (for those abnormal people who claim to want religion), remember sodom & Gomorah (sp?)? I am not very sure, but I think one supposed/alleged reformed person was spared, no?

If anything the abnormalcy of those wanting same sex people may be tolerated to a certain degree (not publicness), but should never be given the power to legitimacy of any society at large if that society is to survive the test of times.

Posted by: SOCIETY1 | April 6, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

The tide is (ever so slowly) turning against narrow, bigotted attitudes of the past. These attitudes are also cultural attributes, which change only gradually over time, but the glacier IS moving. Racist bigotry fell into disrepute some time ago, as its moral-religious underpinnings, were unmasked and found to be irrational...however sincerely believed by some, being African isn't a sign of God's displeasure, the "Mark of Cain", and neither slavery nor discrimination can be morally justified by so-called racial differences... the remnants of racial bigotry are not gone, but they are and have been slowly eroding away.

The same thing is happening now to a different kind of bigotry, whose advocates often depend on religious excuses to justify villification and discrimination against homosexuals (just as religious excuses were once used to defend the institution of black slavery, and later to defend Jim Crow). The religious excuses are irrational, because they all depend on sexual orientation being volitional, a matter of choice, but the evidence is all around us that it clearly isn't. Nobody chooses to be homosexual...who would? And if it isn't a matter of volition, it can't be a sin...a just God could not blame His creatures for being as He created them. Besides, if the objections are entirely religious, there is no just reason for people of any one religious persuasion to be permitted to compel everyone ELSE to submit to their creed.

However distasteful some folks find the whole subject of homosexuality, it isn't even unique to human beings, so contentions that it is "unnatural" are refuted BY nature.

Equal protection under the law means equal rights and privileges for all...there is no sound or fair reason to deny the legal rights of partnership we confer on heterosexuals to others, even less to insist that homosexuals should not be permitted to CALL their partnerships by the same title as anyone else does.

Gay marriage will eventually be permitted in all 50 states. And it should be. Get over it.

Posted by: Observer44 | April 6, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

If Palin can be taken out of the whole political arena it will be a Great Help to the Nation and the Republicans.
Republicans have many other Females (With Actual Knowledge & Experience) Much Better than Palin.
I am probably totally wrong, but every time I hear of Palin, I Feel the reverse time travel to even before the stone age.
Is our government serious or just a popularity contest?
Please let's get back to the basics.
Huckabee says a lot of correct things and if he does not hold prejudicism against people other than White/European, then he would probably do well.

Posted by: SOCIETY1 | April 6, 2009 10:47 AM | Report abuse

I hope Chris is right. I hope the Republicans jump on this issue. It will further alienate independents, moderates, normal people who aren't afraid of someone different than them. Every GOP talking point about same-sex marriage is about fear. How quaint! I can tell you how legal same sex marriage has impacted my life here in Canada. A same-sex couple bought a run down house here in my neighbourhood( previously owned by a hetro couple with 4 kids who terrorized the neighbourhood pets) fixed it up beautifully. When they got married in their back yard, we all pitched in, and it was an awesome party, the first of many neighbourhood soirees. So a positive impact, considering who lived there before.

Posted by: katem1 | April 6, 2009 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Drindle, yup, that's what I thought (google "HPN airport" ;-)

Posted by: malis | April 5, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

This is what wingnut media brings:

" Shortly after appealing to the public not to get all hysterical and overwrought about the AIG Bonus Scandal, Glenn Beck got all hysterical and overwrought with Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association about Obama's evil plot to take away our guns."

And so as a result of this, in Pittsburgh:

'A man opened fire on officers during a domestic disturbance call Saturday morning, killing three of them, a police official said. Friends said he feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.'

Every wingnut who is promoting this nonsense, every radio host, and the whole crew of Fox News, should be lined up and shot by the police for being the direct cause of 3 good cops [all of whom had small children] getting murdered by a republican nutcase.

Posted by: drindl | April 5, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm horible with acronyms... but I live in Westchester C., just north of Manhattan. Had a really tough winter here, early and extremely cold and long, just kind of trailing out now. As opposed to last winer which had record warm temps, with fruit trees blooming in January.

Posted by: drindl | April 5, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Drindle, yup, some people will just can't get over the fact that "Consenting adults do not need your consent"--most definitely including our own local Colorado Springs cult, James Dobson's Focus on the Family.

Was nasty weather yesterday but we've had a record warm winter (I golfed in 70 degree weather in January)...glad we're getting some of our normal Mar-Apr snow.

(COS is the airport symbol for Colorado Springs. Do I vaguely recall you live somewhere near HPN?)

Posted by: malis | April 5, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Irving, er, I mean "King of Zouk," would you move your bed away from the washing machine in the basement?

I'll have some grilled spam sandwiches for you in 15 minutes. By the way, did you take your crushed soda pop cans to the grocery store yet?

Also would you clean up the basement closet, er, I mean your "office" tomorrow.

Regards,

Moms

Posted by: broadwayjoe | April 5, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

I'll add one more thing...50% of the american public can't find NY state on a map...and you expect these people to decide complicated issues of civil law???...What a joke!

Posted by: jpsbr2002 | April 5, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I'm sick of the "voters" deciding civil rights issues. If the voters had decided on black civil rights we'd still have segregation and nobody would ever have heard of President Obama. I feel like I need a lawyer just to protect my rights from the American voting mob (and the GOP which incites them).

Posted by: jpsbr2002 | April 5, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Don't care about this issue or 'bout Mrs. Billie Jean King, Miss Martina Navratilova, or Elton John--uh, again, not that there's anything wrong with it.

