Iowa approves same sex marriage

[Ravi]

I didn't realize sniffing glue was illegal. Not to derail the thread.

 

[Valerie]

That isn't what I meant. One of the reasons, I think, gays would like to be able to marry is so they enjoy the same tax benefits as straight couples. Therefore, it would seem logical that the teabaggers would support that since they are up in arms about taxes. But they don't.

So you think that makes them hypocritical, is that it?

IMO, it would be counterproductive for the Tea Party to place such emphasis on the tax ramifications of gay marriage, or marriage in particular. They have bigger fish to fry. I have to read more about their agenda, but I hope it is presented as a bi-partisan effort that represents ALL citizens who are affected by "big government" taxation.

Since Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin seem to be in charge of it I think your hopes are in vain.

So you're just going to put your political blinders on and equate those who want their taxation under control with religious zealots? How convenient.

 

[Sherry]

That isn't what I meant. One of the reasons, I think, gays would like to be able to marry is so they enjoy the same tax benefits as straight couples. Therefore, it would seem logical that the teabaggers would support that since they are up in arms about taxes. But they don't.

So you think that makes them hypocritical, is that it?

IMO, it would be counterproductive for the Tea Party to place such emphasis on the tax ramifications of gay marriage, or marriage in particular. They have bigger fish to fry. I have to read more about their agenda, but I hope it is presented as a bi-partisan effort that represents ALL citizens who are affected by "big government" taxation.

Since Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin seem to be in charge of it I think your hopes are in vain.

This is a grass roots movement, and just because people with a public voice on the right are spreading the word and being supportive, doesn't put them in charge. I can't speak in regards to Malkin, because I don't follow her, but Beck has "preached" not to make this partisan. It is clearly about holding every representative accountable. Beck had the 4 women who organized in Orlando, as an example of how people don't have to sit around and wait for somebody to tell them what to do. Those enthused to show up want to make a statement, and are motivated to have their opinion heard against wasteful government spending. All of those asshole representatives want to lecture the rest of us poor slobs on how to live our lives, while setting a piss poor example. So screw them, and power to the teabaggers.

 

[Valerie]

I didn't realize sniffing glue was illegal. Not to derail the thread.

She probably should have said crack!

 

[Ravi]

So you think that makes them hypocritical, is that it?

IMO, it would be counterproductive for the Tea Party to place such emphasis on the tax ramifications of gay marriage, or marriage in particular. They have bigger fish to fry. I have to read more about their agenda, but I hope it is presented as a bi-partisan effort that represents ALL citizens who are affected by "big government" taxation.

Since Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin seem to be in charge of it I think your hopes are in vain.

So you're just going to put your political blinders on and equate those who want their taxation under control with religious zealots? How convenient.

You could be right. I've learned not to trust talking heads...especially people like Beck and Malkin. I don't believe for a minute they care about anything but themselves. As far as I know, they are religious zealots themselves. Then again, they might just have been using religious zealots.

 

[dilloduck]

Since Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin seem to be in charge of it I think your hopes are in vain.

So you're just going to put your political blinders on and equate those who want their taxation under control with religious zealots? How convenient.

You could be right. I've learned not to trust talking heads...especially people like Beck and Malkin. I don't believe for a minute they care about anything but themselves. As far as I know, they are religious zealots themselves. Then again, they might just have been using religious zealots.

It doesn't matter---just say your against everything except negroes shaking hands with the queen. To hell with the pesky details.

 

[elvis]

Iowa Approves? ROFLMNAO... What we have here is the judicial fiat, not the ascension of the people of Iowa... and a leftists which desperately needs to imply 'the approval of the People', on a decision by leftist jurists.

Can you tell me when "the people" voted FOR heterosexual marriage?

I think if the WERE to vote on whether gay marriage should be legal, it would result in a resounding NO. But that doesn't make it right. Gays should be allowed to marry. It's discrimination for them not to be allowed to marry. And it wouldn't matter if 90 percent of Iowans thought discrimination should be legal, it never would be. How many anti-racist laws were passed in America when the majority of people didn't agree with it? This is a rights issue, not a democratic one.

 

[Ravi]

So you're just going to put your political blinders on and equate those who want their taxation under control with religious zealots? How convenient.

You could be right. I've learned not to trust talking heads...especially people like Beck and Malkin. I don't believe for a minute they care about anything but themselves. As far as I know, they are religious zealots themselves. Then again, they might just have been using religious zealots.

It doesn't matter---just say your against everything except negroes shaking hands with the queen. To hell with the pesky details.

Jokes get stale the second time around.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

That is a more specific aspect. Lobbying/pushing for a social change of direction is least effective when approached as a straight up moral issue.

I understand why they are doing it and it is probably the only method readily available to them. On the other hand, activists are activists. Nothing they do transfers directly to anyone not directly involved.

For the record, I am not a religious wing-nut and your attributing the gay rights matter to religion in this country is an over-simplification. At the heart of the issue is a premise and model of child bearing and rearing. While that is a moral type of issue, there is not a straight line between religiosity and holding such moral views.

