Comments on: Rants’ move could constitute violation of oath of office

By: slincoln

slincoln — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 06:17:50 +0000

Sorry Shane, Sarah is right. This isnt about the amendment – rants knows he can't get it on the agenda this session, so he is frantically trying to find ways to strip certain marriage rights away from the gay/lesbian couples who were denied them since the redefinition of civil marriage in 1998.

By: slincoln

slincoln — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:17:50 +0000

By: slincoln

slincoln — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:17:50 +0000

By: john649

john649 — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:44:26 +0000

this behavior is so reminiscent of the anti civil rights tactics by white people………….how disgusting this all is…………

By: Sarahf

Sarahf — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:52:40 +0000

You're not understanding what he's saying. Rants isn't trying to amend the constitution now. He's trying to say same-sex couples' marriages aren't recognized in Iowa's tax code by inserting language in a tax bill. The Republicans can amend the constitution if they want, but simply passing a law that contradicts the court's ruling is not legal.

So this guy's argument is totally sound. Rants is just trying to make Democrats vote against marriage, and since he can't get an amendment up for debate he's doing this.

By: Shane Vander Hart

Shane Vander Hart — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:22:40 +0000

This guy's argument is asinine, so we can't amend the constitution because that would violate a ruling that determined something unconstitutional.

So the Legislature can't find a remedy? Isn't this what the amendment process is for?