Iowa approves same sex marriage

[Cecilie1200]

So what I'm seeing here is that IOWA didn't approve it. Rather, Iowa had it forced on them by a handful of lawyers in robes who think their moral superiority trumps the law and the will of every other person living in the state.

They'd have been better off with the dumb pig farmers than the even dumber and monstrously arrogant elitists.

Um ... yeah ... no, they just saw the flaw in making marriage a religious matter most likely and decided that it is now a legal matter, and legal matters are not suppose to be influenced by religious ideals.

Religion seems to be the root of so many problems. I have to agree when you take religion out of the mix, why wouldn't same sex couples have the same rights to a marriage license as heterosexual couples.

It must suck for you, living in a nation so preponderously filled with religious people that they can overwhelmingly pass laws all by themselves. If it really is only religious nuts who oppose legalized homosexual "marriage", then a cursory glance at the voting numbers tells me you're just screwed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

heh, your "dumb pig farmers" must care more about the civil rights of Americans than you bozos do. That is a good thing, imo.

WRONG Dumb Ass, the Courts keep thwarting the will of the people on spurious grounds. The people of Iowa did NOT approve same sex marriages you retard.

Did the people of Iowa approve opposite sex marriage?

Yes.

 

[KittenKoder]

Um ... yeah ... no, they just saw the flaw in making marriage a religious matter most likely and decided that it is now a legal matter, and legal matters are not suppose to be influenced by religious ideals.

Religion seems to be the root of so many problems. I have to agree when you take religion out of the mix, why wouldn't same sex couples have the same rights to a marriage license as heterosexual couples.

It must suck for you, living in a nation so preponderously filled with religious people that they can overwhelmingly pass laws all by themselves. If it really is only religious nuts who oppose legalized homosexual "marriage", then a cursory glance at the voting numbers tells me you're just screwed.

So you want to make obeying a contract which is willingly entered illegal just because of the genders ... you are making no sense yet. Hell, if we are not going to recognize those contracts just because they are gay then my lease is null and void because I am non-sexual, so therefore I can do whatever I want to the place and no longer have to pay rent, woot!

 

[DavidS]

The 69 page ruling means same-sex couples in Iowa can now get married under state law. The ruling said that the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

What exactly, is it you're all against? How does it affect YOUR life if two people in love can be married, and enjoy the same benefits as a man and a woman?

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?

 

[DavidS]

WRONG Dumb Ass, the Courts keep thwarting the will of the people on spurious grounds. The people of Iowa did NOT approve same sex marriages you retard.

Did the people of Iowa approve opposite sex marriage?

Yes.

Really? When was the vote? Do you have the text of that proposition that made opposite sex marriage legal?

Please send me the relevant information ASAP. Thanks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What exactly, is it you're all against? How does it affect YOUR life if two people in love can be married, and enjoy the same benefits as a man and a woman?

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.

 

[DavidS]

Remind me how you make something private by charging into the public arena,

Well, I'm not really sure what you're talking about here - I never said this was a private matter. When two people who, under the United States Constitution are not allowed to do something they have the right to do, that's not a private matter.

And remind me how you make something legal without asking people to vote on it, either directly or indirectly through their representatives.

It's called the Supreme Court. It's part of our constitution. It was founded in 1789.

Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might wanna, uh, read that.

By the way, are you against black and white people getting married? Because that, uh, that was made legal without asking people to vote on it, either directly or indirectly through their representatives.

Maybe you should work on your consistency before getting on your soapbox.

I've been a consistent supporter of gay marriage. You, on the other hand should answer my above question before telling me to be consistent.

 

[KittenKoder]

How is it right in any way for them to enforce some contracts but not others based on personal preference Ce? Seriously, and how is it they are forcing you to even acknowledge it? It's them deciding they will enforce the contract signed by two willing people regardless of belief, how is this bad? Are they somehow forcing straight people to marry someone of the same gender and just not showing it?

 

[RodISHI]

What exactly, is it you're all against? How does it affect YOUR life if two people in love can be married, and enjoy the same benefits as a man and a woman?

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?

The majority of Iowa politicians and judges sell themselves for little of nothing. It is really nothing knew that Iowa is a willing whore for any new money coming in. Oh wait, that is typical for most any given situation when it comes to politics isn't it.

On a ruse of civil rights they can claim their decision but the truth comes out in the end. If Iowa courts had any decency they would give all equal justice. Fact is they do not and they do circumvent the law and ignore their own laws here. It depends on convience and who has the money to make the payoff first.

 

[DavidS]

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?),

Do you have a problem with companies offering heterosexual couples legal and financial recognition such as tax breaks, social security benefits and forcing companies to offer those heterosexual sex couples health insurance?