--


No, but there is a straight line pointing to the activists who are campaigning across the country "in defense of marriage". They are indeed religious moralists with an agenda to discriminate against what they believe to be an abomination and "bad for the children". Ironically enough, it is their actions that have brought the issue to the evening news for years now, putting it "in your face".

In my opinion, the moral stance is to protect all citizens from discrimination. These couples have a right to equality under the law as defined by "marriage" in civil law. They're not asking for any special privileges or rights, they're asking for equal status under the law. The religious moralists have legally secured their sacred word with DOMA and now the state constitutions are still going to give all citizens equal protection under the law, and that is the proper legal and moral solution, IMHO. It's not judicial fiat to make a ruling based on the state Constitution's equal protection clause.

 

[dilloduck]

You could be right. I've learned not to trust talking heads...especially people like Beck and Malkin. I don't believe for a minute they care about anything but themselves. As far as I know, they are religious zealots themselves. Then again, they might just have been using religious zealots.

It doesn't matter---just say your against everything except negroes shaking hands with the queen. To hell with the pesky details.

Jokes get stale the second time around.

I guess that makes liberals fun--you never get the same answer twice.

 

[Valerie]

Since Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin seem to be in charge of it I think your hopes are in vain.

So you're just going to put your political blinders on and equate those who want their taxation under control with religious zealots? How convenient.

You could be right. I've learned not to trust talking heads...especially people like Beck and Malkin. I don't believe for a minute they care about anything but themselves. As far as I know, they are religious zealots themselves. Then again, they might just have been using religious zealots.

This Tea Party demonstration is bigger than any of those "talking heads" whoever they may be, and I really don't think homosexual marriage has anything to do with it except when people want to bring it up in order to be politically divisive. FWIW, I read their website earlier and I noticed they went out of their way to emphasize their intention to be non partisan, but of course they need those talking heads in order to get their message out there.

 

[Ravi]

Michelle Malkin » Tea Party U.S.A.: The movement grows

btw, who are they?

 

[Valerie]

Michelle Malkin » Tea Party U.S.A.: The movement grows

btw, who are they?

I realize she's one of the talking heads involved. I went to the website earlier and they have a link to her and Beck and Coulter and others whose names escape me at the moment. That is what I meant by "whoever they may be" -- as in this Tea Party event is bigger than any of them. The other "they" would be those who initiated the idea that ended up in the hands of these talking heads, because THEY are the ones who wanted to help get the message out. That talking heads have partisan intentions in no surprise, but the idea began with citizens being fed up with the burden of taxation. They have to take any media they can get in order to get their message out and they are emphasizing, from what I've seen, that it is a non partisan event. Do you think it's a vast right wing conspiracy, or what?

 

[RodISHI]

The fence is the problem, where is the fence suppose to be? The government isn't suppose to control morals at all, one way or the other, that's the religious aspect, they are technically only suppose to prevent people from infringing on others morals. However banning gay marriage is infringing on another's morals while allowing it legally is in no way forcing morals on anyone.

I agree with you the fence is the problem.

In many cases today the government is stepping over the fence an inhibiting freedoms of it's citizens. I don't believe simply locking away addicts in jails is effective either. Nor would legalizing sniffing glue be advantageous to society. Sniffing glue causes brain damage. So society determined that it would be illegal.

You are saying "banning gay marraige" when in fact it is changing marraige to include to people of the same sex. So it is asking for an alteration of what marraige has traditionally been.

Moral behavior regulated by our government can and should be decided by the people.
Why? Because the people as a society do have that right. Should we go into your bedroom/home and decide anything you do is right or wrong? Hell no!! Can we as a society decide where we want to build that fence on moral issues that effect everyone? Absolutely.

I have every right as a property owner to object to a corporate pig farm moving in and trashing up the air and water quality of the enviroment I live in. Although the pig farmer does not think I have that right because he wants to produce pigs. Since that pig farmer can pollute the area I live in I have a right to object to the pig farm being built near where I live. My neighbors and I also have the right to ask for regulations/laws that the pig farmer must abide in.

I sure do not want a topless bar moving in next door. Do I care what they do? No, yet I have a right to say I am opposed to this as I live in the neighborhood too.

That is what you have when you live in a society of people. Each one has a voice and an opinion.

First of all RodISHI, happy birthday. Now, please tell me you're not equating two consenting adults loving each other with sniffing glue or having a pig farm in your neighborhood? Where is the harm in two people loving each other?

First of all thanks.

To consenting adults may do what these please to/for one another as a personal choice. It does not mean others have to approve of it/make/change laws to suit them.

Why not compare whatever may offend anyone out there?

Heck why not just make laws that curtail anything being an offence of any kind to anyone? BTW, that is surely coming by the looks of things.

Society can force or could attempt to force everyone to think the same in order to prevent any discourse among the masses.

