Iowa approves same sex marriage

[DavidS]

I've spent hours, literally hours here trying to find one vote that the public made on heterosexual marriage. I've not seen ONE referendum or public vote that has ever taken place in any state where the people had a right to choose for or against heterosexual marriage. Not one conservative on this message board has been able to tell me either.

All opposite-sex marriage laws have either been written by State Supreme Court, Federal Supreme Court or state legislature. This certainly isn't the will of the people. Or is it?

Ceceille recently made a statement that the "will of the people" can be through a legislative process. Yet looking back through her posts, she contradicted herself by supporting Prop 8 in California, overturning a LEGISLATIVE process by representatives elected to the state legislature. So apparently she would only support gay marriage if it was voted on by the people themselves. However, no vote has ever been made by the public on heterosexual marriage. I assume because she's had a couple of kids by now she's married - so I must ask her and all of the other conservatives here: Do you support heterosexual marriage even though no one has been able to vote on whether or not to legalize heterosexual marriage? If you do, then why do you not support homosexual marriage that wasn't voted on by the people?

 

[DavidS]

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.

If the South had an opportunity to vote on freeing slaves, they would have wholeheartedly rejected it. Thus slavery would still be legal in the United States along with racial segregation (Brown v. Board of Education anyone) and in fact, several other cases that were passed by the Supreme Court. This is why we have the Supreme Court - to ensure that no one is violating our rights provided to us by the United States Constitution.

 

[elvis]

I've spent hours, literally hours here trying to find one vote that the public made on heterosexual marriage. I've not seen ONE referendum or public vote that has ever taken place in any state where the people had a right to choose for or against heterosexual marriage. Not one conservative on this message board has been able to tell me either.

All opposite-sex marriage laws have either been written by State Supreme Court, Federal Supreme Court or state legislature. This certainly isn't the will of the people. Or is it?

Ceceille recently made a statement that the "will of the people" can be through a legislative process. Yet looking back through her posts, she contradicted herself by supporting Prop 8 in California, overturning a LEGISLATIVE process by representatives elected to the state legislature. So apparently she would only support gay marriage if it was voted on by the people themselves. However, no vote has ever been made by the public on heterosexual marriage. I assume because she's had a couple of kids by now she's married - so I must ask her and all of the other conservatives here: Do you support heterosexual marriage even though no one has been able to vote on whether or not to legalize heterosexual marriage? If you do, then why do you not support homosexual marriage that wasn't voted on by the people?

They feel that way because if they WERE to vote, heterosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly supported and homosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly shot down. But that shouldn't matter. The majority should not be able to determine the rights of the individual.

 

[DavidS]

I've spent hours, literally hours here trying to find one vote that the public made on heterosexual marriage. I've not seen ONE referendum or public vote that has ever taken place in any state where the people had a right to choose for or against heterosexual marriage. Not one conservative on this message board has been able to tell me either.

All opposite-sex marriage laws have either been written by State Supreme Court, Federal Supreme Court or state legislature. This certainly isn't the will of the people. Or is it?

Ceceille recently made a statement that the "will of the people" can be through a legislative process. Yet looking back through her posts, she contradicted herself by supporting Prop 8 in California, overturning a LEGISLATIVE process by representatives elected to the state legislature. So apparently she would only support gay marriage if it was voted on by the people themselves. However, no vote has ever been made by the public on heterosexual marriage. I assume because she's had a couple of kids by now she's married - so I must ask her and all of the other conservatives here: Do you support heterosexual marriage even though no one has been able to vote on whether or not to legalize heterosexual marriage? If you do, then why do you not support homosexual marriage that wasn't voted on by the people?

They feel that way because if they WERE to vote, heterosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly supported and homosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly shot down. But that shouldn't matter. The majority should not be able to determine the rights of the individual.

Her beliefs are based upon the Bible, though. She's admitted to running a Biblical household. Which is fine. Gay marriage isn't for her. G-d forbid any of her children are ever gay she would dis-own them. But she does NOT have the right to tell Bob and George they can't get married and have the same rights as her and her husband. Just as I don't have the right to tell her that she and her husband can't get married.

 

[elvis]

I've spent hours, literally hours here trying to find one vote that the public made on heterosexual marriage. I've not seen ONE referendum or public vote that has ever taken place in any state where the people had a right to choose for or against heterosexual marriage. Not one conservative on this message board has been able to tell me either.

All opposite-sex marriage laws have either been written by State Supreme Court, Federal Supreme Court or state legislature. This certainly isn't the will of the people. Or is it?