Here's hoping for another triumphal week for BHO and Mrs. BHO.

And for another losing week for hate broadcasting, particularly Hannity who devotes almost his entire show to disrespecting the commander in chief. (What mainstream corporate sponsors are supporting this dangerous extremist junk?)

Maureen Dowd has a great take on BHO's European adventure today in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/opinion/05dowd.html?_r=2

Here's also hoping Scrivener50 gets the professional help he (allegedly, probably, no, almost certainly) needs. S50, Sit down and talk through it with someone, my friend...hang in there, S50.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | April 5, 2009 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Where are you, malis? what is COS? cold for april.

I would bet that the group of people who are against gay marriage greatly overlaps those who don't beleive in evolution -- in other words, those who don't beleive in basic science -- in other words, reality.

And those that say we are changing marriage in some way -- well humans do that all the time. Polygamy is not that uncommon, for instance and there have always been gay people and always will be. Might was well get used to it and give them a place at the table.

Consenting adults do not need your consent.

Posted by: drindl | April 5, 2009 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Call me a cynic, but it seems to me that by defending the "traditional construct of marriage between a man and a woman," but referencing enhanced protections for "others in nontraditional relationships," Utah Gov. Huntsman's nuanced position has more to do with currying favor with the home-grown polygamists in his state than with a desire to extend equal rights to gays. Or do I just watch too much Big Love?

Posted by: jonmark1 | April 4, 2009 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the kind word and the weather report, Malis. 80F and sunny here in Austin. I liked your two posts earlier.
I am watching NCAA that I recorded, I do not know who won this game yet. Its 58-54 on my recording...

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 4, 2009 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Scrivener50 posted:
----------------------------------
You advise scrivener50 to "be safe."
Is that a threat?
------------------
No. I wish you no harm whatsoever. I have never threatened you nor anyone else here. I have made fun of you, of course. I have criticized your long, repeated, off - topic posts. I may continue to do so.

Because you are apparently frightened for your safety, I went out of my way to offer an appropriate pleasantry, after I gave you credit for a short post. I may think, from 1500 miles away, that you fear a non-existent threat. But I do not make fun of your actual emotion.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 4, 2009 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Mark_in_Austin, I recall your similarly calm and reasonable advice to “37th and O St.” a couple months ago (I’m afraid I wasn’t able to match your patience). I also think I remember his response was very close to Scrivner’s, complete to the vague threats.

Oh well, I appreciate your occasional attempts to calm some of the more excitable regulars…worth the effort and it’s sometimes worked (btw, 25 degrees, 25mph wind, and snowing sideways here in COS today).

Posted by: malis | April 4, 2009 7:57 PM | Report abuse

(re-posted, because the sentence containing the phrase "you have crossed the line" did not post as intended...)

TO: mark_in_austin...

...with hopes that Seymour Hersh and Bob Woodward see this missive (colleagues, please forward. Thank you.)

"mark":


You advise scrivener50 to "be safe."


Is that a threat?


The good people on the inside don't take lightly to using mainstream media web sites to issue threats, veiled or otherwise.


Especially when the threat comes from someone who posts here virtually hourly, with a defined purpose.


The good people on the inside know if you are acting as a paid agent or as an individual exercising his right to express his views (and I will defend that right as if it were my own).

With this post, you have crossed the line -- as someone apparently did at the March 31, 2008 "Hillary '08" rally that you reference in your post, below.

I can assure you of the likelihood that I am not the only one who has taken note of what seems like a threat, publicly delivered.


And just in case, I plan to register my public voice on this matter, as you have done -- starting right here.


Have a nice day.

Posted by: scrivener50 | April 4, 2009 7:47 PM | Report abuse

ummmm, Phillyfan? OK, please calm down a little…take a step back from the keyboard and keep your hands where I can see them…the Phillies with be back in town next week and you can go back to yelling at the Sports Radio guy. There, doesn’t that make you feel better?

Scroll down a little and take a look at my description of the “three justifications of the anti-gay.” Seems pretty clear you qualify under all three, or am I mistaken?

Now that you’ve recovered, I’d be interested if you have an actual response, or was that really just a primal scream at the unfairness of the world that doesn’t understand you?

Posted by: malis | April 4, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

TO: mark_in_austin...

...with hopes that Seymour Hersh and Bob Woodward see this missive (colleagues, please forward. Thank you.)


"mark":


You advise scrivener50 to "be safe."


Is that a threat?

The good people on the inside don't take lightly to using mainstream media web sites to issue threats, veiled or otherwise.


Especially when the threat comes from someone who posts here virtually hourly, with a defined purpose.


The good people on the inside know if you are acting as a paid agent or as an individual exercising his right to express his views (and I will defend that right as if it were my own).
the March 31, 2008 "Hillary '08" rally that you reference in your post, below.

I can assure you of the likelihood that I am not the only one who has taken note of what seems like a threat, publicly delivered.


And just in case, I plan to register my public voice on this matter, as you have done -- starting right here.


Have a nice day.

Posted by: scrivener50 | April 4, 2009 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Ahhh, Kouk my old friend! Still not understanding:

…as long as such as you (as pale an imitation of Limbaugh/Beck/Coulter as you may be) are seen as representing the Republican Party in general;

….as long as you can convince them to continually obsess on the utterly trivial, entirely irrelevant, and completely fictional; and

…. as long as they continue to believe personal insult is a substitute for thoughtful debate,

the R’s will continue to lose elections simply through demonstrating a refusal to rationally discuss meaningful issues.

