Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Really? When was the vote? Do you have the text of that proposition that made opposite sex marriage legal?
Please send me the relevant information ASAP. Thanks.
Still waiting for this.
Please send ASAP.
Thanks.
( dude--it's a trick to get you to stand in the same spot and make you waste you're whole Friday )
How is it right in any way for them to enforce some contracts but not others based on personal preference Ce? Seriously, and how is it they are forcing you to even acknowledge it? It's them deciding they will enforce the contract signed by two willing people regardless of belief, how is this bad? Are they somehow forcing straight people to marry someone of the same gender and just not showing it?
Kit, what the neocons like RGS and Cecille are doing is trying to find some kind of legal argument that homosexuals shouldn't be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals mostly because the Bible says that to be gay is to be a sinner and we cannot have sinners in our society. By the way, to be prejudiced against a group of people, HUGE sin. But it's okay to sin when you're sinning against a group of people who sin.
In reality, the right wing wants a theocracy. They want our government's laws to be based off of the same laws as that are in the Bible. They just can't agree which version of the Bible because they quote Leviticus when saying that "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Unfortunately, what they're not telling you is that when they adopted the ideals of Christianity, they threw away the "old testament" i.e. the Covenant G-d made with Abraham and all of Abraham's children. They believe that the New Testament is a New Covenant, a new agreement with G-d. If the Christians are feeling so high and mighty and wish to say that not following Torah Law is a sin, I've got 612 other mitzvot for them to follow and believing in Jesus Christ - a HUGE no no. Much bigger than gay marriage.
How is it right in any way for them to enforce some contracts but not others based on personal preference Ce? Seriously, and how is it they are forcing you to even acknowledge it? It's them deciding they will enforce the contract signed by two willing people regardless of belief, how is this bad? Are they somehow forcing straight people to marry someone of the same gender and just not showing it?
Kit, what the neocons like RGS and Cecille are doing is trying to find some kind of legal argument that homosexuals shouldn't be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals mostly because the Bible says that to be gay is to be a sinner and we cannot have sinners in our society. By the way, to be prejudiced against a group of people, HUGE sin. But it's okay to sin when you're sinning against a group of people who sin.
In reality, the right wing wants a theocracy. They want our government's laws to be based off of the same laws as that are in the Bible. They just can't agree which version of the Bible because they quote Leviticus when saying that "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Unfortunately, what they're not telling you is that when they adopted the ideals of Christianity, they threw away the "old testament" i.e. the Covenant G-d made with Abraham and all of Abraham's children. They believe that the New Testament is a New Covenant, a new agreement with G-d. If the Christians are feeling so high and mighty and wish to say that not following Torah Law is a sin, I've got 612 other mitzvot for them to follow and believing in Jesus Christ - a HUGE no no. Much bigger than gay marriage.
At least we're trying to make a legal argument, instead of relying on, "You're just mean! Waaaaahhh!!!!"
I'm sure Kitten is interested in your version of "reality", where you're relentlessly persecuted by jackbooted thugs slapping you with Bibles. That's why she's already on the Idiot Ignore that you're fast approaching.
Down here on planet Earth, I'm thrilled that you're too chickenshit to deal with the fact that there aren't enough religous people to make up the overwhelming votes against your agenda, because as long as you're frantically shadowboxing against an apocryphal "theocracy movement", you're as ineffectual in the political arena as I have no doubt you are in your private life.
By all means, keep up the good work.
Really? When was the vote? Do you have the text of that proposition that made opposite sex marriage legal?
Please send me the relevant information ASAP. Thanks.
What are you suggested, you twit? That there was never a law in Iowa defining what constituted a legal marriage? If not, then how and why did Lambda Legal go to court to challenge it? On what basis do you suppose they've been issuing marriage licenses all this time?
But if you're really determined to play out this whole "It's so clever of me to deny the sky is blue and demand proof" foolishness, the definition of marriage under Iowa law is set out in the Iowa Legislative Code, Chapter 595. Not only was this duly and legally voted into law a very long time ago, but it was ALSO reaffirmed by Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1997.
And before you decide to get cute and say, "Well, that was voted on by the legislature, not directly by the people", legal votes enacted by the legally-elected representatives of the people (you know, as opposed to illegal judicial fiats imposed by unelected judges who weren't given the power to write and enact law) is considered to be an action taken by the people. And I don't notice that any legislators were voted out of office by angry mobs protesting either piece of legislation, so I don't think you're positioned to argue that THEY were acting against the people's desires.
