The real question is whether a ruling by the Supreme Court sets precedent and thus makes law. This was how the English Constitution was made, i.e., by the rulings of the courts and this was specifically rejected by the framers. I think that was because such rulings are so difficult to overturn legislatively or constitutionally.. This means that they are the very opposite of government by the consent of the governed – which is why liberals and leftists are so fond of them. Consequently what they give us is government of the government, by the government and for the government with the leftist most position in our society representing always the position of the “government” against the people and the Constitution.

At what point do we stop? This is what happens when you designate a sexual persuasion as meeting the criteria for the Equal Protection clause.

Personally, I do not have a problem with gay marriage, but it should be a decision left up to the people of the many states and not imposed upon the people.

The last time I checked, -Iowa was a solid blue state…I do not see the people rising up and demanding that the Democratically controlled State House put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Nor would the Democrats in the State House be inclined to do so…they do not give a care what the people want.

As I have posted before, I do think my difference of opinion with you and many others here over gay marriage may simply be a result of generational differences. I’m guessing I’m younger than most who post at Redstate. And from my personal experience it appears my generation is much more comfortable with gay issues.

On a personal note, the gay marriage issue is something that is close to home for me. One of my dearest friends is gay and he married his partner in Massachusetts. I attended that wedding and thought it was a loving, spiritual ceremony. I post about gay marriage frequently because I am close friends with someone who is living proof that gay marriage can be strong and committed. My friend’s marriage is a model for what a loving, kind, gentle, fun, and devoted relationship can look like. So that is why I post about the issue. It hits home for me.

“Commentary: The right of the federal courts to handle “cases arising under this Constitution” is the basis of the Supreme Court’s right to declare laws of Congress unconstitutional. This right of “judicial review” was established by Chief Justice John Marshall’s historic decision in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803.”

from http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2008/April/20080416203407eaifas0.6335565.html

Any time a court overturns a law anywhere in the country it is based on the judges’ ideology. The ideology is called the Constitution. As always, judges are human, constitutional issues are complex and open to interpretation, and judges will differ on interpretation. There is no way to avoid this. If a judge or a court is not operating in good faith, they can be impeached.

“They are not specifically given this power by any state constitution that I am aware of.”

Iowa state constitution, Article V:

“Jurisdiction of supreme court. SEC. 4. The supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction only in cases in chancery, and shall constitute a court for the correction of errors at law, under such restrictions as the general assembly may, by law, prescribe; and shall have power to issue all writs and process necessary to secure justice to parties, and shall exercise a supervisory and administrative control over all inferior judicial tribunals throughout the state. ”

Note: “corrections of errors at law”

quite simple

I am a frontpager and one of the 4 original contributing editors at race42012, btw.

Rats, now I am doing it too!

And laws and courts do best when they tailor their solution rather than taking sweeping measures, in large part because of the law of unintended consequences. And our legislative process that has been in place for over two hundred years is well equipped to deal with the situations you describe and come up with solutions.

The problem with court-imposed gay marriage is that it short-circuits the public discussion on the matter, and imposes not merely perceived rights but also imposes approval of gay relationship, consigning those who disapprove of gay marriage to calumny as civil rights violators (i.e. racists) and invoking the power to the state to punish their exercising their opinions. Roe v Wade and the subsequent invoke of state power is the best analogy.

Rather than allow a public consensus to develop around the issue of abortion, Roe v Wade has fixed and intensified the fault lines of the abortion debate, and if anything our nation is even more polarized over abortion than it was at the time the decision was made.

Similarly, there are many trends towards greater acceptance of gay relationships, and many are reevaluating their views – especially with regard to civil laws. We are heading towards a new consensus – or at least were until the courts started stepping in and mandating gay marriage – which has then forced opponents to up the ante with constitutional amendments and initiative – and frozen civil discussion by creating divisive electoral battles.

The Iowa decision will simply intensify the polarization, because it has short-circuited that ability of the citizens, through their elected officials, via compromises and negotiation, to mediate the various interests among the populace.

And as Alithelia noted above, the same tactics that are used today to advance a cause you like over majority opposition can equally be used against you in the future – and you will have left yourself not recourse against such tyranny because you let the expedience of today destroy your defenses.