Iowa approves same sex marriage

[Ravi]

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.

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.

Gunny, there is no point in arguing with you. You are always convinced that you are right and you, more than anyone here, post pointless and baseless ridicule.

 

[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.

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?

Deflection ... and derailment. Go chat with Agna.

Would you consider all contracts made by gay people invalid? Would you like to see them be able to worm out of any contract just because you don't like to see this one enforced? That's what will likely happen, you do realize. If it is found that this one contract can be avoided just because of the genders of those involved then think about how many other contracts they could avoid for that same reason, even better, for their personal lifestyles. What about paying medical bills? That's a contract which they could easily avoid if this one fails to be enforced, and then who would pay them, the rest of us. It's a wise choice for any court to say they will enforce the contract, you just can't see past your own personal beliefs to see this, and it's clear by your wording.

 

[-Cp]

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?

Deflection ... and derailment. Go chat with Agna.

Would you consider all contracts made by gay people invalid? Would you like to see them be able to worm out of any contract just because you don't like to see this one enforced? That's what will likely happen, you do realize. If it is found that this one contract can be avoided just because of the genders of those involved then think about how many other contracts they could avoid for that same reason, even better, for their personal lifestyles. What about paying medical bills? That's a contract which they could easily avoid if this one fails to be enforced, and then who would pay them, the rest of us. It's a wise choice for any court to say they will enforce the contract, you just can't see past your own personal beliefs to see this, and it's clear by your wording.

In related news - it seems Iraq has figured out that homosexuality is not good for society:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE53312Q20090404?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

 

[KittenKoder]

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?

Deflection ... and derailment. Go chat with Agna.

Would you consider all contracts made by gay people invalid? Would you like to see them be able to worm out of any contract just because you don't like to see this one enforced? That's what will likely happen, you do realize. If it is found that this one contract can be avoided just because of the genders of those involved then think about how many other contracts they could avoid for that same reason, even better, for their personal lifestyles. What about paying medical bills? That's a contract which they could easily avoid if this one fails to be enforced, and then who would pay them, the rest of us. It's a wise choice for any court to say they will enforce the contract, you just can't see past your own personal beliefs to see this, and it's clear by your wording.

In related news - it seems Iraq has figured out that homosexuality is not good for society:
Gays killed in Baghdad as clerics urge clampdown | International | Reuters

Grasping at straws I see? Since when is Iraq a good example of anything? Oh, and this is OLD news, just regurgitated.

 

[Luissa]

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

I didn't think of that, so than besides religion what is the big deal. Many companies already give benefits to same sex partners and I might be wrong but can't you name anyone as your benefactor on your life insurance?
Gay marriage is already legal in other countries and they are not falling apart, they don't have people marrying dogs. I don't see Canada going under because they allow gay marriage.

The "big deal" is using the judiciary to usurp the legislature/will of the people.

you guys keep saying that but if people had not used judicary to go against the will of the people we would not have gotten rid of Jim Crowe laws, women would not be allowed to vote etc. I don't agree with certain religions but you don't see me trying to deny people their rights to practice that religion.
Plus I really just don't get why it is such a big deal to you people if homosexuals can get married, these people are already living together, having children together, and just living their normal life and do not effect you any. What will allowing them to get married really change? Tell me how today your life is different becaue Iowa now allows gay marriage?

 

[-Cp]

Plus I really just don't get why it is such a big deal to you people if homosexuals can get married, these people are already living together, having children together, and just living their normal life and do not effect you any. What will allowing them to get married really change? Tell me how today your life is different becaue Iowa now allows gay marriage?

That is an untrue statement, they are NOT "having kids together" - it's an impossibility...

They DO affect society - their polluted mindset teaches the kids around them that being a pole-smoker is somehow "normal"...

 

[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.

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

From a legal standpoint, no, I don't think that matters. If loving something or someone was the only prerequisite for marrying him/her/it, we'd have a lot of strange marriages going on, wouldn't we? Of course, I believe that love is important in any relationship between people, heterosexual or homosexual. That doesn't mean I support legal recognition of homosexual marriages.

 

[roomy]

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.

From a legal standpoint, no, I don't think that matters. If loving something or someone was the only prerequisite for marrying him/her/it, we'd have a lot of strange marriages going on, wouldn't we? Of course, I believe that love is important in any relationship between people, heterosexual or homosexual. That doesn't mean I support legal recognition of homosexual marriages.