Ceceille recently made a statement that the "will of the people" can be through a legislative process. Yet looking back through her posts, she contradicted herself by supporting Prop 8 in California, overturning a LEGISLATIVE process by representatives elected to the state legislature. So apparently she would only support gay marriage if it was voted on by the people themselves. However, no vote has ever been made by the public on heterosexual marriage. I assume because she's had a couple of kids by now she's married - so I must ask her and all of the other conservatives here: Do you support heterosexual marriage even though no one has been able to vote on whether or not to legalize heterosexual marriage? If you do, then why do you not support homosexual marriage that wasn't voted on by the people?

They feel that way because if they WERE to vote, heterosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly supported and homosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly shot down. But that shouldn't matter. The majority should not be able to determine the rights of the individual.

Her beliefs are based upon the Bible, though. She's admitted to running a Biblical household. Which is fine. Gay marriage isn't for her. G-d forbid any of her children are ever gay she would dis-own them. But she does NOT have the right to tell Bob and George they can't get married and have the same rights as her and her husband. Just as I don't have the right to tell her that she and her husband can't get married.

agreed.

 

[Luissa]

The fact that we're being called upon to recognize it, enforce it, and subsidize it.

Actually, *you're* not. I mean, hypothetical situation: You're an Iowa citizen that isn't a judge. You don't have to do anything about it. In fact, from this day forward, you can continue to hate the idea of gay marriage and not recognize it. You're irrelevant in this because you're not a judge. So you don't have to recognize it, you don't have to enforce it. And you don't have to pay for it, either. Gay couples who want to get married have to pay Iowa $30 to get married.

So again, how does this effect you or anyone else in Iowa who is against gay marriage?

Well, I'm glad you think that the society around me and the laws it passes and enforces in no way affect me. Unfortunately, you're full of shit. Completely aside from the fact that, as a citizen and voter, EVERYTHING the government does is done in my name and that certainly DOES affect me, and aside from the fact that the real agenda here is to be able to use the courts to bludgeon political opponents into silence, the STATED goal is to acquire for homosexual couples legal and financial recognition such as tax breaks, Social Security benefits, forcing companies to offer them health insurance (which affects the costs to everyone else, and what if I'M the employer in question, hmmm?), etc. So please don't piss down my leg and try to tell me it's raining, and please don't try to tell me that people living in a society together are not affected by each other's actions. And DEFINITELY don't try to tell me you have the right to circumvent, undermine, and remove MY rights to vote on what is and isn't legal on the grounds that YOU PERSONALLY don't think it's any of my business.

wouldn't they have to pay those benefits if they married a women? So with your logic companies that don't offer benefits to same sex couples are saving money if their employee is gay and social security would also be saving money. If homosexuals did as you wanted and abandoned their life style and married someone of the opposite sex than benefits would still be paid out.
And they are already living in your society has homosexuals, a piece of paper will not change your day to day life. If your neighbor gets married does that effect you? YOu might have to buy them a gift but really your life will go on as it always has.
And by the way many companies offer benefits to same sex couples, if your are city employee here you can recieve benefits for your same sex partner.

 

[DiveCon]

I've spent hours, literally hours here trying to find one vote that the public made on heterosexual marriage. I've not seen ONE referendum or public vote that has ever taken place in any state where the people had a right to choose for or against heterosexual marriage. Not one conservative on this message board has been able to tell me either.

All opposite-sex marriage laws have either been written by State Supreme Court, Federal Supreme Court or state legislature. This certainly isn't the will of the people. Or is it?

Ceceille recently made a statement that the "will of the people" can be through a legislative process. Yet looking back through her posts, she contradicted herself by supporting Prop 8 in California, overturning a LEGISLATIVE process by representatives elected to the state legislature. So apparently she would only support gay marriage if it was voted on by the people themselves. However, no vote has ever been made by the public on heterosexual marriage. I assume because she's had a couple of kids by now she's married - so I must ask her and all of the other conservatives here: Do you support heterosexual marriage even though no one has been able to vote on whether or not to legalize heterosexual marriage? If you do, then why do you not support homosexual marriage that wasn't voted on by the people?

They feel that way because if they WERE to vote, heterosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly supported and homosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly shot down. But that shouldn't matter. The majority should not be able to determine the rights of the individual.

i thought they already HAD that vote and this is what the IA SC over turned

 

[DiveCon]

Actually, *you're* not. I mean, hypothetical situation: You're an Iowa citizen that isn't a judge. You don't have to do anything about it. In fact, from this day forward, you can continue to hate the idea of gay marriage and not recognize it. You're irrelevant in this because you're not a judge. So you don't have to recognize it, you don't have to enforce it. And you don't have to pay for it, either. Gay couples who want to get married have to pay Iowa $30 to get married.

