Yeah, the Iowa House still passed the bill to start banning same sex marriage 66 to 23, even after that speech. My friends still back in my home state said it shouldn't pass the Senate, but apparently 3 democrats even voted against it citing they had to vote for their constituency and not their personal views.
Apparently 3 Democrats even voted against it citing they had to vote for their constituency and not their personal views.
This makes me so mad, and I call bullshit on those Dems. It doesn't matter what their constituency wants; if we allowed the popular vote to determine human rights, there'd still be miscegenation laws on the books.
The justices did the right thing legally, and rewriting the state constitution to suit the 'personal views' of the red regions doesn't suddenly make the decision of the justices invalid. Just. ARG.
Well technically, it wasn't up for vote before. They started allowing same-sex marriage due to a judicial decision. So now certain legislators wish to revise the state constitution to specifically ban it.
Because sadly Iowa is blue in the cities, and red in the rural areas...
Click to view
Comments 5
It's kind of upsetting.
Reply
This makes me so mad, and I call bullshit on those Dems. It doesn't matter what their constituency wants; if we allowed the popular vote to determine human rights, there'd still be miscegenation laws on the books.
The justices did the right thing legally, and rewriting the state constitution to suit the 'personal views' of the red regions doesn't suddenly make the decision of the justices invalid. Just. ARG.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Because sadly Iowa is blue in the cities, and red in the rural areas...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment