Bizarre Iowa Supreme Court campaign ad

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter BobG
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Strange
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
32 replies · 6K views
BobG
Science Advisor
Messages
365
Reaction score
88
This ad hoping to unseat a judge from the Iowa Supreme Court has to be the early #1 in bizarre campaing ads.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj2gOLUw5yk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org

Discussion

They took a page from Glenn Beck; he used a near-identical tactic in one of his books.
 
That's disgusting. A marriage should be between a man and a woman.
 
Jimmy Snyder said:
That's disgusting. A marriage should be between a man and a woman.
or two people of the same sex. As long as they are of legal age and aren't closely related, they should be granted equal rights.

Text of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Denying gay marriage is unconstitutional.
 
Don't steal this guy's yard signs.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GabMEHfCjT0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jimmy Snyder said:
That's disgusting. A marriage should be between a man and a woman.

"If God meant for man to count higher than 1,048,575 he would have given him more fingers and toes."

Or if G-d meant for man to marry in more than one way, man would have been made two ways.
 
Lacy33 said:
"If God meant for man to count higher than 1,048,575 he would have given him more fingers and toes."

Or if G-d meant for man to marry in more than one way, man would have been made two ways.

If God meant for man to do more than two things, he would have given man more than two hands.

But clearly, we can do more than two things, and the lightning hasn't come down yet. So...

What was your argument again?
 
Evo said:
As long as they are of legal age and aren't closely related, they should be granted equal rights.
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...
Denying gay marriage is unconstitutional.
Wouldn't a state denying marriage between sisters and/or brothers be unconstitutional then, if at least one state legalized it?
 
Al68 said:
Wouldn't a state denying marriage between sisters and/or brothers be unconstitutional then, if at least one state legalized it?

Now why can't a man marry his sister? I see nothing in the Constitution that prohibits this?
 
Proton Soup said:
the inbred court ad is hilarious and well-done :smile:

Except for the fact that the Iowa Supreme Court didn't strike down laws prohibiting marriage between a brother and sister (assuming there is such a law). They struck down a law prohibiting same sex marriage.

The ad is hilarious, but it actually has to be true to be well-done.
 
Lacy33 said:
"If God meant for man to count higher than 1,048,575 he would have given him more fingers and toes."

Or if G-d meant for man to marry in more than one way, man would have been made two ways.

Lacy, I think you missed the point of my signature.

People who can only count to 10 on their fingers are close minded and lack imagination.

People who can count to 99 on their fingers are open to new ideas and practical. (The Chisenbop method is only sensible way to count on our fingers.)

People who can count to 1023 on their fingers are nerds.

People who can count to 99,999 on their fingers are most likely Chinese.

Etc.

Even my signature, "If God meant for man to count higher than 1,048,575 he would have given him more fingers and toes." is misleading. I could actually combine the Chinese method and the hexadecimal system and count on my toes. I don't know exactly how high I could count that way, since my calculator doesn't have enough significant digits to tell me, but it would take me over 30,000 years to count that high.
 
BobG said:
Except for the fact that the Iowa Supreme Court didn't strike down laws prohibiting marriage between a brother and sister (assuming there is such a law). They struck down a law prohibiting same sex marriage.

The ad is hilarious, but it actually has to be true to be well-done.

i haven't been following the iowa political situation. it appeared at first to me they were commenting on some type of old-boy network in place. but the slippery slope to incest thing seems likely, too.

speaking of which, why should the state regulate marriage at all? ( i think it shouldn't) if it is because of some compelling state interest, then the situation seems less about rights and more about what is good for the state. and the interest here would presumably be making babies.

as for incest, the compelling state interest would presumably be NOT making babies. defective humans are a drain on the state. but if the brother/sister couple are sterile, the compelling state interest in preventing incest is neutralized, and so they should have the same rights as a sterile homosexual couple. (all sounds horrid, i know, but i vaguely remember something similar happening in britain).
 
Proton Soup said:
i haven't been following the iowa political situation. it appeared at first to me they were commenting on some type of old-boy network in place. but the slippery slope to incest thing seems likely, too.
The situation in Iowa is unbelievable.

DES MOINES, Iowa – Stung by a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage in Iowa last year, out-of-state convervative groups have been pouring time and money into an effort to unseat three of the court's seven justices.

At a Statehouse rally Monday to kick off a bus tour, gay marriage opponents pleaded their case for why voters on Nov. 2 should opt not to retain Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, and justices David Baker and Michael Streit. Iowa voters have never ousted a state Supreme Court justice.

"In January, when the consequences of this effort come to fruition, the special interest advocates will be gone — back to Mississippi, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Alabama," said former Attorney General Bonnie Campbell. "They won't be here after Nov. 3, but the rest of us will be."

Those who want to retain the justices, including many law groups, say ousting them would upset the balance of power.

Eugene Meyer, commissioner of the Iowa Department of Public Safety, said at a rally held by justice supporters that he worried that the widespread removal of judges would cripple the justice system.