So again, how does this effect you or anyone else in Iowa who is against gay marriage?

Well, I'm glad you think that the society around me and the laws it passes and enforces in no way affect me. Unfortunately, you're full of shit. Completely aside from the fact that, as a citizen and voter, EVERYTHING the government does is done in my name and that certainly DOES affect me, and aside from the fact that the real agenda here is to be able to use the courts to bludgeon political opponents into silence, the STATED goal is to acquire for homosexual couples legal and financial recognition such as tax breaks, Social Security benefits, forcing companies to offer them health insurance (which affects the costs to everyone else, and what if I'M the employer in question, hmmm?), etc. So please don't piss down my leg and try to tell me it's raining, and please don't try to tell me that people living in a society together are not affected by each other's actions. And DEFINITELY don't try to tell me you have the right to circumvent, undermine, and remove MY rights to vote on what is and isn't legal on the grounds that YOU PERSONALLY don't think it's any of my business.

wouldn't they have to pay those benefits if they married a women? So with your logic companies that don't offer benefits to same sex couples are saving money if their employee is gay and social security would also be saving money. If homosexuals did as you wanted and abandoned their life style and married someone of the opposite sex than benefits would still be paid out.
And they are already living in your society has homosexuals, a piece of paper will not change your day to day life. If your neighbor gets married does that effect you? YOu might have to buy them a gift but really your life will go on as it always has.
And by the way many companies offer benefits to same sex couples, if your are city employee here you can recieve benefits for your same sex partner.

actually, SS would SAVE money with that
unmarried each person gets the bennefit, but when married you have to CHOOSE which ONE gets the bennefit
you do not get both
thats why a lot of older retired people just live together and not get married

 

[elvis]

I've spent hours, literally hours here trying to find one vote that the public made on heterosexual marriage. I've not seen ONE referendum or public vote that has ever taken place in any state where the people had a right to choose for or against heterosexual marriage. Not one conservative on this message board has been able to tell me either.

All opposite-sex marriage laws have either been written by State Supreme Court, Federal Supreme Court or state legislature. This certainly isn't the will of the people. Or is it?

Ceceille recently made a statement that the "will of the people" can be through a legislative process. Yet looking back through her posts, she contradicted herself by supporting Prop 8 in California, overturning a LEGISLATIVE process by representatives elected to the state legislature. So apparently she would only support gay marriage if it was voted on by the people themselves. However, no vote has ever been made by the public on heterosexual marriage. I assume because she's had a couple of kids by now she's married - so I must ask her and all of the other conservatives here: Do you support heterosexual marriage even though no one has been able to vote on whether or not to legalize heterosexual marriage? If you do, then why do you not support homosexual marriage that wasn't voted on by the people?

They feel that way because if they WERE to vote, heterosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly supported and homosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly shot down. But that shouldn't matter. The majority should not be able to determine the rights of the individual.

i thought they already HAD that vote and this is what the IA SC over turned

Oh, they may have. I don't know.

 

[Kalam]

If the South had an opportunity to vote on freeing slaves, they would have wholeheartedly rejected it. Thus slavery would still be legal in the United States along with racial segregation (Brown v. Board of Education anyone)

If the South decided by vote not to free their slaves in 1861, it would still be legal today? I disagree. International pressure would have essentially forced us to emancipate the slaves almost as long ago.

 

[Kalam]

The issue should be left to the states and their respective voting populations. Arguments can be made for either position, and while I personally wouldn't vote against legalizing same-sex unions (or for it,) banning them would not be unlawfully discriminatory. Homosexuals have the right to marry members of the opposite sex like everyone else.

 

[KittenKoder]

The issue should be left to the states and their respective voting populations. Arguments can be made for either position, and while I personally wouldn't vote against legalizing same-sex unions (or for it,) banning them would not be unlawfully discriminatory. Homosexuals have the right to marry members of the opposite sex like everyone else.

So then you admit marriage has absolutely nothing to do with love.

 

[DiveCon]

The issue should be left to the states and their respective voting populations. Arguments can be made for either position, and while I personally wouldn't vote against legalizing same-sex unions (or for it,) banning them would not be unlawfully discriminatory. Homosexuals have the right to marry members of the opposite sex like everyone else.

So then you admit marriage has absolutely nothing to do with love.

well, i believe that marriage is a religious event, and the government should get the hell out of it
there should be no "marriage bennefits" nor should there be "marriage penalties"
and since the first amendment states that "congress can make no law respecting religion, nor prohibit the free exercize there of"
that means get the hell out of marriage and leave it to the church
if you want a legal binding contract between two people, then do that, but dont call it "marriage"

that solves the whole issue

 

[KittenKoder]

The issue should be left to the states and their respective voting populations. Arguments can be made for either position, and while I personally wouldn't vote against legalizing same-sex unions (or for it,) banning them would not be unlawfully discriminatory. Homosexuals have the right to marry members of the opposite sex like everyone else.

