Iowa approves same sex marriage

[KittenKoder]

Agna ... that was fucking low.

Guppy's just learning to take what he tries to dish out to others.

Dude, it's your ass and her hand so far. You might want to slink away.

Leave your BDSM fantasies in your other Internet tabs...that all right with you, Bunny?

Seriously, you insulted more groups with one statement and hurt the 'pro' side of the argument more. So go fuck off, mmkay? Leave the discussion to us who are using logic and not personal gripes, or I may just consider taking Gunnys position just to make you look REALLY bad (it would be a challenge to make you look worse but fun).

The best debaters are those like me who can see both sides and not include personal issues, as well as avoid direct, blatant, and low brow insults toward opponents and those whose side you are supporting. You insulted both ... how can you defend anything if you are going to d that?

 

[KittenKoder]

Another discussion derailed by a nutcase ... thanks Agna.

 

[Gunny]

Nobody cares what you favor. Nobody asked, nor is it the topic. You just want to impose your dumbass shit on everyone else as well. Hopefully, wherever it is in Iowa you're moving won't have internet.

You had a bad coming-out experience in the Corps, didn't you, Bunny? I'm guessing your C.O. wasn't a big fan of your nighttime gallivanting in the barracks.

Stop projecting.



It must be unpleasant to know that not everyone's as dimwitted as you two maricones, eh?

I'm not discussing taxation. I'm not discussing homosexuals. DO try and keep your eyes on the fucking ball if you insist on running your suck, huh?

You mentioned taxation. I saw another opportunity to expose your ignorance, namely, your ignorance of the diminishing rate of marginal utility...because advocates of capitalism generally know little about economics.

Agna ... that was fucking low.

I expect nothing better from him. That's why there's a rule against immature brats on most message boards. He's the posterchild.

His best effort so far has been to quote wiki, and attempt to deflect all over the place.

 

[KittenKoder]

You had a bad coming-out experience in the Corps, didn't you, Bunny? I'm guessing your C.O. wasn't a big fan of your nighttime gallivanting in the barracks.

Stop projecting.



It must be unpleasant to know that not everyone's as dimwitted as you two maricones, eh?



You mentioned taxation. I saw another opportunity to expose your ignorance, namely, your ignorance of the diminishing rate of marginal utility...because advocates of capitalism generally know little about economics.

Agna ... that was fucking low.

I expect nothing better from him. That's why there's a rule against immature brats on most message boards. He's the posterchild.

His best effort so far has been to quote wiki, and attempt to deflect all over the place.

Deflect and derail ... I am hating that, and it's usually why I don't bother during peak times on here.

 

[Agnapostate]

You getting your ass spanked might be BDSM from YOUR point of view, but it surely isn't from mine.

Any more deflections you want to try since you obviously are incapable of addressing the topic?

Let's examine the facts...I post extensive commentary on the nature of the tyranny of the majority...you spew a few of your random bullshit lies and mischaracterizations...I don't think you wanna recap again.

Now, do you finally have an argument?

Seriously, you insulted more groups with one statement and hurt the 'pro' side of the argument more. So go fuck off, mmkay? Leave the discussion to us who are using logic and not personal gripes, or I may just consider taking Gunnys position just to make you look REALLY bad (it would be a challenge to make you look worse but fun).

The best debaters are those like me who can see both sides and not include personal issues, as well as avoid direct, blatant, and low brow insults toward opponents and those whose side you are supporting. You insulted both ... how can you defend anything if you are going to d that?

What is this, a joke? I just thoroughly rebutted your denial of a tyranny of the majority through extensive commentary on the topic, just as I've rebutted your commentary on Wal-Mart in the past through the usage of empirical evidence.

Now, do you have a logically sound rebuttal prepared?

 

[-Cp]

Can anyone tell me how this is a GOOD MOVE for the country? How will allowing gays to marry be good for the USA? I suppose the sect of Mormons who are into polygamy now have a good case to get their views passed as well.. I mean, after all, the definition of marriage is now wide-open, right?

I can't wait to see the first person who wants to marry their dog/cat/pet/whatever be able to - using this ruling as a precedent.

 

[Valerie]

Since when have we been a true democracy anyway?

Never. But in our type of democracy, the courts are allowed to decide if something is constitutional or not...a point Gunny loves to forget.

I haven't forgotten anything. I knew this lameass defense for backdooring the legislature and will of the people via the judiciary was coming next. That ploy has nothing to do with the intent of the law and everything to do with forcing the will of the minority on the majority.

I share your concerns about the legal process being properly adhered to and I agree it is important for state courts to follow procedure. The legal process in response to DOMA has been different from state to state, and I wish some things had gone differently because the emotion involved gets used to divide people politically and I think it's a shame this is even such a big issue.

In Iowa the court responded to a lawsuit that was filed and they made a ruling that the statute was unconstitutional. It was a legitimate ruling.

The justices ruled unanimously in favor of six same-sex couples who sought to get marriage licenses, but were denied.

The 69 page ruling means same-sex couples in Iowa can now get married under state law. The ruling said that the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

"The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification," wrote the justices.

The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.

