Democrats win Iowa State House special election

[Dan the Roman]

The ACLU has opposed teh gay agenda too, like they opposed the hate crimes bill that passed the Senate for example.

Anyway, it's a representative democracy for a reason. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the constitution, not the electorate. You should channel your anger towards the authors of Iowa's Equal Protection Clause. If voters are being denied a vote on this issue, that means they basically have to vote on everything that happens in the legislature and the Supreme Court? Cause those are being forced down their throats as well. I really can't prove my point further.

When the people WANT a vote they should get it and we have a freaky system under the first amendment calld "petitions" where you can demand a people's vote. If you don't care that your legislature renamed a Post Office last week then you can ignore it. But if they do something you don't like you have a right to vote it down or vote it out. That's the point of the referendum system, if we NEED it, direct democracy can go into effect it can without destroying our representative system.

So no, you haven't made much of a point other than to try to use the "this isn't technically a democracy" argument to shut out the people's say on marriage. The equal protection clause doesn't have jack to do with gay marriage but the court has used it as an excuse to justify it, the people don't like that, and should be allowed to invoke their right to change the constitution and the system.

Could you kindly explain why no major candidate for Governor in Massachusetts of either party now opposes Gay Marriage four years after it became legal? The experience of states that implement it is that there is a backlash for the first 18 months, after which things inevitably and rapidly move in favor of it. California had the misfortune of voting 6 months afterward. Had the vote taken place in 2010(and the ruling been in 2009) its likely the outcome would have been different.

[Dan the Roman]

The ACLU has opposed teh gay agenda too, like they opposed the hate crimes bill that passed the Senate for example.

Anyway, it's a representative democracy for a reason. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the constitution, not the electorate. You should channel your anger towards the authors of Iowa's Equal Protection Clause. If voters are being denied a vote on this issue, that means they basically have to vote on everything that happens in the legislature and the Supreme Court? Cause those are being forced down their throats as well. I really can't prove my point further.

When the people WANT a vote they should get it and we have a freaky system under the first amendment calld "petitions" where you can demand a people's vote. If you don't care that your legislature renamed a Post Office last week then you can ignore it. But if they do something you don't like you have a right to vote it down or vote it out. That's the point of the referendum system, if we NEED it, direct democracy can go into effect it can without destroying our representative system.

So no, you haven't made much of a point other than to try to use the "this isn't technically a democracy" argument to shut out the people's say on marriage. The equal protection clause doesn't have jack to do with gay marriage but the court has used it as an excuse to justify it, the people don't like that, and should be allowed to invoke their right to change the constitution and the system.

Could you kindly explain why no major candidate for Governor in Massachusetts of either party now opposes Gay Marriage four years after it became legal? The experience of states that implement it is that there is a backlash for the first 18 months, after which things inevitably and rapidly move in favor of it. California had the misfortune of voting 6 months afterward. Had the vote taken place in 2010(and the ruling been in 2009) its likely the outcome would have been different.

Last I've checked Romney opposed gay "marriage" and Patrick is a Dem, so naturally won't. We aren't far enough into the 2010 cycle for the GOP candidates to even have completely gotten into the race much less state a position. If memory serves me correctly, an attempt to get a vote for the people failed by 5 votes at the last MA constitutional convention. Meaning gay "marriage" is safe in MA until a new attempt can be made in 2012. So its a non-issue until that time.

Romney opposed gay marriage because he was never planning on running again. Both GOP candidates for Governor(and I doubt we will have any more the major ones are in) support Gay marriage. And one reason it failed in the legislature is that from 2003 on not one legislator who supported Gay marriage lost their seat. On the other hand dozens of state reps who opposed it did. Thats why it went from 108 votes to 61 votes and its an act of incredible political bravery(or stupidity) to oppose it these days.