I patiently await the reclamation of the Republican Party by actual conservatives (not those mentioned above of course) though, noting the recent reelection of Dick Wadhams as chairman of the Colorado Republican Party week, may not happen here very soon.

(If you don’t recognize Wadhams, he was Virginia Senator George Allen’s campaign manager and was going to ‘Karl Rove’ Allen right to White House, until Allen uttered the immortal word, “Macaca”)

Posted by: malis | April 4, 2009 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Because the Left hates moral judgments perhaps an open discussion with pictures of the homosexual life style would aid courts, voters, churches and the confused themselves before voting or making legal decisions on the validity of so called gay marriages. After all, redefining marriage after thousands of years is quite a cultural shock when many in the public do not even know what the gay life style is really like. Perhaps a look at the gay porn sites would help. Or perhaps knowing that civil rights in our Constitution has more to do with voting rights than so called gay rights being redefined. After all , gay citizens have the same rights as all other Americans and marriage is more than a moral affair(God ordained) it is a traditional affair. Why not just marry without worrying that it will offend God? If there is not worry about that, why the demand to make all others accept it as if it were a legal necessity? And if Republicans can explain the traditional way marriage has been defined, and it is more acceptable to more of the public, so be it. Why must liberal Dems get their way on an issue which they would never want to explain with pictures and descriptions of the so called styles of homosexual behavior!!! Just have a special ceremony without it being the force of law!!!! Not there is anything wrong with that!!!!

Posted by: phillyfanatic | April 4, 2009 7:03 PM | Report abuse

big talk then cowardice and caving

That is lib foreign policy.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | April 4, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I like that old Star Trek guy Mr. Something that married his life partner..they were very cool..all
talking about domestic bliss and making
sandwiches...not like anything more than mixed couples might talk about..

Neat guys...their marriage doesn't really affect my daily life..why worry?

Posted by: newbeeboy | April 4, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Reading the comments, I can detect only three justifications of the anti-gay that are not equally applicable to heterosexuals:

1) “THE BIBLE FORBIDS IT and that settles it because the Bible cannot be wrong.” Sorry, but in matters of government and law, the Qur’an, Book of Mormon, Adi Granth, Dianetics, Torah, Bhagavad Gita, Pali Tripitaka, Tao Te Ching, Nihon Shoki ,and Bible have identical relevance and authority as, say, any random copy of a 1993 Rand-McNally Road Atlas—that is, none.

It’s encouraging to remember #1 is more limited that it might seem, as it represents only a relatively small number of people— religious fundamentalists—and as obsessively intense and noisy as they may be, the argument seems to be fading.

2) “HOMOSEXUALITY PRESENTS A GRAVE DANGER TO SOCIETY so I will attempt to block any action which seems to give it any kind of approval, especially Gay Marriage.” Sorry, but this is simple assertion, entirely unsupported by evidence.

Now that we are starting to get some evidence (States of Massachusetts and Connecticut and, for a few months at least, California), all (and I do mean *all*) actual evidence indicates extending marriage to same-sex couples improves societal stability by giving those directly involved (the couples) a greater stake in the success of our shared society; and certainly has had no negative effect on traditional marriage.

So, #2 is losing strength and adherents as we gain experience of the actual favorable impact of same-sex marriage on society.

3) “YUUUUK, THAT'S ICKY!” This is simple disapproval of what is perceived to be another's poor morals and distasteful choices (often but not always religiously motivated).

I'll just note I don't see this as adequate reason to deny fundamental rights and civil liberties to a significant minority of the American people. #3 does still seems the most widely prevalent argument but, as more and more people discover how many of their admired neighbors, co-workers, and family are gay—and are not ”icky”—it’s fading too.

In the end, I see this as a simple matter of civil liberties. As a sometimes obsessive civil libertarian who can claim membership in neither community, I'm a supporter of both Gay rights and Religious rights—because wherever possible I support extending rather than restricting rights, as has been the history of our country.

One of the things that is encouraging to me is how much the argument has changed in only a few years...in 2004 there were a lot more 'Leviticus/Abomination' comments, and to-the-death opposition of any legal recognition of same-sex couples. Today, even conservatives pretty much accept civil unions, and their positions on calling it marriage are softening as they slowly reason out the fact that nothing bad is happening.

Yes, this represents the continuing evolution of society. In other words, progress.

Posted by: malis | April 4, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I think I disagree with CZ’s basic assumption—that a ‘Same-Sex Marriage Ban’ will be on the Iowa ballot, and therefore an issue during the 2012 election. To the contrary, it seems much more likely that by 2012 the issue will be considered settled, moot, not of interest.

As evidence, consider the experience of Massachusetts. Started same as Iowa—the Massachusetts State Supreme Court found same-sex marriage legal. That was immediately followed by lots of controversy—social conservatives vowing to overturn it by constitutional amendment, and to defeat legislators voting against the amendment. Such an amendment did pass, but by a much closer margin than expected. But, with the same process as Iowa, the amendment had to be passed by two consecutive Legislatures, then go to a public vote.

Next election cycle, no legislator supporting same-sex marriage lost (at least for that reason). In the new session, the amendment came up for its second vote…and lost by a large margin with little debate. Issue settled; no longer even controversial (that’s my recollection but Massachusetts residents, please feel free to correct or clarify).

So, given the increasing societal acceptance of gays since then, the softening of attitudes nationally, someone tell me why Iowa’s experience will be different from that of Massachusetts?

Posted by: malis | April 4, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

"Have you no job, no friends, no family at all...."

I'd bet Zooks got "people"...

