Iowa approves same sex marriage

[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"...

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.

Sorry, but I don't believe that statistic. There is no way to actually prove it, and too many variables involved. That statement (or "statistic") is pretty easy to refute. Start with who compiled it and what was their agenda? and work from there.

 

[Gunny]

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.

The bolded statement is a PERFECT example of tyranny of the minority. Some sheltered, out of touch elitists should decide what the masses need? I think not. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret law, and rule on the Constitutionality of it. The role of making law belongs to the legislature, who ideally, represent the people.

 

[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.

Sorry, but I don't believe that statistic. There is no way to actually prove it, and too many variables involved. That statement (or "statistic") is pretty easy to refute. Start with who compiled it and what was their agenda? and work from there.

It's true there are confounding variables. You'd have to look at income, environment, etc. How many gay couples with children do you think live in the ghetto? That right there would skew the data.

 

[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.

Sorry, but I don't believe that statistic. There is no way to actually prove it, and too many variables involved. That statement (or "statistic") is pretty easy to refute. Start with who compiled it and what was their agenda? and work from there.

That was kind of my point. Because of a lack of data the statistic is inaccurate at best. Until gay couples are allowed to adopt and keep their children more often (some places do take the children they have from them prior to realizing they are gay) there is no way to get any more accuracy than what they have had. If the case was that there were more of gay couples raising children and we could see how those children turned out then an accurate assertion for one side or the other could be made, however, since we only have the one statistic to go by anything based on logic without bias will have to be in support of gay couples raising children.

 

[Gunny]

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

Illogical supposition. We no longer have either legal slavery or segregation due to the will of the people.

 

[elvis]

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.

The bolded statement is a PERFECT example of tyranny of the minority. Some sheltered, out of touch elitists should decide what the masses need? I think not. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret law, and rule on the Constitutionality of it. The role of making law belongs to the legislature, who ideally, represent the people.

What about slavery, women's suffrage, and segregation? Those were decided by Supreme court against the will of the majority.

 

[elvis]

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

Illogical supposition. We no longer have either legal slavery or segregation due to the will of the people.

But that wasn't the case at the time. They were passed against the will of the majority.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

The bolded statement is a PERFECT example of tyranny of the minority. Some sheltered, out of touch elitists should decide what the masses need? I think not. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret law, and rule on the Constitutionality of it. The role of making law belongs to the legislature, who ideally, represent the people.

True, had they actually changed a law then I would agree with you on this, the majority does have a say in it. While I disagree with prop-8 in Cali, I would never say it was wrong for it to pass because it was majority rules. Here however they are doing what they are suppose to, interpreting the law. In this case they are saying that the contracts these people go into must be adhered to regardless of their ... well ... I am getting repetitious. As you pointed out, this is their job, and they are doing it.

 

[Valerie]

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

Au contraire! I have a childhood friend (a woman) who married another woman in a private Civil Union in Vermont ten years ago. They then had an official ceremony in a Unitarian Universalist Church in Provincetown, Massachusetts -- performed by a minister prior to Massachusetts acceptance of gay marriage -- where all family and friends were in attendance. They had a ceremony and a reception and everything about that day was just the same as any other wedding I've ever been to. They now live in Oregon where they have two children together. They made a conscious choice together to seek an acceptable sperm donor and one of them chose to physically bear these two children, just like any other woman. They are happily married for ten years now with two children. One of them is a doctor and the other is a lawyer and they are a beautiful family.

 

[Luissa]

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.

I never said Jim Crowe laws had anything to do with women's right to vote. And with women being a minority also wouldn't you say we were forcing the tyranny of the minority when we fought for our right to vote? They also used the judicial system in the early stages to enfranchise women along with using the judicial system to allow fair or equal pay for women. And I am sure men used the same arguement you are using to be against it.

 

[DavidS]

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

So, Iowa, as in the majority of voters, didn't approve anything. The law was backdoored via the judiciary.

Very democratic.

Yeah, it's a shame about that. Don't you just hate when new laws are passed without people voting for it?

 

[DavidS]

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

So, Iowa, as in the majority of voters, didn't approve anything. The law was backdoored via the judiciary.

Very democratic.

Since when have we been a true democracy anyway?

We are a representative democracy. We are NOT a direct democracy.

 

[DiveCon]

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?

women's sufferage was a constitutional amendment, not a judicial ruling

 

[Gunny]

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

So, Iowa, as in the majority of voters, didn't approve anything. The law was backdoored via the judiciary.

