GOP hopefuls remind Iowans they oppose Gay Rights

[Quantum Windbag]

No I did not, I said they applied to become a territory and were saddled with the law.

Go back and re-read what you said. Whatever you were trying to say, it was not worded/structured very well.

Really?

History can be very boring if you just look at dates.

When Utah applied to be a territory bigamy was not only legal, it was actively encouraged by the LDS church. A bunch of do gooders back east objected to the practice, so they passed a law that made it illegal. This made it necessary for Mormons to plan a strategy to challenge the law. The only way they could do this was if they joined the US, and refused to enforce the federal law. This eventually led to the Supreme Court decision I cited.

Should I have said something else to make it more clear that I was talking about the time Utah was a territory? Should I have made it absolutely clear that this was before it was a state?

 

[gekaap]

Should I have said something else to make it more clear that I was talking about the time Utah was a territory? Should I have made it absolutely clear that this was before it was a state?

You talk about Utah "joining" the US in a peculiar manner. The Utah territory was created in 1850, four years after the region was one in the Mexican-American war. Mormon settling began in 1847. So for any relevant purpose here, Utah territory was always in the US, which after all is the only reason why the US Congress was able to have any power to create laws over it. That all being understood, your talk of "joining" the US comes across as if referring to statehood, which still then doesn't make sense for the afore-posted reasons.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Should I have said something else to make it more clear that I was talking about the time Utah was a territory? Should I have made it absolutely clear that this was before it was a state?

You talk about Utah "joining" the US in a peculiar manner. The Utah territory was created in 1850, four years after the region was one in the Mexican-American war. Mormon settling began in 1847. So for any relevant purpose here, Utah territory was always in the US, which after all is the only reason why the US Congress was able to have any power to create laws over it. That all being understood, your talk of "joining" the US comes across as if referring to statehood, which still then doesn't make sense for the afore-posted reasons.

Go read some history about the western United States and how it was carved up into territories and come back to me after you understand that territorial governments had to petition for recognition.

 

[gekaap]

Go read some history about the western United States and how it was carved up into territories and come back to me after you understand that territorial governments had to petition for recognition.

What is your issue? You're really doing to play straw man games over defending yourself for what would have easily been chalked up as innocent, clumsy wording? I think you need to seek out a mental health professional, because you seem to place way too much of your self worth into your attempts to convince people of whatever lunatic thing you say on the internet.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That does not change the fact that, before Utah became subject to US law polygamy was legal, does it?

I'm not getting what you are saying here. In post #98 you said "Federal law made bigamy illegal, even though Utah said it was legal."

That has never been true.

1850 Utah becomes a Territory and polygamy is legal. However there was no federal law making polygamy illegal so that statement is false.

1862 the Morrill Act is passed. As a Territory Congress had ultimate authority over the laws of the Territory. Congress said polygamy was illegal, so polygamy was illegal in the Utah Territory. So that statement is false because it was illegal in the Utah Territory.

1896 - Utah Admitted to the Union and the Utah Constitution barred Polygamy. The Federal government outlawed polygamy but so did Utah, so again that statement was false.​

There never was a time where the federal government said polygamy was illegal and Utah (State or Territory) said it was legal.


>>>>

History can be very boring if you just look at dates.

When Utah applied to be a territory bigamy was not only legal, it was actively encouraged by the LDS church. A bunch of do gooders back east objected to the practice, so they passed a law that made it illegal. This made it necessary for Mormons to plan a strategy to challenge the law. The only way they could do this was if they joined the US, and refused to enforce the federal law. This eventually led to the Supreme Court decision I cited.

When Utah applied to become a territory there was no law barring polygamy.

Which has nothing do do with what you said, you said that federal Law said polygamy was illegal and Utah said it was legal. Since you established that the subject was the law, that placed the context of legality within the framework of government. As such there was never a time when the federal government said to Utah that polygamy is legal and that Utah had a legal status of Civil Marriage that conflicted with federal law.

Territories being under the jurisdiction of Congress (and not subject to the 10th Amendment), sobBetween 1850 and 1862 polygamy was legal in Utah because there was no federal law placed upon the territories making it illegal. Between 1862 polygamy was illegal in the territories because of the Morrill Act. In 1896, when Utah was admitted as a State, it's Constitution provided that polygamy was illegall - so again it did not conflict with federal law.

At no time was the area known as "Utah" in a situation where the territorial law was in conflict with federal law.

Reynolds v. United States from the 1870's was a case of ILLEGAL polygamy being challenged in court and not a case of legal Civil Marriage at the Utah level being in conflict with federal law.

The Church renounced polygamy in 1890 while Utah become a state in 1896. However the fact that the LDS Church prior to 1890 may have "encouraged" it is irrelevant to the point of you attempted to make (Utah law conflicted with Federal law). A Church can "encourage" anything they want but such encouragement does not change Civil Law. I'm sure in Massachusetts there are some Churches that "encourage" that marriage is between a man and a woman, doesn't change the fact that a Civil Marriage in Massachusetts is legal for two people of the same gender.