 

[Gunny]

Another discussion derailed by a nutcase ... thanks Agna.

Since you previously commented on it, I don't feel that my personal opinion on gay marriage has anything to do with this topic other than if it happens in my state, how I cast my vote. From my POV, this isn't a question of morality. It's a question of law.

One group appears to believe the ends justify the means. I do not. I consider the means a direct threat to our type of democracy.

IF the majority in a state voted to allow gay marriage, and the legislature passed a law allowing it, I would be just as adamant if someone used the judiciary to circumvent the law.

 

[KittenKoder]

You getting your ass spanked might be BDSM from YOUR point of view, but it surely isn't from mine.

Any more deflections you want to try since you obviously are incapable of addressing the topic?

Let's examine the facts...I post extensive commentary on the nature of the tyranny of the majority...you spew a few of your random bullshit lies and mischaracterizations...I don't think you wanna recap again.

Now, do you finally have an argument?

Seriously, you insulted more groups with one statement and hurt the 'pro' side of the argument more. So go fuck off, mmkay? Leave the discussion to us who are using logic and not personal gripes, or I may just consider taking Gunnys position just to make you look REALLY bad (it would be a challenge to make you look worse but fun).

The best debaters are those like me who can see both sides and not include personal issues, as well as avoid direct, blatant, and low brow insults toward opponents and those whose side you are supporting. You insulted both ... how can you defend anything if you are going to d that?

What is this, a joke? I just thoroughly rebutted your denial of a tyranny of the majority through extensive commentary on the topic, just as I've rebutted your commentary on Wal-Mart in the past through the usage of empirical evidence.

Now, do you have a logically sound rebuttal prepared?

No you haven't, you only proved that you were using a mislabeled idea to justify hating the majority. The majority is the one that gave rights to blacks and freed the slaves, the majority gave the rights to women, and the majority released the Japanese from the internment camps set up by the minority. Tyranny is when a minority controls the majority through arbitrary laws, you cannot mix the two as they are polar opposites. You posted some wki-crapedia link like that makes it fact, then recoil when I pointed out how the link is all crap. You have been conned by your own con, and because of it are hurting your own argument more.

The only flaw the opposition has is that they think the SC is being tyrannical, which would fit if it was completely true. This is because they are not seeing it from the courts side not because they are trying to make arbitrary rules dictating a majority. The courts are saying it's up to the majority to decide what contracts they will allow, and that the courts will enforce these contracts without prejudice. You missed the point and went off on some "anti-government", "anti-American" crap just to derail the thread and turn it into a debate about some fucked up conspiracy bullshit while insulting people who were participating on BOTH sides of the argument. That my friend is trolling, it is not debate, it isn't even discussion, it's trolling, plain and simple. Get over yourself you douchebag.

 

[Yukon]

Opposing queer marriage denies them constitutional right of WQUALITY. Too bad but you LOSE !

 

[Valerie]

Can anyone tell me how this is a GOOD MOVE for the country? How will allowing gays to marry be good for the USA? I suppose the sect of Mormons who are into polygamy now have a good case to get their views passed as well.. I mean, after all, the definition of marriage is now wide-open, right?

I can't wait to see the first person who wants to marry their dog/cat/pet/whatever be able to - using this ruling as a precedent.

It is a good thing for individual citizens to be treated equally under the law.

Because the law provides special rights and privileges to couples who are "married", those citizens who were coupled with someone of their own sex were excluded from those rights and privileges. Inequality under the law.

As far as polygamy, three does not equal two, so no problem. Consenting adult does not equal dog, so no problem there either.

 

[KittenKoder]

Another discussion derailed by a nutcase ... thanks Agna.

Since you previously commented on it, I don't feel that my personal opinion on gay marriage has anything to do with this topic other than if it happens in my state, how I cast my vote. From my POV, this isn't a question of morality. It's a question of law.

One group appears to believe the ends justify the means. I do not. I consider the means a direct threat to our type of democracy.

IF the majority in a state voted to allow gay marriage, and the legislature passed a law allowing it, I would be just as adamant if someone used the judiciary to circumvent the law.

Here's the thing, allowing something or not isn't really the issue, it's more of what the courts will uphold in this case. They are still not telling everyone that they have to even consider these contracts, much less participate in them, they are only stating that they will not allow anyone to break the contracts once established, regardless of gender or personal preference. As long as marriage has a contract involved then the courts have to decide if they will uphold the law or if they will allow the contracts to be ignored by those who willingly sign into them. They chose to uphold the law, which was voted on (the laws of contractual agreements). If marriage had no legal contract then this wouldn't be an issue for the courts, they simply would be able to say it's none of their business. But because marriage has a contract they are forced to make rulings on them, it's placing the weight of this choice on their shoulders instead of on the shoulders of the voters. Without a contract the voters would bear the weight of this decision, but this is just not the case. They chose to ignore personal lifestyle choices and genders in order to maintain order and uphold the law already required of them.

 

[Gunny]

Opposing queer marriage denies them constitutional right of WQUALITY. Too bad but you LOSE !

