Iowa approves same sex marriage

[RetiredGySgt]

There's the flaw, it's a contract and the law has to enforce contracts, but at the same time the law is not allowed to discriminate on which contracts it enforces so they just made a wise ruling to make certain the people don't have to worry about their religious idiocies. What angers people like you is that you can no longer use the laws in these places to push your ignorant religious ideals into the legal contracts.

I truly hope the people of Iowa demand and get a Constitutional Amendment like in California. So people like you can claim the people have no right to make those decisions.

The sad thing is that the religious wingnuts like you should be happy that you don't have deal with it, since no matter what side you take you are breaking your own religious ideology. This would take that hypocrisy of yours off your chests, because then you can rest easy knowing that you just followed the laws of the land (as you are commanded to do just as much as religious laws). But instead you internalize it and turn it as a weapon to attack the government when the government is actually stepping out of our lives more when they rule like this. By forcing marriage to adhere to such specific standards you are asking for them to rule your lives more. You don't want the government out of your lives though, you just want them to enforce only your misguided ideals.

Twist it any way that makes you feel better.

 

[random3434]

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.

What exactly, is it you're all against? How does it affect YOUR life if two people in love can be married, and enjoy the same benefits as a man and a woman?

 

[KittenKoder]

I truly hope the people of Iowa demand and get a Constitutional Amendment like in California. So people like you can claim the people have no right to make those decisions.

The sad thing is that the religious wingnuts like you should be happy that you don't have deal with it, since no matter what side you take you are breaking your own religious ideology. This would take that hypocrisy of yours off your chests, because then you can rest easy knowing that you just followed the laws of the land (as you are commanded to do just as much as religious laws). But instead you internalize it and turn it as a weapon to attack the government when the government is actually stepping out of our lives more when they rule like this. By forcing marriage to adhere to such specific standards you are asking for them to rule your lives more. You don't want the government out of your lives though, you just want them to enforce only your misguided ideals.

Twist it any way that makes you feel better.

Hmm ... so you admit it, good for you, that's the first step to enlightenment. Just stop whining about wanting the government out of our lives while spouting that they should enforce your ideals out the other side of your mouth. You don't want less government control, you want more. Letting other people get married is less control, stopping them from getting married is more control. See, 2 + 2 = 4.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The sad thing is that the religious wingnuts like you should be happy that you don't have deal with it, since no matter what side you take you are breaking your own religious ideology. This would take that hypocrisy of yours off your chests, because then you can rest easy knowing that you just followed the laws of the land (as you are commanded to do just as much as religious laws). But instead you internalize it and turn it as a weapon to attack the government when the government is actually stepping out of our lives more when they rule like this. By forcing marriage to adhere to such specific standards you are asking for them to rule your lives more. You don't want the government out of your lives though, you just want them to enforce only your misguided ideals.

Twist it any way that makes you feel better.

Hmm ... so you admit it, good for you, that's the first step to enlightenment. Just stop whining about wanting the government out of our lives while spouting that they should enforce your ideals out the other side of your mouth. You don't want less government control, you want more. Letting other people get married is less control, stopping them from getting married is more control. See, 2 + 2 = 4.

You may want a refund from all those English teachers you had over the years, they obviously did not teach you how to process information you have read.

 

[Yukon]

The QUEERS are in charge of IOWA too ! hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[KittenKoder]

Twist it any way that makes you feel better.

Hmm ... so you admit it, good for you, that's the first step to enlightenment. Just stop whining about wanting the government out of our lives while spouting that they should enforce your ideals out the other side of your mouth. You don't want less government control, you want more. Letting other people get married is less control, stopping them from getting married is more control. See, 2 + 2 = 4.

You may want a refund from all those English teachers you had over the years, they obviously did not teach you how to process information you have read.

Really? Explain how denying certain marriages by laws is "less government" while only enforcing contracts regardless of sexual orientation or religious belief is "more government". Please, if I am not understanding this then explain it.

 

[Yukon]

KITTEN,

You should move there and get married !