>>>>

 

[Nosmo King]

How is making a contract a right? Can I force a person who does not want to do business with me to do so simply by throwing down a contract and claiming I have a right to make one?

As for the rest of your question, that is a separate issue, and they are only available to the parties of a contract. I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure that makes them a separate class of people.

You don't have the right to expect another party to enter into a contract, true.

But the state cannot deny the protections afforded under the system of contract law. If I wanted to form a business with someone other than my exact socio-economic class or age or skin color or any other immutable condition, I have the right to do just that without restriction of the state. As long as I'm over 18 or 21, not a convicted felon and an American citizen, I have the right to ACCESS the protections of contract law.

Except if I'm all those things and also gay.

Then my right to access contract law is restricted.

Same sex marriage IS gay rights.

I'm not a gay man. I have no personal stake in this issue except as an American. The restrictions put upon sober, sane, taxpaying Americans all because of their sexual preference (which itself is not a crime) runs against what I believe this nation stands for: equal justice under the law.

Do you realize you just contradicted yourself?

No, I didn't. I stated that the ONLY restrictions on the access to contract law are eerily similar to the only restrictions on voting. You must be of the age of majority and an American citizen without prior felony convictions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just a minor point.

Opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights.

Whoa. That's preposterous. The central premise of 'gay rights' is the recognition of gay relationships having equal status with heterosexual relationships.

 

[Gadawg73]

Just a minor point.

Opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights.

And opposition to marriage between the races is also not opposition to their rights either.
Sure, right.
I find it amusing that anyone that has a brain and any knowledge of The United States Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights, would want to pass a Constitutional Amendment to tell a certain group of people WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO, rather than do what the Founders intended the Constitution to stand for which IS TO TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO.
Gay marriage does not affct any straight couple negatively in any way.To a true conservative it is a non issue.
Here we have the deficit, the wars, health care crisis, energy crisis,education crisis and 137 other PRIORITIES and these clowns are focused on GAY MARRIAGE.
The pandering to the religous kooks is on. Bad news for conservatives.

 

[Gadawg73]

Just a minor point.

Opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights.

Whoa. That's preposterous. The central premise of 'gay rights' is the recognition of gay relationships having equal status with heterosexual relationships.

He knows that. He is repeating talking points.

 

[Gadawg73]

It is all politics and $$$ to the religous right and their Republican "friends":
Goodbye, Barry Goldwater

Individual rights do not matter to them. Religion is #1, not freedom.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Gay Marriage is a Civil Right as long as Hetero Marriage is a Civil Right...

That is utterly stupid.

It is equivalent to claiming that "flying boats is possible as long as flying airplanes is."

No one is barred from marriage. No one ever asks the bride or the groom if they are gay.

A gay man can marry any woman who will have him. Likewise a lesbian can marry the man of her dreams. Equal rights are there - gays have the IDENTICAL rights as everyone else.

But you don't care about equal rights, you want special privilege. You want the institution of marriage altered to suit your desires.

Rational people look at the situation and deduce, "marriage has developed in virtually every culture on Earth, the defining characteristic being the joining of man and woman. There must be some reason for this?"

Of course there IS a reason, the reason is that society is served by fostering stability in the raising of children. Creating an incentive for males to remain with their offspring greatly serves society as a whole.

Creating an incentive for males to have sex with each other does nothing to serve society. Creating an incentive for females to abandon their mates actually harms societal structure.

You care about none of this, you either have selfish motivations or seek the destruction of American culture - the two foundational reasons people seek to undermine the institution of marriage.

 

[gekaap]

The rights argument is just getting dumb. The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental civil right and that infringing upon the right to marriage requires due process in order to be valid under the constitution.

Loving v Virginia

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.....To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

 

[Gadawg73]

Gay Marriage is a Civil Right as long as Hetero Marriage is a Civil Right...

That is utterly stupid.

It is equivalent to claiming that "flying boats is possible as long as flying airplanes is."

No one is barred from marriage. No one ever asks the bride or the groom if they are gay.

A gay man can marry any woman who will have him. Likewise a lesbian can marry the man of her dreams. Equal rights are there - gays have the IDENTICAL rights as everyone else.

But you don't care about equal rights, you want special privilege. You want the institution of marriage altered to suit your desires.

Rational people look at the situation and deduce, "marriage has developed in virtually every culture on Earth, the defining characteristic being the joining of man and woman. There must be some reason for this?"

Of course there IS a reason, the reason is that society is served by fostering stability in the raising of children. Creating an incentive for males to remain with their offspring greatly serves society as a whole.

Creating an incentive for males to have sex with each other does nothing to serve society. Creating an incentive for females to abandon their mates actually harms societal structure.

You care about none of this, you either have selfish motivations or seek the destruction of American culture - the two foundational reasons people seek to undermine the institution of marriage.