They're the ones who WANT him on the computer all day, so they don't have to listen to him like they used to, before he found The Fix to pester.

Posted by: JEP7 | April 4, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford will finally accept federal stimulus money, reports the NYT. The paper says Sanford's original refusal to accept the money raised his profile among Republicans nationwide, but it also angered many of his constituents back home."

another R fraud. big talk, then cowardice and caving.

Posted by: drindl | April 4, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

"But I'm just an arrogant self sufficient capitalist that worked for what I got and expect no hand out from libs."

well, arrogant you are, zouk,and mentally ill to boot -- but since you are on this site 24 hours a day, I expect you haven't got much. I honestly do feel sorry for you-- is this all you've got? How can you spend so much time here every day? Have you no job, no friends, no family at all?

Posted by: drindl | April 4, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

don't worry about the Obama girls. The village is raising them.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | April 4, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

I am not so sure all those up and coming youngsters are going to be to excited about paying for obimbos failures for the rest of their lives.

It took twelve years to correct the jimmy errors. It may take 50 to pay back the Obama splurge. I think Botox has dissconnected peloonys brain.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | April 4, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

While the Obamas are participating in all these events on the world stage, what's going on on the home front? The President said when he returned from the G-20 that THE DOG "would be in place." Is anyone keeping an eye on the White House, watching for dog delivery/dog training activities? That would be asking a lot of his mother-in-law to handle the initial dog duties, but he did say "the dog will be in place."

Posted by: annieb346 | April 4, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't everyone saying one of the reasons that McCain lost the current election was due to youth turnout and Obama winning the Youth vote by 38 points and this was with a candidate (McCain) that many thought was socially moderate. I just looked at the Census chart from 2000 and there were about 20 million people aged 5-9 in 2000 (basically the people aged 14-17 today - so they'll be old enough to vote in 2012) With more than 2/3 (69-25 per Newsweek) supporting equal legal rights for same-sex couples in the 18-34 age group, this will only turn off more young people to the GOP and with a more conservative candidate as the nominee (a Sanford, Palin, or Huckabee) and would only make them lose by even a larger margin - it is likely Obama would top 70% with the newer college aged voters who will vote for the first time in 2012. The only way the GOP can even make it close in the 35 and under age bracket is to draft Huntsman to run.

Posted by: robbygtx | April 4, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

I am posting the following quote. It was written by Vic Livingston, self-styled journalist from PA, who posts here as "scrivener50". It was carried as a blog post at Daily KOS, which is another reason to avoid that screed. It comes from the self-aggrandizing link Livingston posted here.
------------------------
I believe I was attacked by so-called "directed energy" weaponry at a public event a year ago (March 31, 2008) -- a campaign rally for Hillary Clinton at a wind turbine plant in Fairless Hills, PA, near my home. I was one of about three hundred attendees.

When I tried to get in the line to shake Sen. Clinton's hand after her formal remarks, I was violently "zapped." Repeatedly. It was silent, and painful, and unprovoked. And evil.
-----------------------------------------------------
Vic, if you have a story, take it somewhere. Get medical advice about your injury, if any. We are not physicians. File a complaint, if you are serious, with an investigatory agency. We are not one.

At the rate you are posting, we will have seen this same post or a close variant, with links to your website or to other blogs where you have posted the same story, 10,000 times before the next presidential election. That will not effectively deal with your issue if you are serious, but might increase hits at your website, if you are merely disingenuous.

Discounting mania, I think you could have a positive motive for these repeated posts. You may believe that energy weapons are being tested on civilians. You may think there are others, probably as politically active as you, who are targeted. You may believe that the population that reads "The Fix" is a likely group in which to find a witness, or several witnesses.
At least, if I were trying to defend your rationality as an unselfish gesture, that is a defensible position I could argue. By now you should realize that you are witness fishing in barren waters. In terms of evidence gathering, you should have thought of a medical exam already, btw.

To close on a positive note, I have noticed that many of your posts are shorter and no longer rife with capital letters. This is good. Be safe.


Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 4, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

If Levi Johnston hasn't permanently knocked Sarah Palin out of her phony 'moral leadership' post, then we are truly through the looking glass.

On an upcoming Tyra Banks show, Johnston apparently says that Sarah Palin allowed the unwed couple to share a bedroom in her home. This, from a paragon of morality and virtue who preaches abstinence-only?

For more, plus the Brooke Shields TV commercial from 1981 that this has so much in common with.....

"Nothing Comes Between Bristol Palin and her Levi"
http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2009/04/nothing-came-between-bristol-palin-and.html

Posted by: scootmandubious | April 4, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

drivl. You and your moonbat ilk are such simpletons. Anyone who disagrees with you is simply stupid. This is an argument advanced by stupid and lazy people to avoid defending irrational emotionalism.

I do admire the culture, the tradition , the cooking, the arts
Of old Europe. But when it comes military and economics, the socialist agenda is wanting. They are simply too idealistic
To be practical and they seem to have no guts to get the job done.

But I'm just an arrogant self sufficient capitalist that worked for what I got and expect no hand out from libs.

Poor barry is so obsessed with being liked and fitting in, he has forgotten who he represents. A vestige of a confused childhood. Maybe he could rubber room with you drivl.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | April 4, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

I do feel sorry for all the people who 'doth protest too much' about gay people -- what are you afraid of? What fears and demons haunt you, that you have to obssess about what others do in bed? Why do you care?

Of course, the definition of prudery is not wanting anyone else to enjoy life either...

Just figure that anyone who complains about homosexuality has a miserable sex life -- or none at all.