All of this is very nice and all, but I'm still waiting for you to show me the text of the vote that the people of Iowa voted for to legalize heterosexual marriage. By the way, while you're searching, you might want to know that Iowa was admitted into the Union on December 28, 1846. So, you probably want to search for something around then and not 150 years later that would probably make every single marriage between 1846 and 1997 illegal. Again, I asked you "Did the people of Iowa approve opposite sex marriage?" You said yes. I'm still waiting for proof of this. Thank you in advance for getting this to me so quickly.
It's funny that they still consider this passing a law ... when it's just enforcing a law already passed really. The laws of contractual agreements.
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 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.
Cecilie1200 - I am taking time of my day as you are taking time out of your day so we can freely exchange ideas. I appreciate your time and the intelligence behind your ideas - however, I would also appreciate it if you would refrain from dis-respecting me and throwing insults at me. I will respond to your latest posts as soon as you reply to this agreeing that you will not insult me any further.
Funny thing is that the tax breaks are because one person is suppose to stay at home and one earning money, thus the tax breaks were offered to married couples only because one was not a bread winner. This is moot now that so few families have one staying at home these days, so in reality I think the tax breaks should just be dissolved completely anyway.
Funny thing is that the tax breaks are because one person is suppose to stay at home and one earning money, thus the tax breaks were offered to married couples only because one was not a bread winner. This is moot now that so few families have one staying at home these days, so in reality I think the tax breaks should just be dissolved completely anyway.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. One parent SHOULD stay home with the baby and raise the child while another parent is out earning a living. Now, whether that's a mother or a father, that's up to the married couple and their situation. But I know I would be willing to work from home and take care of a baby at the same time so my wife could go out and work if she had or wanted to. But you know - I don't think babies should be raised by daycare. There have been all kinds of studies done where the life of the child is dramatically worse off if it's just thrown into daycare while the two parents just work all day.
I'm done here. While my posts weren't exactly polite, I wasn't insulting you. Obviously you cannot communicate your ideas without insulting someone. How many kids do you have again? I feel bad for them that their mother isn't mature enough to hold an argument without insulting the other person because she disagrees with them.
Funny thing is that the tax breaks are because one person is suppose to stay at home and one earning money, thus the tax breaks were offered to married couples only because one was not a bread winner. This is moot now that so few families have one staying at home these days, so in reality I think the tax breaks should just be dissolved completely anyway.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. One parent SHOULD stay home with the baby and raise the child while another parent is out earning a living. Now, whether that's a mother or a father, that's up to the married couple and their situation. But I know I would be willing to work from home and take care of a baby at the same time so my wife could go out and work if she had or wanted to. But you know - I don't think babies should be raised by daycare. There have been all kinds of studies done where the life of the child is dramatically worse off if it's just thrown into daycare while the two parents just work all day.
Love this stuff on the tyranny of the majority as it implicitly assumes the majority is wrong, and/or that others are more right and should correct voting outcomes, which itself is a form of tyranny. See "Understanding Debate in a Democratic Society" on Indiana Oracle
On the Iowa matter, the only thing that concerns me is that the populus was overturned on something as fundamentally minor, or even as meaningless, as gay marriage. These judicial jackasses have been reaching into society to correct what they perceive to be our collective madnesses since the civil-rights era. The Supreme Court tilted toward social engineering around the time of the depression.
I'm done here. While my posts weren't exactly polite, I wasn't insulting you. Obviously you cannot communicate your ideas without insulting someone. How many kids do you have again? I feel bad for them that their mother isn't mature enough to hold an argument without insulting the other person because she disagrees with them.
Perhaps it's how it should be, but you must admit it is no longer like this.
Until the majority again follow this pattern though the tax breaks should be repealed since that is what they were intended to be used for.
Iowa SC said:The County offered five primary interests of society in support of the legislatures exclusive definition of marriage. The first three interests are broadly related to the advancement of child rearing. Specifically, the objectives centered on promoting procreation, promoting child rearing by a mother and a father within a marriage, and promoting stability in an opposite-sex relationship to raise and nurture children. The fourth interest raised by the County addressed the conservation of state resources, while the final reason concerned the governmental interest in promoting the concept and integrity of the traditional notion of marriage.
Iowa SC said:The plaintiffs produced evidence to demonstrate sexual orientation
and gender have no effect on children raised by same-sex couples, and
same-sex couples can raise children as well as opposite-sex couples. They
also submitted evidence to show that most scientific research has repudiated
the commonly assumed notion that children need opposite-sex parents or
biological parents to grow into well-adjusted adults. Many leading
organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American
Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National
Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America,
weighed the available research and supported the conclusion that gay and
lesbian parents are as effective as heterosexual parents in raising children.
