Reply #16: They couldn't have waited a year?

[rmgarrette64]

Sorry, but I can't join in the celebration here (and I'll also admit, as one of the rare religious democrats around, I have mixed feelings on the merits - but I'm going to talk about the politics here.) I think this hurts us more than it helps us.

First off, this won't go directly to the Supreme Court. It'll go to the Iowa Supreme Court, and from there up the chain. So, at the least, this issue will be in the forefront for the next year. Iowa has a Defense of Marriage Act. They have, legislatively, declared marriage to be one man, one woman.

So this puts two big Republican issues right into the forefront. First, there's the cultural conservatism - and if you think that has no impact on the country at large, you're dreaming. Secondly, it brings up the activist judge issue again, which has typically favored them recently. I'll admit that I have not read the opinion yet (OK, I probably never will, not being a lawyer, but will read summaries of it...) It better be air tight, but my immediate suspicion is that it is far from it.

This will stir up Republicans again, and will drag some, or even many, to the polls, where they might have sat it out otherwise. Our candidates are soon going to have to go on record, and the fuzzy stance they usually take - officially supporting Defense of Marriage-style acts, but only lightly - will not be sufficient. Sorry, but I think this ruling hurts us for this election, and even more, I suspect it'll hurt us a lot.

Maybe I'm overreacting due to my admitted mixed feelings on the merits. On the other hand, I am a Democrat, and this type of ruling does bug me, which can also be taken as showing that this can have a real impact on our chances. I hope I'm wrong.

R. Garrett