Posted by: drindl | April 4, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

"Would not want to dwell on the uncouth and unwashed Americans fondling the queen and snubbing the French wife.

The surrender to Europe and accelerate world socialism tour continues unabated. "

poor, poor zouk. his 'mind' is such a confused, chaotic space of conflicting dialogues between the many characters that inhabit it. on the one hand, he worships the european gentry and feels americans are not good enough for them, on the other, he fears 'surrender' to them -- emotions in direct opposition to each other.

schizophrenia is very painful to watch.

Posted by: drindl | April 4, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

WILL GOP BE SINGING, "WE GOT TROUBLE, MY FRIENDS..."


Remember that line from the show "The Music Man"...

"You really ought to give Iowa a try -- provided you are contrary."

Is THIS what Meredith Willson was taking about?

If there's an influx of homosexuals, will that turn Iowa to the Dems?

Will the GOP be singing, "Well, we got trouble my friends..."

This decision eventually could mean translate into more Dem votes in the House and Senate, especially if other "progressive" states liberalize marriage laws.


*******

DID "THE TORTURE MATRIX" HIT HILLARY '08 RALLY?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/3/715887/-Did-Bush-Cheney-Torture-Matrix-Hit-Hillary-08-Rally


Posted by: scrivener50 | April 4, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I guess the bush is dumb joke has run it's course so
In your feeble attempt at humor you will use the zouk in the basement meme every day for the next three years. Anything to avoid your own and your lib failures.

Would not want to dwell on the uncouth and unwashed Americans fondling the queen and snubbing the French wife.

The surrender to Europe and accelerate world socialism tour continues unabated. No actual concrete results though. No money,no troops, but the fashion, the adulation. The Paris Hilton presidency continues.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | April 4, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

In less than ten years, this issue will be irrrevelant.

According to the site

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

resistance to gay marriage as measured in polls is declining about 2 percentage points nationwide per year. The strength of resistance in any particular state can be estimated by looking at the percentage of people in that state who say that religion is an important part of their lives and/or who are white evangelicals. The site then estimates the "tipping point" for each state when they might flip from anti-gay marriage to ambivalent.

Posted by: markohmark | April 4, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

1991 posred the following:

"The idea that someone is born homosexual is absurd. There is no science to support it."

In 1994, B.A. Gladue published "The Biopsychology of
Sexual Orientation". In 1991, Bailey and Pillard published "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation"
and in 1993, they, with two others, published a study on heritable factors in female sexual orientation.

Also from that time period is the book, "The Sexual Brain", from the MIT Press [LeVay].

I think your comment reflects early 1991 thought, before the heritability studies took off.

The short of this is that "science" says there is a strong biological element in homosexuality, although it may not be the only factor. For examples, men in prisons who have no "biological" tendencies to homosexuality engage in homosexual conduct. Not every woman who was a tomboy became a lesbian.

But no one who actually is a scholar in this area denies the biological impact or element, now.

Let me give you a thought experiment, 1991. I am guessing that you, like I, am disgusted by the male homosexual act. Do you think your disgust at that act could be transformed into a craving for it by choice? Why would you think that a male homosexual's disgust for sex with women could be transformed into a craving by choice?

Why would you dictate the consenting private sexual conduct of others? Do you want others to dictate yours?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 4, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I have to say, a road straight to hell. How in the world do you live life trying to force your way of life on us? I say go back in the closet it was a little bit saner then.

Posted by: hln051305 | April 4, 2009 9:46 AM | Report abuse

BUSH-CHENEY 'TORTURE MATRIX' HIT HILLARY '08 RALLY?


http://www.dailykos.com/user/aviben

Posted by: scrivener50 | April 4, 2009 9:10 AM | Report abuse

"don't mind me. I'm just an arrogant American.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | April 4, 2009 8:25 AM"
________
If you say so, King. Thanks for the knowledge.

But to be more accurate, you are (allegedly, probably, almost certainly) an arrogant American blogging from your mom's basement when you aren't selling crushed coke cans to the grocery store.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | April 4, 2009 8:45 AM | Report abuse

don't mind me. I'm just an arrogant American.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | April 4, 2009 8:25 AM | Report abuse

I read somewhere that corn doesn't naturally procreate without human intervention.

Posted by: newbeeboy | April 4, 2009 6:56 AM | Report abuse

The idea that someone is born homosexual is absurd. There is no science to support it. And common sense tells you it's crazy. But the libs need us to believe this so that they can force everyone to accept same sex marriage and the rest of their sexual agenda.

Posted by: yourstruly1991 | April 4, 2009 5:44 AM | Report abuse

Well this is what happns when you elect Obama, if the pres is for it the states start falling in line. But I like Obama Dont know how the GOP keeps attaking him. I seen an online game thats coming out called Obama12, End of days. heres a link http://hotpres.com/pres/ObamaGame.html
Youtube is abuzz with it.

Posted by: pastor123 | April 4, 2009 4:09 AM | Report abuse

"what's makes a person gay?"

Generally bone smuggling or rug munching.

I'm just sayin'...

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | April 3, 2009 10:44 PM | Report abuse

commonlogic - So, it's only the libs who qualify on your list. Of course, KoZ, JakeD, Dian(n^n)e72, are gainfully employed individuals. Well, except for JakeD, who's gainfully golfing.

And let's just not head into Scrivener territory. The horror, the horror...