Iowa SC said:It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or
lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a classtheir sexual orientation.The benefit denied by the marriage statutethe status of civil marriage for same-sex couplesis so closely correlated with being homosexual as to make it apparent the law is targeted at gay and
lesbian people as a class.
To determine if this particular classification violates constitutional principles of equal protection, we must next ask what level of scrutiny applies to classifications of this type. The County argues the more deferential rational basis test should apply, while plaintiffs argue closer scrutiny is appropriate. Although neither we nor the United States Supreme Court has decided which level of scrutiny applies to legislative classifications based on sexual orientation, numerous Supreme Court equal protection cases provide a general framework to guide our analysis under the Iowa Constitution.
[...]
The Supreme Court has considered: (1) the history of
invidious discrimination against the class burdened by the legislation;12 (2)
whether the characteristics that distinguish the class indicate a typical class
members ability to contribute to society;13 (3) whether the distinguishingcharacteristic is immutable or beyond the class members control;14 and (4)
the political power of the subject class.15
To this end, the County argues the immutability and political powerlessness elements are not satisfied in this case. In its effort to treat the factors as essential elements, the County overlooks the flexible manner in which the Supreme Court has applied the four factors in the past.
However, we consider the last two factorsimmutability of
the characteristic and political powerlessness of the groupto supplement
the analysis as a means to discern whether a need for heightened scrutiny
exists.
In summarizing the rationale supporting heightened scrutiny of legislation
classifying on the basis of sexual orientation, it would be difficult to improve
upon the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut:
Gay persons have been subjected to and stigmatized by a long
history of purposeful and invidious discrimination that
continues to manifest itself in society. The characteristic that
defines the members of this groupattraction to persons of the
same sexbears no logical relationship to their ability to
perform in society, either in familial relations or otherwise as
productive citizens. Because sexual orientation is such an
essential component of personhood, even if there is some
possibility that a persons sexual preference can be altered, it
would be wholly unacceptable for the state to require anyone to
do so. Gay persons also represent a distinct minority of the
population. It is true, of course, that gay persons recently have
made significant advances in obtaining equal treatment under
the law. Nonetheless, we conclude that, as a minority group that
continues to suffer the enduring effects of centuries of legally
sanctioned discrimination, laws singling them out for disparate
treatment are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny to ensure
49
that those laws are not the product of such historical prejudice
and stereotyping.
Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 432.
First, the County argues the same-sex marriage ban promotes the integrity of traditional marriage bymaintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one between a man and a woman). This argument is straightforward and has superficial
appeal. A specific tradition sought to be maintained cannot be an important governmental objective for equal protection purposes, however, when the tradition is nothing more than the historical classification currently expressed in the statute being challenged. When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification. In other words, the equal protection clause is converted into a barren form of words when discrimination . . . is made an end in itself.
[...]
If a simple showing that discrimination is traditional satisfies equal
protection, previous successful equal protection challenges of invidious
racial and gender classifications would have failed. Consequently, equal
protection demands that the classification ([that is], the exclusion of gay
[persons] from civil marriage) must advance a state interest that is separate
from the classification itself.
The best interests of children is, undeniably, an
important governmental objective. Yet, we first examine the underlying
premise proffered by the County that the optimal environment for children is
to be raised within a marriage of both a mother and a father.
Plaintiffs presented an abundance of evidence and research, confirmed
by our independent research, supporting the proposition that the interests of
children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents.
On the other hand, we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that
dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These
opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable
scientific studies.26
We begin with the Countys argument that the goal of the same-sex
marriage ban is to ensure children will be raised only in the optimal milieu.
In pursuit of this objective, the statutory exclusion of gay and lesbian people
is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. The civil marriage statute is
under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of
parentssuch as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to
provide child support, and violent felonsthat are undeniably less than
optimal parents. Such under-inclusion tends to demonstrate that the
sexual-orientation-based classification is grounded in prejudice or
overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or
preferences of gay and lesbian people, rather than having a substantial
relationship to some important objective.If the marriage statute was truly focused on
optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not
merely gay and lesbian people.
[...]
As applied to this case, it could be argued the same-sex marriage ban
is just one legislative step toward ensuring the optimal environment for
raising children. Under this argument, the governmental objective is slightly
more modest. It seeks to reduce the number of same-sex parent households,
nudging our state a step closer to providing the asserted optimal milieu for
children. Even evaluated in light of this narrower objective, however, the
ban on same-sex marriage is flawed.