What you may call love others have the same right to call or consider a sickness.

You may not like the comparison used but heck some people think the smell of cow shit is pleasant. I don't but to each his own but don't try to tell another they have to accept it (or else).

 

[KittenKoder]

The worst atrocities were committed in the name of keeping the masses from discourse.

 

[RodISHI]

Iowa Approves? ROFLMNAO... What we have here is the judicial fiat, not the ascension of the people of Iowa... and a leftists which desperately needs to imply 'the approval of the People', on a decision by leftist jurists.

Can you tell me when "the people" voted FOR heterosexual marriage?

I think if the WERE to vote on whether gay marriage should be legal, it would result in a resounding NO. But that doesn't make it right. Gays should be allowed to marry. It's discrimination for them not to be allowed to marry. And it wouldn't matter if 90 percent of Iowans thought discrimination should be legal, it never would be. How many anti-racist laws were passed in America when the majority of people didn't agree with it? This is a rights issue, not a democratic one.

There were many Quakers in Iowa that fought for an end to slavery and assisted many slaves on the road to freedom. I can't picture those same men and women battling for the cause of same sex marraige as a rights issue.

 

[Valerie]

I agree with you the fence is the problem.

In many cases today the government is stepping over the fence an inhibiting freedoms of it's citizens. I don't believe simply locking away addicts in jails is effective either. Nor would legalizing sniffing glue be advantageous to society. Sniffing glue causes brain damage. So society determined that it would be illegal.

You are saying "banning gay marraige" when in fact it is changing marraige to include to people of the same sex. So it is asking for an alteration of what marraige has traditionally been.

Moral behavior regulated by our government can and should be decided by the people.
Why? Because the people as a society do have that right. Should we go into your bedroom/home and decide anything you do is right or wrong? Hell no!! Can we as a society decide where we want to build that fence on moral issues that effect everyone? Absolutely.

I have every right as a property owner to object to a corporate pig farm moving in and trashing up the air and water quality of the enviroment I live in. Although the pig farmer does not think I have that right because he wants to produce pigs. Since that pig farmer can pollute the area I live in I have a right to object to the pig farm being built near where I live. My neighbors and I also have the right to ask for regulations/laws that the pig farmer must abide in.

I sure do not want a topless bar moving in next door. Do I care what they do? No, yet I have a right to say I am opposed to this as I live in the neighborhood too.

That is what you have when you live in a society of people. Each one has a voice and an opinion.

First of all RodISHI, happy birthday. Now, please tell me you're not equating two consenting adults loving each other with sniffing glue or having a pig farm in your neighborhood? Where is the harm in two people loving each other?

First of all thanks.

Two consenting adults may do what these please to/for one another as a personal choice. It does not mean others have to approve of it/make/change laws to suit them.

Why not compare whatever may offend anyone out there?

Heck why not just make laws that curtail anything being an offence of any kind to anyone? BTW, that is surely coming by the looks of things.

Society can force or could attempt to force everyone to think the same in order to prevent any discourse among the masses.

What you may call love others have the same right to call or consider a sickness.

You may not like the comparison used but heck some people think the smell of cow shit is pleasant. I don't but to each his own but don't try to tell another they have to accept it (or else).

Nobody is forcing anybody to think anything.

Homosexual couples already exist with or without your approval and acceptance, no matter what you might "think" of them.

The law provides special privileges to couples who are "married" and there is no legitimate reason to exclude certain couples from the rights of legal partnership. There is no real harm whatsoever, so your cow dung and your pig farm aren't exactly analogous.

 

[Article 15]

I love these threads. They bigots get exposed and pwnt at every turn. It's really only a matter of time.

I wonder if years from now they will admit they were on the wrong side of history or will they act like they supported equal rights for everyone all along?

 

[elvis]

Can you tell me when "the people" voted FOR heterosexual marriage?

I think if the WERE to vote on whether gay marriage should be legal, it would result in a resounding NO. But that doesn't make it right. Gays should be allowed to marry. It's discrimination for them not to be allowed to marry. And it wouldn't matter if 90 percent of Iowans thought discrimination should be legal, it never would be. How many anti-racist laws were passed in America when the majority of people didn't agree with it? This is a rights issue, not a democratic one.

There were many Quakers in Iowa that fought for an end to slavery and assisted many slaves on the road to freedom. I can't picture those same men and women battling for the cause of same sex marraige as a rights issue.

I can't either. I was mainly thinking about southern states, but I didn't want to generalize. My point is that it shouldn't come down to whether or not a majority of Americans or Iowans think gays have the right to marry. Some things people should have the right to whether the majority likes it or not.

 

[KittenKoder]

I love these threads. They bigots get exposed and pwnt at every turn. It's really only a matter of time.

I wonder if years from now they will admit they were on the wrong side of history or will they act like they supported equal rights for everyone all along?

Many of those before blacks got equal rights still think they were right .... so probably not until they all die and the next generations are all that remains.