Former Republican lieutenant governor Art Neu said he's also worried about that possibility.

"I don't think any of us can contemplate the breakdown of our legal system should anything close to what they're proposing take place," said Neu.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101025/ap_on_el_ge/us_iowa_gay_marriage

Is it just me, or does it seem that this country is being overtaken by some form of mass hysteria? Common sense and logic are being thrown out of the window in favor of pushing laws to infringe on the rights of individuals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If G-d had meant for us to go around naked, we'd have been born that way.
 
Evo said:
or two people of the same sex. As long as they are of legal age and aren't closely related, they should be granted equal rights.

Denying gay marriage is unconstitutional.

Evo, you seem to waffle a bit on your opinions. In another thread you posted:
Rights are granted, rights are taken away. You only the have the rights that the governing body allows. As kurdt said the ruling body

Now that the topic has changed, you post part of the constitution to say rights are protected:
Text of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Which is it? The constitution is in place to protect our rights, or the only rights we have are decided upon by the governing body(voters)? Or am I just misunderstanding, which I do quite often.

The problem I have with gay marriage rights, is the same problem I have with marriage rights, couples are granted special rights and priveleges for a choice they make. If we are a society that believes in equal rights, we shouldn't be granting special rights to anyone anywhere.
 
Jasongreat said:
Which is it? The constitution is in place to protect our rights, or the only rights we have are decided upon by the governing body(voters)? Or am I just misunderstanding, which I do quite often.

The constitution is in place to protect your rights. However, if the governing body feels strongly enough, the constitution can be amended. Hence, both.
 
Jasongreat said:
Which is it? The constitution is in place to protect our rights, or the only rights we have are decided upon by the governing body(voters)? Or am I just misunderstanding, which I do quite often.
You're misunderstanding. Stating the fact that you only have the rights you are granted has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with them.

The problem I have with gay marriage rights, is the same problem I have with marriage rights, couples are granted special rights and priveleges for a choice they make. If we are a society that believes in equal rights, we shouldn't be granting special rights to anyone anywhere.
I agree. I'm against the special rights that religious people are granted as it discriminates against the non-religious. I can't request waivers and special considerations because I don't believe in supernatural beings. What's wong with that picture?

And yes, I know that in the US a deity is not necessary to qualify for religious status, but it's the most common. It is required in the UK though.
 
Evo said:
Stating the fact that you only have the rights you are granted...
That wouldn't leave us much, since nowhere in the constitution are any rights "granted". The obvious underlying assumption for the rights mentioned in the constitution is that they exist a priori (God-given if you prefer), not as a consequence of being granted by government.

This is a very fundamental Enlightenment concept that the U.S. founders firmly embraced, as evidenced by the way rights are presumed to exist, recognized, and protected, instead of being "granted" in the constitution.
 
Finally, a tea party candidate that will drive Palin and O'Donnell right out of the public's memory:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqnjzONrPiA

Some politicians wear Kevlar vests while giving speeches. Gorman wears a shoulder holster when she gives speeches.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qnIZsGSXSk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BobG said:
Some politicians wear Kevlar vests while giving speeches. Gorman wears a shoulder holster when she gives speeches.

Good for her! It's nice to see people exercising their Constitutional rights.

Although her handgun aim was a bit off during rapid fire, and at least one shot went way high.
 
BobG said:
Finally, a tea party candidate that will drive Palin and O'Donnell right out of the public's memory:...Some politicians wear Kevlar vests while giving speeches. Gorman wears a shoulder holster when she gives speeches.
Wow, Bob, I think I just found my future wife. :!)
 
NeoDevin said:
The constitution is in place to protect your rights. However, if the governing body feels strongly enough, the constitution can be amended. Hence, both.

Since the constitution lays out the way that it can be ammended, it is still there to protect our rights from a simple majority, as it requires a super majority to ammend. Once ammended, it hasnt given us a new right, it has only recognised another right that we have had since birth and just haven't exercised it yet. Like the ninth ammendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So it isn't both, it is there to protect, not to grant.
 
Jasongreat said:
Since the constitution lays out the way that it can be ammended, it is still there to protect our rights from a simple majority, as it requires a super majority to ammend. Once ammended, it hasnt given us a new right, it has only recognised another right that we have had since birth and just haven't exercised it yet. Like the ninth ammendment states:

So it isn't both, it is there to protect, not to grant.

Actually, rather than the supermajority of 60%, I believe you need a superdupermajority of 66.6666666666666666%
 
Char. Limit said:
Actually, rather than the supermajority of 60%, I believe you need a superdupermajority of 66.6666666666666666%

Actually it is a super majority of 75% of the states. Congress can't ammend, but can only put an ammendment forward, with a super majority, for 75% of the states to agree with.

Here it is: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
 
Jasongreat said:
Actually it is a super majority of 75% of the states. Congress can't ammend, but can only put an ammendment forward, with a super majority, for 75% of the states to agree with.

Here it is: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

I didn't remember Samantha Bee's word for 75%, so I used the one for 2/3 instead.