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | April 3, 2009 9:35 PM | Report abuse

The Republican Party in Iowa has become increasingly more socially conservative. The state has also become more Democratic as a lot of moderate Republicans are now Democrats. I'm sure this issue along with abortion and stem cell research will be a big one in the GOP caucuses and straw poll in 2012. Pat Robertson did very well when he ran in the GOP caucus and I expect that Huckabee and Palin will do so as well but if they split the extreme right vote the business Republicans will put Romney over the top.

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | April 3, 2009 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Bigotry: it's the only thing Christians do well.

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | April 3, 2009 9:32 PM | Report abuse

I agree with an earlier post. If you want to "save marriage" then you should outlaw divorce.

BTW: The states with the highest divorce rates are Oklahoma, MS and several others in the "so called" religious belt.

Posted by: bobnsri | April 3, 2009 8:58 PM | Report abuse

koolcat,drndle,babenemo: You all need to get a life. Is loitering around this site the sum of your lives? After a few days I click on the realclearpolitics link to this article and you're still here. Last time I hung around to read your ... whatever, but won't this time. Only to say that as most Iowa residents appose this decision, it will likely have some benefit for the GOP. Words have meaning and definitions as does Marriage. Gays have civil unions with all the benefits. Why would a homosexual couple feel at all diminished just because their union is not called a "marriage"? My brother is gay and I love him just as much as I do my other bro's. It has nothing to do with homophobia. Liberals love to throw that word at anyone who disagrees with them about the meaning and definition of a word. Funny, that a lot of this effort to change the definition of this word and institution comes from basically the same crowd that used to say "who needs to be married?" ... "what's the point?" ... "we can just live together" ... "it's just a piece of paper" ... "it doesn't mean anything"... Oh, but now they think it means everything and they will never be happy unless they force a change in its definition. That's all. I probably won't convince anyone here and you won't convince me or others, so I guess this was a waste of time. Have a great weekend! See ya ... Chao!

Posted by: commonlogic | April 3, 2009 8:39 PM | Report abuse

It'll be a little funny, but mostly sad, to watch the GOP hopefuls try to "out Old Testament" each other in reaching for the biggest share of the Taliban vote in the 1012 (oops, I mean 2012, I was thinking about their mindset) primaries.

What a sad, sad, freedom-hating party they are. I just wish they would all go to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, where they would feel more at home with their "values".

Posted by: B2O2 | April 3, 2009 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Ah, IOWA!

I know some people were surprised, but anyone familiar with Iowa real estate could have seen this coming....

For many years, Iowa farmland was valued on all the usual factors, soil, water, location, etc plus one other factor.

However, Iowans have long reported UFO sightings and abductions and those precious properties that have not only become America's spaceport, but embarcation centers and, of course centers for alien anal probes have long commanded the highest market prices.

Looks like Iowans have decided that if you can't take the farm to market, bring the market to the farm.

Good Luck and God Bless.

Posted by: bgreen2224 | April 3, 2009 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Wow!

Poor GOP. They're going to nominate an unelectable candidate in 2012 for sure now!

Posted by: theamazingjex | April 3, 2009 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Don't care.

This "lifestyle" junk will play no role in the 2012 presidential race; Americans (outside the Confederacy and Alaska) will not be distracted from the main issues ever again in a major election: the economy, world peace, global warming.

Let "Mrs." Billie Jean King do what she wants--uh, not that's there's anything wrong with it. Who cares?

Winners
BHO (67% approval acc. to Daily Kos)
Mrs. BHO (hippin' Old Europe to the jive)
I-Pods
Eugene Robinson
Rachel Maddow (for her interview of C. Luther Powell about WH torture meetings)
NYT's Sy Hersh (thanks for the knowledge)
Richard Boone (for his "I hope Texas remembers" Alamo speech)
Eldrick Woods
Howard Zinn (Hall of Famer for the People's History of the United States)
Barry Bonds (greatest hitter of all time)

Losers
48-year-old looking "starlet" and BHO hater Kelly Harmon (for an idiotic hate blast against 44 in which she declared, Nixon-like, "I am not a racist."/Her 15 min. claim to fame? -- she's one of 138 actresses who played fake DA Jack McCoy's legal assistant on "Law and Order.")

Limbaugh (when will the AM station owners realize that even free of charge (as it is) his show is too expensive?)

Hannity (for devoting at least one hour every day on Faux News to trashing the commander in chief/How is that patriotic?)

BHO hater emeritus Juan Williams (automatic)

Mrs. Todd Phalin (the GOP and McCain say your 15 mins. are up)

Joan Rivers' "Phantom of the Opera" face on an HD TV (no mas, no mas)

Dara Torres (questionable pharmaceuticals, allegedly)


Posted by: broadwayjoe | April 3, 2009 7:33 PM | Report abuse

The GOP strategy has essentially been to get out the base with minimal effort to target everybody else. This gay marriage ruling will put the GOP base, who opposes gay marriage against everybody else--which includes people who support it.

A candidate trying to reconcile these to warring factions is going to make John Kerry's "I voted for the war, before I voted against it" indecisiveness look minor.

Posted by: UnPatriotic | April 3, 2009 7:32 PM | Report abuse

The GOP strategy has essentially been to get out the base with minimal effort to target everybody else. This gay marriage ruling will put the GOP base, who opposes gay marriage against everybody else--which includes people who support it.

A candidate trying to reconcile these to warring factions is going to make John Kerry's "I voted for the war, before I voted against it" look minor.

Posted by: UnPatriotic | April 3, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

'I'll bet if it came to a vote gay marriage would overwhelming get shot down in Iowa just like it has everywhere else its been put to a vote.'

