Iowa approves same sex marriage

[Cecilie1200]

wouldn't they have to pay those benefits if they married a women? So with your logic companies that don't offer benefits to same sex couples are saving money if their employee is gay and social security would also be saving money. If homosexuals did as you wanted and abandoned their life style and married someone of the opposite sex than benefits would still be paid out.
And they are already living in your society has homosexuals, a piece of paper will not change your day to day life. If your neighbor gets married does that effect you? YOu might have to buy them a gift but really your life will go on as it always has.
And by the way many companies offer benefits to same sex couples, if your are city employee here you can recieve benefits for your same sex partner.

actually, SS would SAVE money with that
unmarried each person gets the bennefit, but when married you have to CHOOSE which ONE gets the bennefit
you do not get both
thats why a lot of older retired people just live together and not get married

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.

You haven't looked very closely, then. Oh, the whole country isn't collapsing, but isn't that just the old leftist "all or nothing" ploy? Did anyone ever say THAT would be the result? On the other hand, Canada is experiencing a decided oppression on the rights we Americans claim to hold dear, the ones our nation was founded on. I realize leftists don't give a damn about other people's rights - otherwise, they wouldn't be applauding the judiciary setting itself up as an unelected oligarchy to ram changes down people's throats - but some of us do.

 

[jillian]

oh jaysus... leftist "blah blah blah"...

why is it when people use that word or words like it, what follows is usually rubbish?

me? i just say good for Iowa...who'da figured that Iowa is more progressive than NY or Cali!!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Never. But in our type of democracy, the courts are allowed to decide if something is constitutional or not...a point Gunny loves to forget.

I haven't forgotten anything. I knew this lameass defense for backdooring the legislature and will of the people via the judiciary was coming next. That ploy has nothing to do with the intent of the law and everything to do with forcing the will of the minority on the majority.

I share your concerns about the legal process being properly adhered to and I agree it is important for state courts to follow procedure. The legal process in response to DOMA has been different from state to state, and I wish some things had gone differently because the emotion involved gets used to divide people politically and I think it's a shame this is even such a big issue.

In Iowa the court responded to a lawsuit that was filed and they made a ruling that the statute was unconstitutional. It was a legitimate ruling.

The justices ruled unanimously in favor of six same-sex couples who sought to get marriage licenses, but were denied.

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.

"The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification," wrote the justices.

The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.

Really? A legitimate ruling? Perhaps you could cite for us the SPECIFIC passage in either the Iowa State Constitution or the US Constitution which Iowa's DOMA violated. And then perhaps you could also cite for us the SPECIFIC passage in the US Constitution that gives the courts the right to strike down laws in the first place. Thank you.

 

[KittenKoder]

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?

Our city government ... I grew up here, it wasn't this bad when I left to travel the country, but when I got back they are wasting money and pointing fingers like so many other places. We took pride in being a progressive state (well, the western half, can't speak for the eastern half) and being smart, now most of the population has been replaced with .. well ... retard from down south (Cali).

 

[Article 15]

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.

Did you make your insult quota in that post? You're only making yourself look like more of an ass and that's saying something after all the nonsense coming from you in this thread.

Carry on.

 

[KittenKoder]

oh jaysus... leftist "blah blah blah"...

why is it when people use that word or words like it, what follows is usually rubbish?

me? i just say good for Iowa...who'da figured that Iowa is more progressive than NY or Cali!!!

That's what I said! LOL

 

[elvis]

oh jaysus... leftist "blah blah blah"...

why is it when people use that word or words like it, what follows is usually rubbish?

me? i just say good for Iowa...who'da figured that Iowa is more progressive than NY or Cali!!!

It probably isn't. Only the judges there are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

No. I'd give a lot if the homosexuals would just go live their lives quietly like the rest of us do and let me get back to not caring.

 

[Article 15]

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

No. I'd give a lot if the homosexuals would just go live their lives quietly like the rest of us do and let me get back to not caring.

You'd give a lot?

How about the same rights afforded to you?

 

[Sky Dancer]

There are holy unions, and there are unholy unions. Marriage was conceived as a religious ceremony, and the government agreed to recognize it. Now people are trying to redefine religious doctorine. There are more churches who are now willing to alter traditional practices and embrace gay marriage, but it's still a component of a religious institution.