I would marry a meat pie or a pint of beer

 

[KittenKoder]

Plus I really just don't get why it is such a big deal to you people if homosexuals can get married, these people are already living together, having children together, and just living their normal life and do not effect you any. What will allowing them to get married really change? Tell me how today your life is different becaue Iowa now allows gay marriage?

That is an untrue statement, they are NOT "having kids together" - it's an impossibility...

They DO affect society - their polluted mindset teaches the kids around them that being a pole-smoker is somehow "normal"...

You're bigotry is showing.

She misspoke, yes, should have said "raise kids" together instead, but that's a minor error. Also, the statistics that have been gathered (though inaccurate thanks to morons like you) show that children raised by gay couples are far more well adjusted, polite, and do much better in school. Now, since morons like you won't let gay couples raise kids more often there is no way for you to refute this statistic, and thus, because I base all my opinions on logic, I am forced to say they are better parents. Prove it wrong, allow them to adopt and keep their children more often, then perhaps us thinking persons will switch sides, until then, good luck.

 

[Gunny]

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.

Gunny, there is no point in arguing with you. You are always convinced that you are right and you, more than anyone here, post pointless and baseless ridicule.

Incorrect. I am more than willing to have an honest discussion with anyone, and am quite capable of doing so without discussing that person at all. I'm nowhere near close to being the one who posts pointless and baseless ridicule. To the contrary, there is ALWAYS a basis and point to MY ridicule.

You incorrect that I am always convinced I'm right. I am convinced I'm right when I go so far as to make an argument, and when I go so far as to make an argument, I do so with facts to support it. And I don't have to twist nor in any other way misrepresent the facts I use.

The facts, in this instance support ME. Not you. Too bad, huh?

 

[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.

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.

You can't prevent people from believing in Islam just as you can't ban homosexual feelings or behavior. However, that doesn't mean that homosexuals need to be extended the privilege of marriage to each other. Discrimination against a religious group where that group's practices don't violate the rights of others is a breach of the first amendment. Disallowing homosexual marriage does not violate the constitution in any way. The Supreme Court should only be involved in anything when constitutionality is in question, which it isn't, or when voting populations and lower courts can't handle a situation, which they can in this case.

 

[Kalam]

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

From a legal standpoint, no, I don't think that matters. If loving something or someone was the only prerequisite for marrying him/her/it, we'd have a lot of strange marriages going on, wouldn't we? Of course, I believe that love is important in any relationship between people, heterosexual or homosexual. That doesn't mean I support legal recognition of homosexual marriages.

I would marry a meat pie or a pint of beer

You'd have to remarry pretty quickly. You may as well just date it.

 

[elvis]

The problem with this is if the courts had followed "majority rules", we might stil have slavery and/or segregation.

 

[Luissa]

Plus I really just don't get why it is such a big deal to you people if homosexuals can get married, these people are already living together, having children together, and just living their normal life and do not effect you any. What will allowing them to get married really change? Tell me how today your life is different becaue Iowa now allows gay marriage?

That is an untrue statement, they are NOT "having kids together" - it's an impossibility...

They DO affect society - their polluted mindset teaches the kids around them that being a pole-smoker is somehow "normal"...

And you are teaching the kids around your being a closed minded asshole is alright!
And they are having kids together, maybe not the usual way but they are having kids together. My friend has to lesbian mothers and he ended up being a great guy who is a great father. And one of his mothers concieved him and gave birth to him. They are allowed to adopt children now, so tell me why they should not be allowed to get married and provide those children with a stable envirnment besides your religious reasons or other closed minded reasons.

 

[Gunny]

I didn't think of that, so than besides religion what is the big deal. Many companies already give benefits to same sex partners and I might be wrong but can't you name anyone as your benefactor on your life insurance?
Gay marriage is already legal in other countries and they are not falling apart, they don't have people marrying dogs. I don't see Canada going under because they allow gay marriage.

The "big deal" is using the judiciary to usurp the legislature/will of the people.

you guys keep saying that but if people had not used judicary to go against the will of the people we would not have gotten rid of Jim Crowe laws, women would not be allowed to vote etc. I don't agree with certain religions but you don't see me trying to deny people their rights to practice that religion.
Plus I really just don't get why it is such a big deal to you people if homosexuals can get married, these people are already living together, having children together, and just living their normal life and do not effect you any. What will allowing them to get married really change? Tell me how today your life is different becaue Iowa now allows gay marriage?