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.

You don't have the right to vote on that. Sorry. The Supreme Court does.

 

[DavidS]

Did the people of Iowa approve opposite sex marriage?

Yes.

Really? When was the vote? Do you have the text of that proposition that made opposite sex marriage legal?

Please send me the relevant information ASAP. Thanks.

Still waiting for this.

Please send ASAP.

Thanks.

 

[KittenKoder]

Funny thing is that the tax breaks are because one person is suppose to stay at home and one earning money, thus the tax breaks were offered to married couples only because one was not a bread winner. This is moot now that so few families have one staying at home these days, so in reality I think the tax breaks should just be dissolved completely anyway.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes.

Really? When was the vote? Do you have the text of that proposition that made opposite sex marriage legal?

Please send me the relevant information ASAP. Thanks.

Still waiting for this.

Please send ASAP.

Thanks.

( dude--it's a trick to get you to stand in the same spot and make you waste you're whole Friday )

 

[Cecilie1200]

Did the people of Iowa approve opposite sex marriage?

Yes.

Really? When was the vote? Do you have the text of that proposition that made opposite sex marriage legal?

Please send me the relevant information ASAP. Thanks.

What are you suggesting, you twit? That there was never a law in Iowa defining what constituted a legal marriage? If not, then how and why did Lambda Legal go to court to challenge it? On what basis do you suppose they've been issuing marriage licenses all this time?

But if you're really determined to play out this whole "It's so clever of me to deny the sky is blue and demand proof" foolishness, the definition of marriage under Iowa law is set out in the Iowa Legislative Code, Chapter 595. Not only was this duly and legally voted into law a very long time ago, but it was ALSO reaffirmed by Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1997.

And before you decide to get cute and say, "Well, that was voted on by the legislature, not directly by the people", legal votes enacted by the legally-elected representatives of the people (you know, as opposed to illegal judicial fiats imposed by unelected judges who weren't given the power to write and enact law) is considered to be an action taken by the people. And I don't notice that any legislators were voted out of office by angry mobs protesting either piece of legislation, so I don't think you're positioned to argue that THEY were acting against the people's desires.

 

[DavidS]

How is it right in any way for them to enforce some contracts but not others based on personal preference Ce? Seriously, and how is it they are forcing you to even acknowledge it? It's them deciding they will enforce the contract signed by two willing people regardless of belief, how is this bad? Are they somehow forcing straight people to marry someone of the same gender and just not showing it?

Kit, what the neocons like RGS and Cecille are doing is trying to find some kind of legal argument that homosexuals shouldn't be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals mostly because the Bible says that to be gay is to be a sinner and we cannot have sinners in our society. By the way, to be prejudiced against a group of people, HUGE sin. But it's okay to sin when you're sinning against a group of people who sin.

In reality, the right wing wants a theocracy. They want our government's laws to be based off of the same laws as that are in the Bible. They just can't agree which version of the Bible because they quote Leviticus when saying that "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Unfortunately, what they're not telling you is that when they adopted the ideals of Christianity, they threw away the "old testament" i.e. the Covenant G-d made with Abraham and all of Abraham's children. They believe that the New Testament is a New Covenant, a new agreement with G-d. If the Christians are feeling so high and mighty and wish to say that not following Torah Law is a sin, I've got 612 other mitzvot for them to follow and believing in Jesus Christ - a HUGE no no. Much bigger than gay marriage.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Remind me how you make something private by charging into the public arena,

Well, I'm not really sure what you're talking about here - I never said this was a private matter. When two people who, under the United States Constitution are not allowed to do something they have the right to do, that's not a private matter.

Oh? You're not sure what I'm talking about here? I'm talking about your incessant squawking about how "it doesn't affect you, so what business is it of yours?" The business is that making law is a public matter, not a private one, which makes it the business of every voting citizen.

And you can spare me the propaganda speeches masquerading as explanations. You have yet to prove, much less convince me, that homosexuals have marriage rights under the US Constitution, so stating it as though it's settled fact just makes me laugh at you . . . even more.

And remind me how you make something legal without asking people to vote on it, either directly or indirectly through their representatives.

It's called the Supreme Court. It's part of our constitution. It was founded in 1789.

REALLY?! Our Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to circumvent the voters and their representatives and make law without benefit of any of those parties voting on it? Really? You are, of course, now going to quote that SPECIFIC passage that says that. And no, your little link to the Constitution and your coy little "Read it" does not suffice. You will tell me EXACTLY where it says that, not just pretend it does.

You might wanna, uh, read that.

