Iowa approves same sex marriage

[DiveCon]

Marriage is originally defined as a Union between a Man and a Woman. This miscarriage of the the legal
definition of marriage is just another sick example of how White people are trying to legitimize a sexual
perversion,Homosexuality, and force it upon the majority heterosexual population. These activist Judegs
all have an agenda in America.

Can't say I didn't expect this coming from the heartland, but I hear those corn cobb jammers in Iowa,
have a lot of closet homo's on those farms.

yeah, "it's all whiteys fault"
LOL
you are such a fucking clown

 

[52ndStreet]

Marriage is originally defined as a Union between a Man and a Woman. This miscarriage of the the legal
definition of marriage is just another sick example of how White people are trying to legitimize a sexual
perversion,Homosexuality, and force it upon the majority heterosexual population. These activist Judegs
all have an agenda in America.

Can't say I didn't expect this coming from the heartland, but I hear those corn cobb jammers in Iowa,
have a lot of closet homo's on those farms.

yeah, "it's all whiteys fault"
LOL
you are such a fucking clown

Well who the hell is enacting these Laws.? These judges are all White males and females.
Surveys have shown a overwhelming majority of Black people do not support or condone
Homosexual marriage, do the frigging research if you don't believe me!!.
Homosexuality is illegal in many if not all African Nations in Africa!!. The majority of Black
people do not accept it as a life style choice.!!

 

[Ravi]

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?

 

[elvis]

Marriage is originally defined as a Union between a Man and a Woman. This miscarriage of the the legal
definition of marriage is just another sick example of how White people are trying to legitimize a sexual
perversion,Homosexuality, and force it upon the majority heterosexual population. These activist Judegs
all have an agenda in America.

Can't say I didn't expect this coming from the heartland, but I hear those corn cobb jammers in Iowa,
have a lot of closet homo's on those farms.

yeah, "it's all whiteys fault"
LOL
you are such a fucking clown

Well who the hell is enacting these Laws.? These judges are all White males and females.
Surveys have shown a overwhelming majority of Black people do not support or condone
Homosexual marriage, do the frigging research if you don't believe me!!.
Homosexuality is illegal in many if not all African Nations in Africa!!. The majority of Black
people do not accept it as a life style choice.!!

Fine. If you want to live in a country where homosexuality is illegal, move to Africa.

 

[roomy]

I have tried to give a fuck but failed miserably

 

[elvis]

I have tried to give a fuck but failed miserably

keep trying.

 

[Ravi]

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.

What about handguns in DC?

 

[elvis]

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.

What about handguns in DC?

That was their interpretation of the Constitution. and the correct one.

 

[KittenKoder]

You know, I do know only a few gay black men ... but I know a LOT of black men who like pre-op trannies ... so yeah ... I'll leave that one alone now.

 

[Ravi]

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?

This is how American democracy works. People vote for legislators. Legislators make laws. If the legislators make laws the people don't like, they vote the legislators out of office. Legislators appoint state and federal supreme court justices. If the legislators appoint justices that the people don't like, the legislators get voted out of office. Or alternately, the supreme court justices get impeached.

With me so far?

The legislator's duty is to write legislation.
The court's duty is to make sure the legislation is constitutional.
The people's duty is to make sure all this works to their satisfaction.

The only power the people do not have is the ability to decide to take away the civil rights of other people.

 

[elvis]

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?

This is how American democracy works. People vote for legislators. Legislators make laws. If the legislators make laws the people don't like, they vote the legislators out of office. Legislators appoint state and federal supreme court justices. If the legislators appoint justices that the people don't like, the legislators get voted out of office. Or alternately, the supreme court justices get impeached.

With me so far?

The legislator's duty is to write legislation.
The court's duty is to make sure the legislation is constitutional.
The people's duty is to make sure all this works to their satisfaction.

The only power the people do not have is the ability to decide to take away the civil rights of other people.

sounds right to me.

 

[roomy]

You know, I do know only a few gay black men ... but I know a LOT of black men who like pre-op trannies ... so yeah ... I'll leave that one alone now.

I think you live in a dreamworld

 

[Ravi]

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

What about handguns in DC?

That was their interpretation of the Constitution. and the correct one.

Exactly. And this was Iowa's interpretation of their constitution.

 

[elvis]

What about handguns in DC?

That was their interpretation of the Constitution. and the correct one.

Exactly. And this was Iowa's interpretation of their constitution.

sounds right to me. where's gunny to show the other side/

 

[gezztoo]

Same sex marriage in Iowa??

