Iowa approves same sex marriage

[DavidS]

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?

not at all. marriage is a contract between two people. Not between 5 people. And not between two white people.

As far as how this is a GOOD MOVE, it allows lesbians/gays and bisexuals to get married. Is that good for the country? I dunno... I don't really think this effects anyone other than those in the marriage industry and the two people getting married. So, for them it's good. For the rest of us - it's irrelevant.

 

[DavidS]

Is it wrong of me not to care one way or the other?

Shhhh. Go drink your beer and watch some socc..err...football.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

Good case, but then would it seriously make much of a difference compared to todays youth?

 

[Gunny]

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.

Go reread the post I responded to.

There's no "we." You weren't there. Women's suffrage is a Constitutional amendment. It is not a case of tyranny of the majority; rather, oppression of the minority which was corrected via legislation as it should have been.

You've built a nice strawman here, but fact is, you are attributing beliefs to me I have not stated, nor do I hold. You appear to be a little bit lost here.

 

[RodISHI]

And, for those coming to Iowa to get their new gay marraige license get them in Decatur county. It's just right off the north edge of Missouri. It's is the poorest county in the state. They can use the revenue. Thanks!!!

 

[KittenKoder]

And, for those coming to Iowa to get their new gay marraige license get them in Decatur county. It's just right off the north edge of Missouri. It's is the poorest county in the state. They can use the revenue. Thanks!!!

LOL ... is it like Springfield?

 

[Gunny]

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.

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

What's your point?

 

[DavidS]

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.

Marriage is a right. Not a privilege. You can't prevent people from believing in Islam, but you can prevent them from practicing it. You can demolish all mosques, go house to house in Muslim neighborhoods and arrest anyone who appears to be practicing Islam during prayer times and ban the sale of anything related to the religion of Islam.

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.

Disallowing any type of marriage violates the 14th amendment. Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

See above.

 

[elvis]

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.

Go reread the post I responded to.

There's no "we." You weren't there. Women's suffrage is a Constitutional amendment. It is not a case of tyranny of the majority; rather, oppression of the minority which was corrected via legislation as it should have been.

You've built a nice strawman here, but fact is, you are attributing beliefs to me I have not stated, nor do I hold. You appear to be a little bit lost here.

Well here's a question. Term limits were put in place by constitutional amendment against the will of the majority. "We" never voted on it. Should that be overturned?

 

[Gunny]

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.

Off topic, but how often do you see state judges replaced? It's a good ol' boy network here.

 

[DavidS]

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

Well, hell if an Islamic theocracy thinks that homosexuality is not good for society, we should just adopt Sharia law here in America, right?

 

[Gunny]

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?

not at all. marriage is a contract between two people. Not between 5 people. And not between two white people.

As far as how this is a GOOD MOVE, it allows lesbians/gays and bisexuals to get married. Is that good for the country? I dunno... I don't really think this effects anyone other than those in the marriage industry and the two people getting married. So, for them it's good. For the rest of us - it's irrelevant.

Marriage a contract between a man and a woman.

 

[Gunny]

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.

Good case, but then would it seriously make much of a difference compared to todays youth?

touche!

 

[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?

not at all. marriage is a contract between two people. Not between 5 people. And not between two white people.

As far as how this is a GOOD MOVE, it allows lesbians/gays and bisexuals to get married. Is that good for the country? I dunno... I don't really think this effects anyone other than those in the marriage industry and the two people getting married. So, for them it's good. For the rest of us - it's irrelevant.

Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman.

Um ... then why can't they make another marriage contract that is between two men and one more between two women?

 

[Gunny]

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.

Go reread the post I responded to.

There's no "we." You weren't there. Women's suffrage is a Constitutional amendment. It is not a case of tyranny of the majority; rather, oppression of the minority which was corrected via legislation as it should have been.

You've built a nice strawman here, but fact is, you are attributing beliefs to me I have not stated, nor do I hold. You appear to be a little bit lost here.

Well here's a question. Term limits were put in place by constitutional amendment against the will of the majority. "We" never voted on it. Should that be overturned?

What term limits were put in place by Constitutional amendment? What evidence supports it was against the will of the majority?

We never vote on everything and never have. That is why it's called a representative republic. The legislators we elect by majority vote are our de facto voices.

 

[elvis]

Go reread the post I responded to.

There's no "we." You weren't there. Women's suffrage is a Constitutional amendment. It is not a case of tyranny of the majority; rather, oppression of the minority which was corrected via legislation as it should have been.

You've built a nice strawman here, but fact is, you are attributing beliefs to me I have not stated, nor do I hold. You appear to be a little bit lost here.

Well here's a question. Term limits were put in place by constitutional amendment against the will of the majority. "We" never voted on it. Should that be overturned?

What term limits were put in place by Constitutional amendment? What evidence supports it was against the will of the majority?

We never vote on everything and never have. That is why it's called a representative republic. The legislators we elect by majority vote are our de facto voices.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 22 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
I don't think the majority would choose to limit their choices for president.

 

[DavidS]

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.

Which people? Not the majority. The majority of people did NOT want slavery to end, nor did they want segregation to end. And the will of the people? The people never voted on one civil rights law. So who voted for this again?

 

[Gunny]

not at all. marriage is a contract between two people. Not between 5 people. And not between two white people.

As far as how this is a GOOD MOVE, it allows lesbians/gays and bisexuals to get married. Is that good for the country? I dunno... I don't really think this effects anyone other than those in the marriage industry and the two people getting married. So, for them it's good. For the rest of us - it's irrelevant.

Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman.

Um ... then why can't they make another marriage contract that is between two men and one more between two women?

One, that is not what the law states here. The law here states marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. That was voted on by the people of Texas and expresses the will of the majority.

It isn't a matter of "can or can't." I'm sure they are quite capable.

 

[Kalam]

Marriage is a right. Not a privilege.

Heterosexual marriage is a right. Homosexual marriage is not a right.

Disallowing any type of marriage violates the 14th amendment.

No, it does not. As I said, homosexuals, like everyone else, can marry members of the opposite gender.

 

[KittenKoder]

Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman.

Um ... then why can't they make another marriage contract that is between two men and one more between two women?

One, that is not what the law states here. The law here states marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. That was voted on by the people of Texas and expresses the will of the majority.

It isn't a matter of "can or can't." I'm sure they are quite capable.

Then explain why a marriage between two men or two women would not just be another contract?