Comments:Law banning same sex marriages in Iowa 'unconstitutional' says judge

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


What are the chances of this and that one foot tapper guy being from the same state within the same time period? Contralya 18:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Larry Craig? He's from Idaho. irid:t 19:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
O, my mistake. I get Sweden and Switzerland's mixed up too, lol, sorry.

Postive Rights And Negative Rights - Why marriage is a positive right and not a negative right guaranteed by the constition of this liberal democracy.Edit

According to this view, a positive right imposes a moral obligation on a person to do something for someone, while a negative right merely obliges others to refrain from interfering with someone's attempt to do something. Negative rights may be used to justify political rights such as freedom of speech, property, habeas corpus, freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, a fair trial, freedom from slavery and the right to bear arms. Positive rights may be used to justify public education, health care, social security or a minimum standard of living. Libertarians hold that positive rights, which would include a right to be protected, do not exist until they are created by contract.


Therefore, no legislature may restrict the formation of civil unions which may be drafted by a private attorney with stipulations similar to those of heterosexual marriage (power of attorney, inheritance, etc.; negative rights).

However, a marriage is a negotiated contract between the state and its citizens, in particular social security benefits, which are positive rights. Many positive right contracts are biased and prejudicial; welfare, and affirmative action being some examples.

A homosexual marriages are not guaranteed by the constitution of largely negative rights.

The judge that made this ruling is either a legal and constitutional imbicile, or the case is simply being passed around the machine.

It is unconstitutional. Right to due process. Church and state are supposed to be separated...if you are not religious, then marriage is an act between people who want to make their relationship permenant. A judge can marry anyone. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)