You might wanna, uh, read that AND THEN QUOTE IT, dumbass. Linking to the Constitution doesn't prove your assertion that those words exist in it.

And I won't even mention the fact that you're citing Wikipedia at me again, except to say BWAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha!!!!!

By the way, are you against black and white people getting married? Because that, uh, that was made legal without asking people to vote on it, either directly or indirectly through their representatives.

By the way, no matter how much you steadfastly pretend that I haven't decimated your attempts to erroneously link interracial marriage and homosexuals, I remember it, and I still reject this argument. So the only answer you're getting to this is, "Already answered it, kicked your ass, and laughed you out of the park." This isn't even a good try.

Maybe you should work on your consistency before getting on your soapbox.

I've been a consistent supporter of gay marriage. You, on the other hand should answer my above question before telling me to be consistent.

I wasn't referring to your consistent support for stupidity, lackwit. I was referring to your consistency in your arguments for supporting stupidity. The fact that you always land on the side of destroying democracy doesn't mean you're capable of making a cogent argument for doing so.

And I already answered your above question. Repeatedly. And the only response you've ever had is to keep asking the question as though it's a statement. Which just proves my point that you can't present a reasoned argument. You just have to rely on trying to fool people into believing it's already been made.

 

[DavidS]

Yes.

Really? When was the vote? Do you have the text of that proposition that made opposite sex marriage legal?

Please send me the relevant information ASAP. Thanks.

What are you suggested, you twit? That there was never a law in Iowa defining what constituted a legal marriage? If not, then how and why did Lambda Legal go to court to challenge it? On what basis do you suppose they've been issuing marriage licenses all this time?

But if you're really determined to play out this whole "It's so clever of me to deny the sky is blue and demand proof" foolishness, the definition of marriage under Iowa law is set out in the Iowa Legislative Code, Chapter 595. Not only was this duly and legally voted into law a very long time ago, but it was ALSO reaffirmed by Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1997.

And before you decide to get cute and say, "Well, that was voted on by the legislature, not directly by the people", legal votes enacted by the legally-elected representatives of the people (you know, as opposed to illegal judicial fiats imposed by unelected judges who weren't given the power to write and enact law) is considered to be an action taken by the people. And I don't notice that any legislators were voted out of office by angry mobs protesting either piece of legislation, so I don't think you're positioned to argue that THEY were acting against the people's desires.

All of this is very nice and all, but I'm still waiting for you to show me the text of the vote that the people of Iowa voted for to legalize heterosexual marriage. By the way, while you're searching, you might want to know that Iowa was admitted into the Union on December 28, 1846. So, you probably want to search for something around then and not 150 years later that would probably make every single marriage between 1846 and 1997 illegal. Again, I asked you "Did the people of Iowa approve opposite sex marriage?" You said yes. I'm still waiting for proof of this. Thank you in advance for getting this to me so quickly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?),

Do you have a problem with companies offering heterosexual couples legal and financial recognition such as tax breaks, social security benefits and forcing companies to offer those heterosexual sex couples health insurance?

No, dumbass. Try to read for comprehension. I don't give a rat's ass how someone decides to run their own business. It's not my place to tell them what to do with their money and their business decisions. Which is why I DO have a problem with the government or anyone else presuming to tell them how to run their business. THAT is what I'm objecting to. You want employer-provided health benefits? Go convince your employer to give them to you. Don't illegally use the courts to take control of his business and property to get what you want.

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.

You don't have the right to vote on that. Sorry. The Supreme Court does.

Actually, Clarence Darrow, the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to vote on ANY law being passed, because they don't have the power to pass laws. At least, not legally. On the other hand, two centuries of practice and precedence - not to mention codified law - DO give the voters the right to vote on and have a say in what the laws of their individual states are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes.

Really? When was the vote? Do you have the text of that proposition that made opposite sex marriage legal?

Please send me the relevant information ASAP. Thanks.

Still waiting for this.

Please send ASAP.

Thanks.

So now you're responding to your own posts to demand answers because I'm not posting fast enough to suit you? Screw you, Jack. You sit your ass down in that chair, get yourself a drink, take a deep breath, and you wait until I'm good and frigging ready to read your post and answer it. You got that? If I don't want to answer you until next week, then that's when I'll answer you, and you'll like it.

Thanks for proving you're not only ignorant, you're an asshole, too.

 

[DavidS]

Cecilie1200 - I am taking time of my day as you are taking time out of your day so we can freely exchange ideas. I appreciate your time and the intelligence behind your ideas - however, I would also appreciate it if you would refrain from dis-respecting me and throwing insults at me. I will respond to your latest posts as soon as you reply to this agreeing that you will not insult me any further.