Another moron heard from. There is no Constitutional right to marriage. Go sit in the corner with agna. He needs someone to take care of the wounds KK is inflicting on his punk ass.

 

[Gunny]

Can anyone tell me how this is a GOOD MOVE for the country? How will allowing gays to marry be good for the USA? I suppose the sect of Mormons who are into polygamy now have a good case to get their views passed as well.. I mean, after all, the definition of marriage is now wide-open, right?

I can't wait to see the first person who wants to marry their dog/cat/pet/whatever be able to - using this ruling as a precedent.

It is a good thing for individual citizens to be treated equally under the law.

Because the law provides special rights and privileges to couples who are "married", those citizens who were coupled with someone of their own sex were excluded from those rights and privileges. Inequality under the law.

As far as polygamy, three does not equal two, so no problem. Consenting adult does not equal dog, so no problem there either.

Homosexuals are ALREADY treated equally under the law. Those that advocate special legislation that panders solely to sexual behavior are demanding discriminatory laws that exclude all that do not engage such behavior; which, is the vast majority.

 

[KittenKoder]

Can anyone tell me how this is a GOOD MOVE for the country? How will allowing gays to marry be good for the USA? I suppose the sect of Mormons who are into polygamy now have a good case to get their views passed as well.. I mean, after all, the definition of marriage is now wide-open, right?

I can't wait to see the first person who wants to marry their dog/cat/pet/whatever be able to - using this ruling as a precedent.

It is a good thing for individual citizens to be treated equally under the law.

Because the law provides special rights and privileges to couples who are "married", those citizens who were coupled with someone of their own sex were excluded from those rights and privileges. Inequality under the law.

As far as polygamy, three does not equal two, so no problem. Consenting adult does not equal dog, so no problem there either.

Homosexuals are ALREADY treated equally under the law. Those that advocate special legislation that panders solely to sexual behavior are demanding discriminatory laws that exclude all that do not engage such behavior; which, is the vast majority.

I have to agree, it has been happening too often, some minority group gets equal rights then they push harder for more rights than everyone else.

 

[roomy]

Is it wrong of me not to care one way or the other?

 

[Ravi]

Never. But in our type of democracy, the courts are allowed to decide if something is constitutional or not...a point Gunny loves to forget.

I haven't forgotten anything. I knew this lameass defense for backdooring the legislature and will of the people via the judiciary was coming next. That ploy has nothing to do with the intent of the law and everything to do with forcing the will of the minority on the majority.

I share your concerns about the legal process being properly adhered to and I agree it is important for state courts to follow procedure. The legal process in response to DOMA has been different from state to state, and I wish some things had gone differently because the emotion involved gets used to divide people politically and I think it's a shame this is even such a big issue.

In Iowa the court responded to a lawsuit that was filed and they made a ruling that the statute was unconstitutional. It was a legitimate ruling.

The justices ruled unanimously in favor of six same-sex couples who sought to get marriage licenses, but were denied.

The 69 page ruling means same-sex couples in Iowa can now get married under state law. The ruling said that the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

"The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification," wrote the justices.

The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.

shhh...don't befuddle him with facts.

 

[KittenKoder]

Is it wrong of me not to care one way or the other?

No, actually that would be the best stance really.

 

[-Cp]

Can anyone tell me how this is a GOOD MOVE for the country? How will allowing gays to marry be good for the USA? I suppose the sect of Mormons who are into polygamy now have a good case to get their views passed as well.. I mean, after all, the definition of marriage is now wide-open, right?

I can't wait to see the first person who wants to marry their dog/cat/pet/whatever be able to - using this ruling as a precedent.

It is a good thing for individual citizens to be treated equally under the law.

Because the law provides special rights and privileges to couples who are "married", those citizens who were coupled with someone of their own sex were excluded from those rights and privileges. Inequality under the law.

As far as polygamy, three does not equal two, so no problem. Consenting adult does not equal dog, so no problem there either.

I guess libs think this is good because they're convinced that the earth is "over-populated" anyways... what better way to slow-down procreation than to allow pole-smokers to marry?

Oh? So there IS a definition of Marriage under the law? Are you sure? If so, does it specify that both parties HAVE to be human?

 

[Gunny]

I haven't forgotten anything. I knew this lameass defense for backdooring the legislature and will of the people via the judiciary was coming next. That ploy has nothing to do with the intent of the law and everything to do with forcing the will of the minority on the majority.

I share your concerns about the legal process being properly adhered to and I agree it is important for state courts to follow procedure. The legal process in response to DOMA has been different from state to state, and I wish some things had gone differently because the emotion involved gets used to divide people politically and I think it's a shame this is even such a big issue.

In Iowa the court responded to a lawsuit that was filed and they made a ruling that the statute was unconstitutional. It was a legitimate ruling.

The justices ruled unanimously in favor of six same-sex couples who sought to get marriage licenses, but were denied.

The 69 page ruling means same-sex couples in Iowa can now get married under state law. The ruling said that the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

"The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification," wrote the justices.

The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.

shhh...don't befuddle him with facts.

Pointless and baseless ridicule does not an argument make. Neither does your intellectual dishonesty. Learn to think. It won't kill you.