Your argument was old and tired the last times I shot it down. Quit resorting to apples and oranges comparisons. Jim Crow laws did in fact discriminate. Jim Crow laws had NOTHING to do with women voting.

The fact is, on this topic, you can't get past your emotions to have a rational discussion. Your entire argument is based on an appeal to emotion.

To recap for you KK's post: The rule of the majority may be oppressive at some points, but it is not tyranny. Tyranny is when the rule of the minority is forced on the majority.

And it was majority voting and legislation that did away with Jim Crow laws at the National level. The locals, in most cases, supported those laws or they wouldn't have existed.

And again, my comment that responded to has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. It has to do with abusing the judicial system to override/overturn laws put in place by the legislature to force the tyranny of the minority onto the majority. Focus, please.

 

[Kalam]

The problem with this is if the courts had followed "majority rules", we might stil have slavery and/or segregation.

I doubt it. As I said, even if we didn't choose to do so ourselves, international pressure would have forced us to abandon slavery a long time ago

 

[Gunny]

Plus I really just don't get why it is such a big deal to you people if homosexuals can get married, these people are already living together, having children together, and just living their normal life and do not effect you any. What will allowing them to get married really change? Tell me how today your life is different becaue Iowa now allows gay marriage?

That is an untrue statement, they are NOT "having kids together" - it's an impossibility...

They DO affect society - their polluted mindset teaches the kids around them that being a pole-smoker is somehow "normal"...

I don't know what you did to the quotes, but you have attributed a statement to me that was made by Luissa.

 

[Yukon]

Plus I really just don't get why it is such a big deal to you people if homosexuals can get married, these people are already living together, having children together, and just living their normal life and do not effect you any. What will allowing them to get married really change? Tell me how today your life is different becaue Iowa now allows gay marriage?

That is an untrue statement, they are NOT "having kids together" - it's an impossibility...

They DO affect society - their polluted mindset teaches the kids around them that being a pole-smoker is somehow "normal"...

You're bigotry is showing.

She misspoke, yes, should have said "raise kids" together instead, but that's a minor error. Also, the statistics that have been gathered (though inaccurate thanks to morons like you) show that children raised by gay couples are far more well adjusted, polite, and do much better in school. Now, since morons like you won't let gay couples raise kids more often there is no way for you to refute this statistic, and thus, because I base all my opinions on logic, I am forced to say they are better parents. Prove it wrong, allow them to adopt and keep their children more often, then perhaps us thinking persons will switch sides, until then, good luck.

I think queers are sick. I dont think they should be allowed near a child unless supervised. That's what I think. I guess I'm a bigot ????

 

[elvis]

That is an untrue statement, they are NOT "having kids together" - it's an impossibility...

They DO affect society - their polluted mindset teaches the kids around them that being a pole-smoker is somehow "normal"...

You're bigotry is showing.

She misspoke, yes, should have said "raise kids" together instead, but that's a minor error. Also, the statistics that have been gathered (though inaccurate thanks to morons like you) show that children raised by gay couples are far more well adjusted, polite, and do much better in school. Now, since morons like you won't let gay couples raise kids more often there is no way for you to refute this statistic, and thus, because I base all my opinions on logic, I am forced to say they are better parents. Prove it wrong, allow them to adopt and keep their children more often, then perhaps us thinking persons will switch sides, until then, good luck.

I think queers are sick. I dont think they should be allowed near a child unless supervised. That's what I think. I guess I'm a bigot ????

No, you're projecting. You can't handle the fact that you were thrown out of the church for molesting your altar boys.

 

[KittenKoder]

That is an untrue statement, they are NOT "having kids together" - it's an impossibility...

They DO affect society - their polluted mindset teaches the kids around them that being a pole-smoker is somehow "normal"...

You're bigotry is showing.

She misspoke, yes, should have said "raise kids" together instead, but that's a minor error. Also, the statistics that have been gathered (though inaccurate thanks to morons like you) show that children raised by gay couples are far more well adjusted, polite, and do much better in school. Now, since morons like you won't let gay couples raise kids more often there is no way for you to refute this statistic, and thus, because I base all my opinions on logic, I am forced to say they are better parents. Prove it wrong, allow them to adopt and keep their children more often, then perhaps us thinking persons will switch sides, until then, good luck.

I think queers are sick. I dont think they should be allowed near a child unless supervised. That's what I think. I guess I'm a bigot ????

Yes, because you are basing your opinion on illogical fears and ideals while logic and facts show that your opinion is completely wrong.