So you are against ALL marriage because the divorce rate is 60% and it is destroyong"the institution of marriage?
See how absurd and without fact your entire argument is?
I am a southern, white, tobacco chewing, southern drawl speaking, deer hunting, bass fishing, beer and Jack Daniels drinking and former football playing straight 56 year old male. Gay marriage does not bother me and never will.
I am comfortable with WHO I AM and who my family are. We worry about OURSELVES.
That institution IS WHAT THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON.
What are my "selfish motivations" and how am I "seeking the destruction of American culture"?
Maybe your family never taught you to mind your own business and keep your religous beliefs to yourself so we will give you a break this time.
As a conservative I want LESS GOVERNMENT and NO religous influences in government. If you disagree move to Iran. They do it your way over there.

 

[bodecea]

Gay Marriage is a Civil Right as long as Hetero Marriage is a Civil Right...

That is utterly stupid.

It is equivalent to claiming that "flying boats is possible as long as flying airplanes is."

No one is barred from marriage. No one ever asks the bride or the groom if they are gay.

A gay man can marry any woman who will have him. Likewise a lesbian can marry the man of her dreams. Equal rights are there - gays have the IDENTICAL rights as everyone else.

But you don't care about equal rights, you want special privilege. You want the institution of marriage altered to suit your desires.

Rational people look at the situation and deduce, "marriage has developed in virtually every culture on Earth, the defining characteristic being the joining of man and woman. There must be some reason for this?"

Of course there IS a reason, the reason is that society is served by fostering stability in the raising of children. Creating an incentive for males to remain with their offspring greatly serves society as a whole.

Creating an incentive for males to have sex with each other does nothing to serve society. Creating an incentive for females to abandon their mates actually harms societal structure.

You care about none of this, you either have selfish motivations or seek the destruction of American culture - the two foundational reasons people seek to undermine the institution of marriage.

Well, that was a horrible FAIL analogy on your part.

And by calling me selfish, I guess you are calling every and all people who seek a civil marriage license selfish and seeking the destruction of American culture.

So, that makes you rather crazy.

BTW...thanks for proving that it is really all about GENDER discrimination.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
A gay man can marry any woman who will have him. Likewise a lesbian can marry the man of her dreams. Equal rights are there - gays have the IDENTICAL rights as everyone else.
.

If you believe that, then miscegenation laws did not violate anyone's rights because everyone had the same right to marry as long as it was within their race.

Does anyone here believe that? Does anyone here believe that a law against interracial marriage is not a violation of anyone's rights?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no rational argument against legal same sex marriage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gay Marriage is a Civil Right as long as Hetero Marriage is a Civil Right...

That is utterly stupid.

It is equivalent to claiming that "flying boats is possible as long as flying airplanes is."

>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Gay Marriage is a Civil Right as long as Hetero Marriage is a Civil Right...

That is utterly stupid.

It is equivalent to claiming that "flying boats is possible as long as flying airplanes is."

>>>>

Game. Set. Match.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you are against ALL marriage because the divorce rate is 60% and it is destroyong"the institution of marriage?

In fact, divorce after children reach maturity is irrelevant to societal structure. The advantage for a free society is that males take care of their offspring. Once the offspring don't require intimate care, the need for a male figure declines.

Now I mention a "free society." Families and clans are vital to a free and functional republic but are detrimental to authoritarian systems where the goal is to project the state or supreme ruler as the only object of loyalty.

Both Marx and Lenin wrote on the problem of family loyalty and the impact this has on ensuring the absolute obedience of the ruled classes. Lenin went as far as to boast that given the children of the Soviet union at age 5, he could dissolve the family structure in a generation.

The goal of the left, to create an authoritarian state ruled under the iron fist of an autocratic group

See how absurd and without fact your entire argument is?
I am a southern, white, tobacco chewing, southern drawl speaking, deer hunting, bass fishing, beer and Jack Daniels drinking and former football playing straight 56 year old male.

Who no doubt believes that America is unjust and unfair, conditions which a federal government with vastly more power over the details of the lives of the subjects could rectify. Most likely you view the "Ozzy and Harriette" models of American culture the primary enemy to be vanquished at any and all costs.

Parents passing on their superstitions and prejudices to children is something that must be stopped, the federal government should step in and outlaw the teaching of creationism, even by private or homeschools. Claims that homosexuality is against god's plan is a hate crime and should carry a jail sentence.

You don't really support a Soviet style dictatorship, there just is too much freedom, we need to dial it back so that people understand that obedience isn't optional.

Am I about right?

Gay marriage does not bother me and never will.

But I'll bet families taking kids to Sunday school bothers you plenty.

As a conservative

Oooh, say something "conservative!" (Obama is god doesn't count!)

I want LESS GOVERNMENT and NO religous influences in government.

But you want more government to define the structure and meaning of marriage..

If you disagree move to Iran. They do it your way over there.

I thought anyone not supporting Obama was "Islamophobic?"

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you believe that, then miscegenation laws did not violate anyone's rights because everyone had the same right to marry as long as it was within their race.

False.

Gender differences are biological and bring forth procreation.

The lower the IQ - the further left........