Proposition 8 passed in California by a margin of 52% to 47%. I wouldn't call that overwhelming. Do you really think that its right for a simple majority to have the power to amend a state's constitution? Shouldn't there be a higher bar than that?

Posted by: SilentAlarm | April 3, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

If all these right wing freaks want to 'save' marriage I have an easy solution. Make divorce against the law.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | April 3, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

"All Iowans should have a say in this issue." Gee, wonder what would have happened if we had put the civil rights decisions of the 1950s and 60s up for a vote in the south.

Posted by: kgb1 | April 3, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

This decision was not made by "liberal activist judges." The seven justices, appointed by both Republican and Democratic Governors, made a unanimous decision based on equal protection under the laws.

Posted by: blindwilliemctell | April 3, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

(((cough cough))))
well, 2012 is the end of the Mayan calendar. maybe the world will end before any of the issues can get decided!
(((MUUUUHHHHHAAAAHHHHAAAA )))

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 3, 2009 6:10 PM | Report abuse

I guess it goes to show how valuble it is to do like California and the various other states have done and actually put tradional marriage into thier state constitutions. That way liberal activist judges like the ones in Iowa can't pull a constitutional right to gay marriage out of their collective butts. It also goes to show how useful a fairly liberal petition law like they have in California is to allow actual citizens to quickly have a say in these kind of left wing ruling from the judicial elite. Unfortunately for Iowans unless they can get their legislators to vote to overide they won't even get a say. I'll bet if it came to a vote gay marriage would overwhelming get shot down in Iowa just like it has everywhere else its been put to a vote.

Posted by: RobT1 | April 3, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

food for thought --

what's makes a person gay? general question here.
some say gays are born that way.
some say gays "turn that way"....
a person comes out and says they are gay.
they have that right not only to be gay but to say it.

however, with the abortion issue, when a mother is carrying a fetus, some say it is a human being and you cannot murder it. Yet, the mother is somewhat the third party in the decision --if government gets involved. So we have a third party deciding for the fetus and the mother.
follow?

yet, we have not determined within scientific circles, when a fetus (or that other name zygot???) becomes a "human being". so does murder apply?

now, somewhere in this thought process, I feel that I can apply this "theory" of third party to the gay issue.
Can we, in government, be the third party in the gay issue when we can't even get it right with abortion.

am i confusing you? it's late.


Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 3, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, please retract your unkind, unflattering, and invidious defamation of a hapless dalmation, caught in the clutches of perfidy.

By 2012 we will have divorce stats on heterosexual marriages, and early stats on male homosexual marriages, and lesbian marriages.

My bet: The divorce rate will be lowest among lesbians married for the same number of years.

Pool, anyone?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 3, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm hoping that by 2011 social conservatives will see the gay mariage supports family and be all for it.

In the mean time, I'll be talking with my childhood and college friends in Iowa.

Posted by: ideallydc | April 3, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Opponents of gay marriage have yet to come up with a credible argument for why it harms so-called traditional marriage.

Marriage for procreation.
(1) Okay, so we shouldn't allow gays to marry because they can't have children, but it follows that we also shouldn't allow heterosexual infertile couples to marry as they can't have children.

(2) But wait, medical technology allows infertile heterosexual couples to have children. It also lesbians to have children. So the argument against marriage for reproduction is bunk.

The only argument against gay marriage relies on a religious definition that not everyone subscribes to.

Posted by: UnPatriotic | April 3, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse


one cannot deny that this is one of the hottest topics on the table ....

if i remember correctly, isn't there seperation of church and state?
does this only apply in government?
or does this apply within society too?


Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 3, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

If a candidate is deemed genuine by the religious right in the wake of this decision, they are going to be in for a wake up call come election time.

Posted by: UnPatriotic | April 3, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Huckabee called the decision "disappointing", adding: "All Iowans should have a say in this matter, not a handful of legislative judges"

Really Mike? Where were you when the U.S. Supreme Court went against the wishes of the people of DC and declared their handgun ban unconstitutional?

Apparently, "activist judges" only applies when you oppose the decision.

Posted by: UnPatriotic | April 3, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

'Now, I have legal justification to marry my two girlfriends, my dalmation, and my Burmese Python, Fred.'

Sigh.

The point is that marriage should be allowed between any two consenting adults. Your 'dalmation' and python cannot enter into a contractual relationship with you, and they can't consent to marriage. Is that really so hard to understand?

As for polygamy, I personally don't have any problem with it, but the issue of two people entering into a union vs. multiple people entering into the same sort of union is a completely separate issue. If you believe you should be able to have two wives, take it up with the courts. But doesn't have any relation to this issue here.

Posted by: SilentAlarm | April 3, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

So you are not making progress, backsliding and getting " the confusion" again?

Too bad. No wonder the sheep is getting your action. Maybe if they shaved you.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | April 3, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Imagine how many gay couples will marry in Iowa by 2011 or 2012! After our experience here in California, there's not going to be one committed gay couple that hesitates to take this step, believing the right to marry is forever.

And yet, imagine Iowans going to the polls three years from now and voting to take away the rights of, say, 20,000 married gay couples. Can Iowans be so cruel?

By 2012, there probably will be at least 10 states allowing gay marriage. By then, probably 70 percent of the public will be just fine with it. How long will conservative Christians cling to this lost cause before moving on to the next way they can prevent our nation's inevitable progression toward equal rights for all?

Posted by: jonfromcali | April 3, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Oh well. It just one more nail in the coffin of traditional marriage. Marriage has been on the rocks for quite a while, with half or more of babies born out of wedlock. Its meaning as a social and cultural standard has been assailed on all sides, but the worst beating of all has been this same-sex spectacle. Well Congratulations to the IOWA homosexuals, but too bad you missed the best years of institutional meaning. Now you may have your share of the hollowed out husk of a once nationally significant tradition.