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hmm ... so you admit it, good for you, that's the first step to enlightenment. Just stop whining about wanting the government out of our lives while spouting that they should enforce your ideals out the other side of your mouth. You don't want less government control, you want more. Letting other people get married is less control, stopping them from getting married is more control. See, 2 + 2 = 4.

You may want a refund from all those English teachers you had over the years, they obviously did not teach you how to process information you have read.

Really? Explain how denying certain marriages by laws is "less government" while only enforcing contracts regardless of sexual orientation or religious belief is "more government". Please, if I am not understanding this then explain it.

I am not talking about more or less government at all, that is your little red herring.

 

[Ravi]

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.

What exactly, is it you're all against? How does it affect YOUR life if two people in love can be married, and enjoy the same benefits as a man and a woman?

I guess they don't like to see people happy.

It's pretty funny that RetardGunnySgt and Cesspool both think that the courts are invalid when all they've done is their constitutional duty.

 

[Red Dawn]

DES MOINES, Iowa -- The Iowa Supreme Court announced its ruling in a landmark same-sex marriage case Friday morning.

The court's written ruling was to be issued on the Iowa Supreme Court's Web site, but traffic to the site crashed the server and took down the Web site.

The court ruled in favor of six same-sex couples who sought to get marriage licenses, but were denied. The ruling means same-sex couples in Iowa can now get married under state law.


BREAKING NEWS: Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage OK - Des Moines News Story - KCCI Des Moines

another atrocity for the tea baggers to protest!

 

[KittenKoder]

You may want a refund from all those English teachers you had over the years, they obviously did not teach you how to process information you have read.

Really? Explain how denying certain marriages by laws is "less government" while only enforcing contracts regardless of sexual orientation or religious belief is "more government". Please, if I am not understanding this then explain it.

I am not talking about more or less government at all, that is your little red herring.

Then explain how it is wrong for them to simply state that the laws of contract enforcement must be all inclusive?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

What exactly, is it you're all against? How does it affect YOUR life if two people in love can be married, and enjoy the same benefits as a man and a woman?

The fact that we're being called upon to recognize it, enforce it, and subsidize it. If it was JUST "two people in love being married" like you all disingenuously claim, we wouldn't give a rat's ass. They do that now.

I just love how people drag their private business into the public arena, and then squawk about how it's private. If you really want something to be private, you don't go about it by demanding laws be passed concerning it.

 

[Red Dawn]

WRONG Dumb Ass, the Courts keep thwarting the will of the people on spurious grounds. The people of Iowa did NOT approve same sex marriages you retard.

There's the flaw, it's a contract and the law has to enforce contracts, but at the same time the law is not allowed to discriminate on which contracts it enforces so they just made a wise ruling to make certain the people don't have to worry about their religious idiocies. What angers people like you is that you can no longer use the laws in these places to push your ignorant religious ideals into the legal contracts.

I truly hope the people of Iowa demand and get a Constitutional Amendment like in California. So people like you can claim the people have no right to make those decisions.

your're on the wrong side of history again, mate. But, I've got no problem with the rightwing continuing to look intolerant and petty.

Gay marriage will be a reality. Maybe next year, maybe ten years from now. Do you know how far gay rights has come in just the last ten years? Its a steamroller, and wingnuts aren't going to stop it. All they can do is throw up speed bumps. In a couple of decades, history will judge people like you to have been intolerant and petty thugs, who's goal in life was to deny fellow americans happiness and equality.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

What exactly, is it you're all against? How does it affect YOUR life if two people in love can be married, and enjoy the same benefits as a man and a woman?

The fact that we're being called upon to recognize it, enforce it, and subsidize it. If it was JUST "two people in love being married" like you all disingenuously claim, we wouldn't give a rat's ass. They do that now.

I just love how people drag their private business into the public arena, and then squawk about how it's private. If you really want something to be private, you don't go about it by demanding laws be passed concerning it.

Really? So now you HAVE to marry them ... never heard them once state that churches had to enforce it, only the courts. So you are against the government doing their job by enforcing contracts unless those contracts follow a specific ideal, but are all for them enforcing a specific ideal on people.