Very democratic.

Yeah, it's a shame about that. Don't you just hate when new laws are passed without people voting for it?

Matter of fact, yeah, I do. But get your facts straight.

I have no problem with judicial review. I have a problem with it being misused.

 

[Gunny]

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.

Sorry, but I don't believe that statistic. There is no way to actually prove it, and too many variables involved. That statement (or "statistic") is pretty easy to refute. Start with who compiled it and what was their agenda? and work from there.

That was kind of my point. Because of a lack of data the statistic is inaccurate at best. Until gay couples are allowed to adopt and keep their children more often (some places do take the children they have from them prior to realizing they are gay) there is no way to get any more accuracy than what they have had. If the case was that there were more of gay couples raising children and we could see how those children turned out then an accurate assertion for one side or the other could be made, however, since we only have the one statistic to go by anything based on logic without bias will have to be in support of gay couples raising children.

I disagree with social experimentation on that scale. What if it turns out it IS more harmful? You have at least a generation of screwed-up people in the name of social experimentation.

 

[Gunny]

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.

The bolded statement is a PERFECT example of tyranny of the minority. Some sheltered, out of touch elitists should decide what the masses need? I think not. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret law, and rule on the Constitutionality of it. The role of making law belongs to the legislature, who ideally, represent the people.

What about slavery, women's suffrage, and segregation? Those were decided by Supreme court against the will of the majority.

Slavery was decided by a war. Women's suffrage was decided by the legislature (Congress), who ideally represent the people. While the Supreme Court did rule on some cases regarding segregation, that too was disposed of via the legislature.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

So, back to the original question.

Is it correct to assume that those in favor of the courts overturning the will of the people is: 1) fine; and 2) that is so because all members of the US judiciary are the higher beings amongst us (there is no other way of looking at it), capable of an ancient level of logical neutrally, and of being uninfluenced by ideological prejudice or any other factors which may be swirling around in our society at any given time.

If so, are you serious?

 

[DavidS]

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.

And amazingly enoughk, no one cares, or thinks anything of them. That's what activists fail to grasp, is that homosexuals and their private relationships really aren't of any interest to the rest of us whatsoever . . . until you drag them into the public arena and try to make them public policy.



It's very funny to me that marriage is viewed as a "privilege", instead of the set of recognized restrictions it really is. It tells me that a lot of people really don't understand the institution at all.

"No legitimate reason"? THAT tells me that you're just listening to no one but yourself and people who agree with you, so why bother talking to you at all?

Cecilie, I don't think of posting in a thread like this as responding to an individual as much as responding to the subject at hand. I've read all of your posts on this subject and if you notice, I haven't bothered to respond to one of them, so don't sweat wanting to talk to me. Just post a legitimate reason or don't. Can you demonstrate the harm?

What you fail to grasp is that the activists who crusaded across the country "in defense of marriage" are the ones who brought this issue "in your face" to begin with. Gay people didn't "drag themselves into the public arena", they are equal citizens of this country who are part of the public arena just like anybody else seeking public policy to protect their interests. The establishment of DOMA forced them to respond in kind, state by state.

BTW, talk about funny, you see marriage as a set of recognized restrictions?

The legal issues of marriage involve rights and privileges, the rest of your rants are nothing more than your emotional response to something that you find personally offensive. You have that right Cecilie, good for you, rant away.

Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. It should be noted that these rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female married couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman and thus bars same-sex couples from receiving any federal recognition of same sex marriage or conveyance of marriage benefits to same sex couples through federal marriage law.

Prior to the enactment of DOMA, the General Accounting Office (as the GAO was then called) identified 1,049[2] federal statutory provisions in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor. An update was published in 2004 by the GAO covering the period between September 21, 1996 (when DOMA was signed into law) and December 31, 2003. The update identified 120 new statutory provisions involving marital status, and 31 statutory provisions involving marital status repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor.

See below for a partial list of these provisions of federal law.
Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, marriage is a right, not a privilege.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival

 

[Gunny]

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

Illogical supposition. We no longer have either legal slavery or segregation due to the will of the people.

But that wasn't the case at the time. They were passed against the will of the majority.

Were they? Ideally, Congress represents the will of the majority. It represents the people.

I don't believe any of those laws were passed against the will of the majority. They were passed against the will of a vocal minority.

 

[RodISHI]

State judges go up for re-election every four years per term(even those at the Supreme court level). If the people in Iowa are not happy with them they do have recourse available to them.