Posted by: cecil91 | April 3, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"How's group drivl? Are they still assuring you that you are making progess? Isn't Friday pizza and jello?"

I don't know, zouk. apparently you do.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

It's shaping up already. Newt Gingrich is going to take the republican leadership position -- running on a Christian Nation platform, within the TEA party. The orgianization is already in place.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=473430

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

How's group drivl? Are they still assuring you that you are making progess? Isn't Friday pizza and jello?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | April 3, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Which is why I did not tell him to f#@k himself, could you imagine what would come out?

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | April 3, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Patrick, his father was his brother, I mean his father, I mean his brother...

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

the GOP push will be, like baby bush, to amend the constitution.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 3, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I think the legalization of gay marriage is a great step forward. Now, I have legal justification to marry my two girlfriends, my dalmation, and my Burmese Python, Fred. For too long we have been limited by the narrow-minded views of the right-wing! Marriage is a matter of love, and who should be able to tell you who, or what, you can love?

Posted by: no1yuno1
-------------------------------
Why not? It's clear that your parents had no problem marrying, despite being cousins.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | April 3, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Think again, political pundits.
Not in 2012, nor ever again, will a presidential candidate bea ble to climb or crawl into office over the backs of gay people.
It worked for Bush, when he & his party threw the fear of 'the gays' in the country's face. It will never get off the ground in Iowa, now the the ban has been ruled, rightfully so, unconstitutional.
Activist Senators & legislators can not overturn the ruling, try though they may.
The tide has turned in this country.
The swing towards equality is ever increasing in breadth.
Finally all Iowans have freedom to marry.
And someday soon, all Americans will enjoy that right to which we all are entitled.

Posted by: richardsf | April 3, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Yes, this issue will be crucial in determining which right-wing loony toon becomes the chosen one to crash and burn in the 2012 election.

Posted by: gmcduluth | April 3, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

how's the job search, zouk?

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

On the plus side, this ensures eight years of Obama!

Posted by: hiberniantears | April 3, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I see drivl is still sore about sharing with the sheep.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | April 3, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

This is another issue that shows the GOP is not the party representing human rights and freedom. The bigotry of many Republicans may lead a right wing candidate seeking to eshrine discrimination in the Constitution to gain a temporary advantage from the Iowa caucuses in 2012. However, opposition to human rights is becoming less of an issue to most independents.

The GOP will and should never again win a presidential election as long as it seeks to enrich the wealthy, advance the interests of corporations over the people,
promote militaristic foreign policies, show no compassion for the needy and stand in opposition to basic human rights. Let the Republicans go the way of the Federalists in the late 1810's, to be replaced by a moderate party.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | April 3, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

This is an issue that has two sides: Those who treat others based on the tribal values of the stone age, and those who treat others as equals in a free society. You can only call yourself an American if you support a free society based on equality. If you oppose gay marriage, then you oppose America, and you are anti-American. Deal with it.

Posted by: hiberniantears | April 3, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse


okay, what's the difference between a same-sex marriage and a civil union?

alot can happen by 2012 folks.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 3, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"I think the legalization of gay marriage is a great step forward. Now, I have legal justification to marry my two girlfriends, my dalmation, and my Burmese Python,"

You rightwingers sure like kinky sex, don't you?

Hey--GO FOR IT!

I'm sure you're making up the part about the girlfriends-- you're too obnoxious to have even one. But you and your dog and python are all about the same mental level, so i'm sure it will work out fine.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"It remains to be seen whether Huntsman's position -- against same-sex marriage but in support of civil unions -- is too nuanced to pass muster for social conservative voters."

Too bad about Huntsman -- he's the only sane one among them, except for maybe Crist.

No, moderate republicans will continue to be held hostage by the lunacy of the base and the need to genuflect to Comrade Rush.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I think the legalization of gay marriage is a great step forward. Now, I have legal justification to marry my two girlfriends, my dalmation, and my Burmese Python, Fred. For too long we have been limited by the narrow-minded views of the right-wing! Marriage is a matter of love, and who should be able to tell you who, or what, you can love?

Posted by: no1yuno1 | April 3, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

This great ruling eliminates a classic GOP argument about "northeastern liberals."

Now the Repukes have to talk about "activist judges" in the heartland of America.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | April 3, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

As a result of this ruling, the 2012 Iowa primary will be a contest of who can be the most socially conservative and anti-gay. The winner is likely to be far to the right of the country as a whole, and unlikely to win the general election.

Then again, the most socially conservative candidate won Iowa in 2008. And Huckabee didn't even come close to scoring the nomination. This ruling only impacts 2012 if the winner of Iowa gets the nomination, and there's no guarantee of that.

Posted by: Blarg | April 3, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Didn't we decide about 200 years ago that there were some rights so fundamental that they would be protected from the tyranny of the majority ("the people", as Romney referred to it)?

On the plus side, anything that will springboard Sarah Palin to the GOP nomination in 2012 will ensure the Democratic hold on the White House for at least 8 years. Unless the "religious right" wing of the GOP finally wakes up and realizes that its "champions" in the GOP are not interested in actually banning gay marriage, but instead in grandstanding on the issue every four years (remember how swiftly GWB abandoned his 2004 campaign pledge to seek a constitutional amendment on this? I don't think the Diebold machines had even cooled off in Ohio yet....).

Posted by: pcpatterson | April 3, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company