The ban on same-sex marriage is substantially over-inclusive because
not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. Yet, the marriage statute
denies civil marriage to all gay and lesbian people in order to discourage the
limited number of same-sex couples who desire to raise children. In doing
so, the legislature includes a consequential number of individuals within
the statutes purview who are not afflicted with the evil the statute seeks to
remedy.
Quite obviously, the statute does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children. Same-sex couples currently raise children in Iowa, even while being excluded from civil
marriage, and such couples will undoubtedly continue to do so. Recognition of this under-inclusion puts in perspective just how minimally the same-sex marriage ban actually advances the purported legislative goal. A law so simultaneously over-inclusive and under-inclusive is not substantially related to the governments objective. In the end, a careful analysis of the over- and under-inclusiveness of the statute reveals it is less about using
marriage to achieve an optimal environment for children and more about merely precluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage. If the statute was truly about the best interest of children, some benefit to children derived from the ban on same-sex civil marriages would be observable. Yet, the germane analysis does not show how the best
interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban. Likewise, the exclusion of gays and lesbians from marriage does not benefit the interests of those children of heterosexual parents, who are able to enjoy the environment supported by marriage with or without the inclusion of same-sex couples.
The County also proposes that
government endorsement of traditional civil marriage will result in more
procreation. Conceptually, the promotion of procreation as an objective of marriage
is compatible with the inclusion of gays and lesbians within the definition of
marriage. Gay and lesbian persons are capable of procreation. Thus, the
sole conceivable avenue by which exclusion of gay and lesbian people from
civil marriage could promote more procreation is if the unavailability of civil
marriage for same-sex partners caused homosexual individuals to become
heterosexual in order to procreate within the present traditional institution
of civil marriage. The briefs, the record, our research, and common sense do
not suggest such an outcome.
A fourth suggested
rationale supporting the marriage statute is promoting stability in opposite
sex relationships. While the institution of civil marriage likely encourages
stability in opposite-sex relationships, we must evaluate whether excluding
gay and lesbian people from civil marriage encourages stability in oppositesex
relationships. The County offers no reasons that it does, and we can
find none. The stability of opposite-sex relationships is an important
governmental interest, but the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage
is not substantially related to that objective.
By way of example, the County
hypothesizes that, due to our laws granting tax benefits to married couples,
the State of Iowa would reap less tax revenue if individual taxpaying gay and
lesbian people were allowed to obtain a civil marriage. Certainly, Iowas
marriage statute causes numerous government benefits, including tax
benefits, to be withheld from plaintiffs.28 Thus, the ban on same-sex
marriages may conserve some state resources. Excluding any group from
civil marriageAfrican-Americans, illegitimates, aliens, even red-haired
individualswould conserve state resources in an equally rational way.
Yet, such classifications so obviously offend our societys collective sense of
equality that courts have not hesitated to provide added protections against
such inequalities.
The goal of conservation of state resources would be equally
served by excluding any similar-sized group from civil marriage. Indeed,
under the Countys logic, more state resources would be conserved by
excluding groups more numerous than Iowas estimated 5800 same-sex
couples (for example, persons marrying for a second or subsequent time).
Importantly, there is also no suggestion same-sex couples would use more
state resources if allowed to obtain a civil marriage than heterosexual
couples who obtain a civil marriage.
While unexpressed [by the County], religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if
not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the
views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the
notion of same-sex marriage unsettling.[...]
The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage
for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, Marriage is a civil
contract and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code § 595A.1. Thus,
in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed
from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept
of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class
of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil
marriage.
A religious
denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a
woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or
other person ordained or designated as a leader of the persons religious
faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution.
The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the
same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil
marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete
understanding of equal protection.
We are firmly convinced the exclusion
of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not
substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature
has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely
important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.
There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this
determination.
We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law.
Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowas marriage statute, Iowa
Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise
would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people
must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive
justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal
protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2
denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by
the Iowa Constitution.32
I'm done here. While my posts weren't exactly polite, I wasn't insulting you. Obviously you cannot communicate your ideas without insulting someone. How many kids do you have again? I feel bad for them that their mother isn't mature enough to hold an argument without insulting the other person because she disagrees with them.
Ah, the old "I'm going to pretend to apologize without ever apologizing, and while implying that it's YOUR fault for taking offense, and then attack your parenting skills" ploy. God, you people are predictable.
Don't feel sorry for my children, jerkwad. I don't insult them, because they are both smarter than you and better-mannered. They also know how to acknowledge when they screwed up, a skill you clearly don't have.
You're right about one thing, though. You're done here. FLUSH!
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
