Has the Iowa supreme court been interpreting marriage incorrectly for 170 years?

As I am sure some of you know, the Iowa supreme court has just decided marriage has been being interpreted incorrectly for 170 years. Is this particular supreme court somehow intellectually superior to those of the previous 170 years ? Or do they just want to interpret it to suit their views ? Thanks for your answers. God bless.Has the Iowa supreme court been interpreting marriage incorrectly for 170 years?
Liberals can't insert their agendas without the use of courts.


And since high judges are not voted into office, it will get worse before it gets better.Has the Iowa supreme court been interpreting marriage incorrectly for 170 years?
I suppose you are one of those who want to go back to the time when people couldn't marry people of a different race, and when married women could not own property, the Iowa supreme court ruled both of these things unconstitutional in the past 170 years.





To lawrenceba549, last time I checked, there wasn't a dedicated and well funded lobbying group of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or Buddhists subverting the constitution by trying to get their religious views made into law the way the Evangelicals are.





You can believe in the great flying spaghetti monster for all I care, just so long as you don't try to put your doctrine in my constitution.
This is not a case of ';judicial activism';, but rather the Iowa supreme court doing what it is supposed to do. The law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman was a recent legal change that was challenged in the courts and decided ultimately by the state's highest court. They decided that such a definition infringed on the rights of citizens under the state constitution.


Times change. Once upon a time women could not vote, slavery was legal, segregation acceptable,etc.
It's being interpreted just fine... everywhere.





The problem is when you have some Fundamentalist Christians who seek to ';redefine'; marriage as being a creation of their own but still administered by the government.





These conservative Christians can't have it both ways... either Marriage belongs to their church and the government stays out of it completely - or they have to make it fair for ALL people and allow other beliefs to come into play.





That's America!





You can believe whatever you want about YOUR marriage - but you cannot force our government to accept your ideas to the degree that it prevents others from the exact same rights and benefits as you.





Marriage in America comes with something in the range of 2000 added rights and benefits... you can't save that just for straight people.
They've never been asked to interpret their Constitution regarding marriage until recently. So no, they weren't interpreting it incorrectly, because they weren't previously interpreting it at all. It's not to suit their views but to follow the letter of the law in their state constitution. They were doing their job. I don't care much about your assertion that they are legislating from the bench. That's just something anti-gay marriage people say every time rulings don't go their way. You guys need to get some new material.
If yoiu have read the Iowa Constitution, you would see they voted the only way they could


All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.It is not Judicial Activism, unanimous decision including republican judges. They were asked to decide based on the wording of our constitution and they did
It simply hasn't come up in that time. I'm sure you would not consider it suiting their own views if they agreed with you. The concept of human rights has evolved over the last 170 years. Blacks are no longer considered able to be made slaves, or forbidden to vote, or forbidden to marry whites.





You wouldn't consider it at all activism as long as they continued the practice of restricting the human rights of gays.
This is the only state that has never elected a Woman or non White to a US Federal office, or the Governors office. Don't get too excited. BTW, 2-4 Iowa Supreme Court justices are on the general election ballot every 2 years for retention. The Supreme Court can be voted out in Iowa.
I'm sure the knuckle draggers were against the emancipation proclamation and womens right to vote too. Roe v Wade still knocks them for a loop. Yes, boys and girls, it looks like the horseless carriage is here to stay, don't get left behind.
Really, where in the constitution is the authority given to the courts, to regulate religious unions that violate no person or property?





What person in a 'gay marriage' is incapable of giving consent?
No





Well, you can leave the USA if you don't like it here anymore. Iran is very conservative. Why not move there?
get over it man.....





marriage in the eyes of god and in the eyes of state are two different things.





Surely... SURELY there is something that outrages you just a little wee bit more?





btw.. when I think crazy liberal... I think Iowa.
It's a court of laws not a court of your religious views or court of your morality.
Slavery has been acceptable for 2500 years, according to your logic that should without a doubt never be questioned then.
You better start swimmin or you'll sink like a stone, cause the times they are a changin.
This version of the ISC apparently thinks so. Incorrectly, in my opinion.
Times change, at one point people thought it was fine to keep a black child as a pet.
Thats good Old Iowa .
I can't say whether they've been interpreting marriage correctly or not; what I can say is that the courts may have the right to interpret a written law as unconstitutional, but they have no right to insert a new law in its place.


Also, whenever I ask what is unequal about not allowing homosexuals to marry, I can never get an answer. Homosexuals already have the right to marry any unmarried member of the opposite sex that agrees to such a union (as do heterosexuals) OR they can stay single and not be granted such tax benefits as the marriage benefit (same as single heterosexuals). What's unequal?


Also, to all those Christian bashers: Islam and Judaism forbid homosexuality also, Hinduism is silent, and Buddhism forbids sexual misconduct but fails to define it. Please either get the guts to attack Islam on this issue also, or else come up with another argument.