So then you admit marriage has absolutely nothing to do with love.

well, i believe that marriage is a religious event, and the government should get the hell out of it
there should be no "marriage bennefits" nor should there be "marriage penalties"
and since the first amendment states that "congress can make no law respecting religion, nor prohibit the free exercize there of"
that means get the hell out of marriage and leave it to the church
if you want a legal binding contract between two people, then do that, but dont call it "marriage"

that solves the whole issue

That would work for me.

 

[DavidS]

If the South had an opportunity to vote on freeing slaves, they would have wholeheartedly rejected it. Thus slavery would still be legal in the United States along with racial segregation (Brown v. Board of Education anyone)

If the South decided by vote not to free their slaves in 1861, it would still be legal today? I disagree. International pressure would have essentially forced us to emancipate the slaves almost as long ago.

Who knows where this country would be without the Supreme Court? When Legislation and Popular Vote fails, thankfully there's always the Supreme Court there kick us out of neutral when we need it.

 

[DavidS]

The issue should be left to the states and their respective voting populations. Arguments can be made for either position, and while I personally wouldn't vote against legalizing same-sex unions (or for it,) banning them would not be unlawfully discriminatory. Homosexuals have the right to marry members of the opposite sex like everyone else.

What if we banned Islam? You still have the right to be Christian....

A voting population should not be able to decide upon people's rights. That should be left to the Supreme Court.

 

[DavidS]

The issue should be left to the states and their respective voting populations. Arguments can be made for either position, and while I personally wouldn't vote against legalizing same-sex unions (or for it,) banning them would not be unlawfully discriminatory. Homosexuals have the right to marry members of the opposite sex like everyone else.

So then you admit marriage has absolutely nothing to do with love.

well, i believe that marriage is a religious event, and the government should get the hell out of it
there should be no "marriage bennefits" nor should there be "marriage penalties"
and since the first amendment states that "congress can make no law respecting religion, nor prohibit the free exercize there of"
that means get the hell out of marriage and leave it to the church
if you want a legal binding contract between two people, then do that, but dont call it "marriage"

that solves the whole issue

I was with you all the way up until "the legal binding contract between two people."

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and something else that escapes my mind at this early hour of the morning like a duck, then it's not a refrigerator. I think I messed that up, but you get the idea. Either get the government completely out of marriage and legal contracts, or get them fully involved and allow everything.

 

[garyd]

Okay first things first the people of Iowa didn't approve squat, the Iowa supreme court did so look for the people of Iowa to respond in much the same way as the people of California did, that is to say with a petition to Amend the constitution of Iowa so that no such thing will be tolerated. Everyone is willing to permit civil unions and give them equal status with marriage legally. 80 to 85% of the country is dead set against calling such relationships a marriage. Take what you can get and be happy with that.
For the overwhelming majority of people in this country marriage is a religious ceremony and whther the government sanctons such religious ceremonies or not is largely moot.

If you keep trying to shove this stuff down people's throats you will succeed eventually in converting Fred Phelps from a bit player despised by all other than his tiny congregation into some sort of quasi hero and believe me no one sane wants that.

 

[Ravi]

The issue should be left to the states and their respective voting populations. Arguments can be made for either position, and while I personally wouldn't vote against legalizing same-sex unions (or for it,) banning them would not be unlawfully discriminatory. Homosexuals have the right to marry members of the opposite sex like everyone else.

What if we banned Islam? You still have the right to be Christian....

A voting population should not be able to decide upon people's rights. That should be left to the Supreme Court.

That's a great point, David. I personally am disgusted by the Muslim religion but I would fight against the idea that anyone could vote to outlaw a religion or limit the rights of American Muslims in any way.

 

[dilloduck]

The issue should be left to the states and their respective voting populations. Arguments can be made for either position, and while I personally wouldn't vote against legalizing same-sex unions (or for it,) banning them would not be unlawfully discriminatory. Homosexuals have the right to marry members of the opposite sex like everyone else.

What if we banned Islam? You still have the right to be Christian....

A voting population should not be able to decide upon people's rights. That should be left to the Supreme Court.

That's a great point, David. I personally am disgusted by the Muslim religion but I would fight against the idea that anyone could vote to outlaw a religion or limit the rights of American Muslims in any way.

Only because you're a bleeding heart liberal and identify with anyone or anything who your opinion is being treated unfairly.