I agree with those who believe marriage should stay a part of the church, and separate from government. Marriages, and who that constitutes, should be recognized by the individual churches who perform them, and legal unions should be recognized by the government. People should have one or both; whatever makes them happy and/or best serves their individual needs.

Government allowed the church to usurp it's power a long time ago when it acknowledged a religious cermony, and accepted it as bestowing certain privileges to those citizens over others. Now it wants to dictate to the church that it's religious teachings are no longer valid when determining law.

Religious people separate God's law from man's law. Our nation puts man's law first, while having a history of respecting those who follow God's law. I see too much of an attitude of screw religion, and those who choose to follow such archaic rules. They want what they want, and anyone who disagrees should shutup, or be accused of bigotry.

People who preach for tolerance, but aren't willing to demonstrate it from their own side, are hypocrites. That's why I think the best compromise is keeping marriage a religious institute, and civil unions a governement institute. Nobody is excluded, as everyone can participate in both events.

YMMV

I think you made some very good points.

Civil union contracts can have it's own set of legal rules.

Marraiges can still be performed by churches.

At the same time I think we should be putting inrestrictions as a right for religions to be exempt from sexual orientation discrimination suits. Gays should have never been allowed to sue the Boy Scouts of America for sexual orientation discrimination for not accepting them as leaders.

Gays have every right to sue the Boy Scouts of America.

 

[jillian]

No. I'd give a lot if the homosexuals would just go live their lives quietly like the rest of us do and let me get back to not caring.

quietly? you mean closeted....

let me know when *you* don't let people know you're in a relationship or keep pics of your family around... or get married.... yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

[Sky Dancer]

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

No. I'd give a lot if the homosexuals would just go live their lives quietly like the rest of us do and let me get back to not caring.

Give us equal rights and you'll never hear from us again.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The courts didn't give women the right to vote, you ignoramus. Where the hell did you learn history? From the back of a cereal box?

Take your twit butt out of here and go look up the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, NOT put in place by the courts.

As for Jim Crow laws, 1) they actually DID violate the Constitution, specifically Amendments 13, 14, and 15, which - by the way - were also put in place by the will of the people, not by the courts; and 2) it was, in fact, the Supreme Court which enabled the Jim Crow laws to exist and violate the stated will of the people with heinous decisions like Plessy vs. Ferguson. So don't talk to us about how the all-knowing, benevolent courts had to step in to impose their superior morality on others. The truth is, it took them almost a hundred years to catch up to the rest of the nation.

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?

Wrong again. It DOES affect the rest of society if homosexual "marriage" is given legal status. And if this is just like what they're already doing, which really isn't of any interest to the rest of us, then why are THEY making all this fuss about it? Why not just keep doing what they're doing, if there's no difference?

 

[Valerie]

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?



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?



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.



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.

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

Let me give you my standard silent response to all posts I see from Cecilie.



Give it up, you look foolish.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Maybe in YOUR history book, Jack. In mine, slavery was ended by war, not by the courts. It was the people themselves who decided it was wrong, and the courts that kept upholding it (Dred Scott decision, anyone?). And segregation violated specific Amendments to the Constitution, set in place by the people themselves, and thus effectively did the same thing as judicially-imposed homosexual "marriage", ie. violating the will of the people. And as I pointed out to Luissa, it was actually the Supreme Court and its "wisdom and morality" that initially gave rise to segregation. Don't expect me to applaud because they finally fixed their own mistake almost a hundred years later.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

I doubt it. As I said, even if we didn't choose to do so ourselves, international pressure would have forced us to abandon slavery a long time ago

I really doubt that. Except for England, the rest of the world followed OUR example - or England's, the only other nation to abolish slavery rather than merely letting it atrophy - on this subject. If the US and England had not decided that slavery was morally reprehensible, I can't see anyone else coming to that conclusion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Really? Which Supreme Court decision was it that ended slavery? Which Supreme Court decision passed the Nineteenth Amendment? Enquiring minds - which have actually studied history - want to know.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, the suffragettes didn't force any tyranny on the majority. They did what you twerps should be doing now: they convinced the majority they were right, and got them to pass the Nineteenth Amendment. The courts, as I recall, supported locking them up in insane asylums, abusing them, and forcefeeding them when they went on hunger strikes. Yeah, really "enfranchising", that was.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Okay, seriously. How do you think amendments are passed?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

How about you just move to a country where homosexual "marriage" is legal?