Subscribe to Breaking NewsRuby-Sachs: Iowa’s Constitutional Protections
The Iowa Supreme Court is set to hear their gay marriage case tomorrow morning. As the fourth state on the brink of legalizing same-sex marriage, the fight in Iowa is much more significant in many ways.
First, it would be the first Midwestern state to take this step towards equality. This would move gay marriage from the traditionally liberal areas of the U.S. to more mainstream regions. Part of the shock of Proposition 8 was that the liberal state of California – a state we all assumed would lead the gay rights fight – took regressive action. Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the country with strict gun laws, a history of left-leaning democratic senators and congressmen and a large University population (not to mention, Northhampton). Connecticut also enjoys liberal status (though they are not so good on gun laws seeing as a huge amount of guns are manufactured in the state).
Iowa, on the other hand, has no such reputation. If gay marriage were to pass, it would be a huge win for the LGBT movement. It would also, hopefully, be the start of marriage fights in the rest of mainstream America.
There is another reason a win in Iowa would, perhaps, have more clout than the decision in California: their Constitution is harder to change. While California allows amendments to head straight for a popular vote, Iowa requires that the majority of the State House and State Senate vote in favor of the amendment before it can be put to a popular vote. This still uses the majority standard (one considerably lower than in the Federal Constitution), but institutes a three step process for ratification.
If the Iowa court follows the legal example set by California, it is less likely that the population will have the chance to follow the electoral example set by California. These kinds of Constitutional safeguards are exactly what is needed to ensure that the majority, a slim majority, cannot impose its will on the minority.
Ya, where the hell did gun control come from? Binding marriage to any other issues only makes it harder to gain support, so lets keep the marriage issue seperate from everything else.
Wisconsin requires an amendment to pass two
consecutive legislative sessions and then a statewide vote. This did not stop the amendment in Wisconsin.
We should focus our efforts on New York and pass Gay Marriage in the legislature and avoid the “activist” Judge argument.
I’m not opposed to having some gun regulation. I don’t believe that just *anyone* should be allowed to own firearms. People who have criminal records or are not mentaly healthy probably should not be allowed to own guns.
Saying that “restrictive gun laws” are good only serves to indicate ignorance of the academic literature about the subject.
Research done by the FBI has shown that areas in the US that have less restrictive gun laws tend to have less violent crime but also tend to have more property crime. It really is a trade off (like so many other things in this world).
Comparing Canada to the United States is kind of ridiculous, mainly because the US has nearly ten times as many people. The population of Los Angeles County is equal to a third of the entire country of Canada.
Cross-sectional research (comparing details from one country to details in another) is generally viewed as a Bad Idea among statisticians and econometricians because, quite simply, there are so many differences between countries that any conclusions made are not meaningful.
Absurd notion? Do your research, please. Canada, for one, has as many or more guns per capita as the US and some of the most restrictive gun laws extant. Annually, crimes involving guns in the entire country total less than what happens in Los Angeles on a bad day. The US has the highest rates of gun violence in the world. Maybe if one couldn’t buy guns at Wal-Mart, teachers in LA could go to work unarmed.
You forgot to mention that the majorities in both the State House and Senate have to vote for an amendment not only once, but then again in a new congress. So therefore they would have to vote for it once, then wait two years for a new congress to be elected and then the new congress would also have to vote in favor of it. Only then would the amendment be put on the next general election ballot for the voters of Iowa to decide.
Where do you get this absurd notion that strict gun laws are good?
Objectively, there is no evidence that really restrictive gun control is good for society. There is also a considerable amount of evidence that it is, in fact, harmful to society to completely prevent people from owning firearms.