Say what you want it will do nothing for Iowa beef production.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I love these threads. They bigots get exposed and pwnt at every turn. It's really only a matter of time.

I wonder if years from now they will admit they were on the wrong side of history or will they act like they supported equal rights for everyone all along?

Oh, yeah. Airily declaring, "you're just wrong and mean and a bigot, so there!" is REALLY "pwnt". Just keep telling yourself that.

lol ...

Surely you aren't talking about any argument that I've put forth because I haven't engaged anyone in this thread. Just making an observation.

I can understand why you are so spikey though, that search for Constitutional text backing up your argument must be a real bitch of a task.

How's that coming along BTW?

"LOL" Who said I was talking about YOU? Can't you read your own post? We're talking about other people here, by your own words. But then, suddenly, it's ALL about you. Typical leftist me-monkey.

And my argument, Brain Trust, is that there's nothing in the Constitution about marriage, so how can I possibly find Constitutional text to support the argument that it isn't there? Where were you when they handed out the logic, behind the door?

Just what this board needed, another blithering troll who thinks he's Einstein.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do we really have to go through basic political theory again?

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope. You can quite being an idiot shut up right now.

Anyone who says "basic political theory" and then cites Wikipedia should be shot for the good of all humanity, for fear that he might breed.

 

[KittenKoder]

You know, I do know only a few gay black men ... but I know a LOT of black men who like pre-op trannies ... so yeah ... I'll leave that one alone now.

I think you live in a dreamworld

Naw, it's the dream world now nightmare we like to call the "Emerald City".

 

[elvis]

You know, I do know only a few gay black men ... but I know a LOT of black men who like pre-op trannies ... so yeah ... I'll leave that one alone now.

I think you live in a dreamworld

Naw, it's the dream world now nightmare we like to call the "Emerald City".

I've got family out there. what makes it a nightmare?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Letting your eyes run over the letters isn't the same as reading. You've made it very clear that the only posts you're allowing to travel into your head in search of your brain are the ones which agree with your preconceived notions; otherwise, you wouldn't be blathering about "no legitimate reason". All that really means is "no reason I'm prepared to pay attention to, because they don't agree with me".

Shockingly, I never said you had responded to me, and frankly, you never had to feel any need to break that record, because as I said, you aren't bothering to talk to anyone but yourself really anyway.

Who said "harm" was the only legitimate reason? Who are YOU to tell the voters what their reasons have to be? And how's having your freedom to vote and participate in public affairs for harm? I'd feel pretty damned harmed at this point if I lived in Iowa. And who the hell are you to tell me any different and decide for me whether or not I've been harmed?

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.

Oh, yes. There was no legalized homosexual "marriage" anywhere, nor anyone trying to create it, so naturally activists went out and campaigned against something that didn't exist and had never been thought of, and THAT'S how this came to be public. Are you really that damned stupid, or do you think the rest of us are?

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

Clearly, you aren't married with children. Marriage is only a promised land of unbounded legal and financial opportunity to morons who can't get a date.

To quote Thomas Sowell:

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

Don't believe me? Go sit in your local divorce or child custody court sometime. The handful of pittances the law gives out in terms of recognition of marriage are intended to help mitigate the fact that marriage and child-rearing are frigging hard, slogging, mundane work most of the time, doing something that society needs done. They're not intended to be some flowers-and-rainbows celebration of the splendiferousness of romance and love.

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.

You want to talk about emotional rants? That pie-eyed nonsense you just spouted is exactly why so many marriages end in divorce these days. Dimwits like you have no frigging clue what marriage really is, thinking it's this big glittering party where everyone's being given nifty doorprizes that you're left out of. Then they get there and find out that it's not, and bail. And no, you twit, I don't find it personally offensive. What you can't seem to wrap your peabrain around is that I DON'T CARE enough to find it offensive. How you or anyone else live your personal life means nothing to me, because YOU mean nothing to me. I know that's hard to believe, but YOU DON'T MATTER TO ANYONE BUT YOU. My interest begins and ends at the point where you try to take away other people's rights in the name of your own perceived moral authority.

But thank you for proving that you never read any posts that disagree with you. Otherwise, you wouldn't be spouting an opinion I've already disputed three times in this thread alone. Oh, yeah. You really read all my posts. Uh huh.

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

Let me give you my standard response to anyone pathetic enough to cite Wikipedia as a source: BWAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha!!!!!