 

[DavidS]

So what I'm seeing here is that IOWA didn't approve it. Rather, Iowa had it forced on them by a handful of lawyers in robes who think their moral superiority trumps the law and the will of every other person living in the state.

They'd have been better off with the dumb pig farmers than the even dumber and monstrously arrogant elitists.

The will of every other person living in the state? Since when does the will of the people of a state decide who gets married and who doesn't?

Remind me how gay marriage affects anyone else other than gay people who want to get married? Why should these people, whose lives are no different today than they were yesterday, get the right to vote on gay marriage when it doesn't effect them whatsoever?

 

[twogreen2c]

So what I'm seeing here is that IOWA didn't approve it. Rather, Iowa had it forced on them by a handful of lawyers in robes who think their moral superiority trumps the law and the will of every other person living in the state.

They'd have been better off with the dumb pig farmers than the even dumber and monstrously arrogant elitists.

Um ... yeah ... no, they just saw the flaw in making marriage a religious matter most likely and decided that it is now a legal matter, and legal matters are not suppose to be influenced by religious ideals.

Religion seems to be the root of so many problems. I have to agree when you take religion out of the mix, why wouldn't same sex couples have the same rights to a marriage license as heterosexual couples.

 

[DavidS]

heh, your "dumb pig farmers" must care more about the civil rights of Americans than you bozos do. That is a good thing, imo.

WRONG Dumb Ass, the Courts keep thwarting the will of the people on spurious grounds. The people of Iowa did NOT approve same sex marriages you retard.

Did the people of Iowa approve opposite sex marriage?

 

[Red Dawn]

So what I'm seeing here is that IOWA didn't approve it. Rather, Iowa had it forced on them by a handful of lawyers in robes who think their moral superiority trumps the law and the will of every other person living in the state.

They'd have been better off with the dumb pig farmers than the even dumber and monstrously arrogant elitists.

civil rights aren't subject to a majority vote.

If they were, blacks in the south could still be living with jim crowe, and women would be home baking cookies and treated as the husband's property.

 

[KittenKoder]

So what I'm seeing here is that IOWA didn't approve it. Rather, Iowa had it forced on them by a handful of lawyers in robes who think their moral superiority trumps the law and the will of every other person living in the state.

They'd have been better off with the dumb pig farmers than the even dumber and monstrously arrogant elitists.

Um ... yeah ... no, they just saw the flaw in making marriage a religious matter most likely and decided that it is now a legal matter, and legal matters are not suppose to be influenced by religious ideals.

Religion seems to be the root of so many problems. I have to agree when you take religion out of the mix, why wouldn't same sex couples have the same rights to a marriage license as heterosexual couples.

The logic religious wingnuts ignore (they so hate logic) is that it's a contract through the eyes of the law, a contract between two people. They cannot legally decide to ignore contracts just because of the genders of those involved, both parties must be willing and of the right mind to sign them, therefore they are enforceable legally regardless of gender. They scream and rant because we are actually pushing to have less government control and pushing to keep government from making legislation for religions, so they twist it to make it sound like the government is forcing something on them when in reality it is stepping back further and enforcing morals less while enforcing the law as it should.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So what I'm seeing here is that IOWA didn't approve it. Rather, Iowa had it forced on them by a handful of lawyers in robes who think their moral superiority trumps the law and the will of every other person living in the state.

They'd have been better off with the dumb pig farmers than the even dumber and monstrously arrogant elitists.

The will of every other person living in the state? Since when does the will of the people of a state decide who gets married and who doesn't?

Um, since forever. Where did you think marriage laws came from? Until homosexual activists and their useful idiots started undermining the legal structure of the nation, legal recognition of marriage - which is what we're talking about, not relationships, so don't get all runny and emotional on me - was a matter of state law.

Remind me how gay marriage affects anyone else other than gay people who want to get married? Why should these people, whose lives are no different today than they were yesterday, get the right to vote on gay marriage when it doesn't effect them whatsoever?

Remind me how you make something private by charging into the public arena, shoving it in everyone's faces, and demanding laws be passed regarding it. And remind me how you make something legal without asking people to vote on it, either directly or indirectly through their representatives.

Maybe you should work on your consistency before getting on your soapbox.