Iowa approves same sex marriage

[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?

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

I know how they're passed. 2/3 vote in congress and 3/4 of the states have to approve the measure. My question was whether Gunny thought term limits should be overturned in spite of being against the will of the majority. You may claim it wasn't passed against the will of the majority because these people were elected BY the people, but I am sure that the majority would not have agreed to limited choices in the ballot boxes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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!!!

California already tried this, and Iowa's about to get the same response California did.

Nice to note that, as usual, you have no refutation other than "Oh, I can't even be bothered to listen to this."

 

[elvis]

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?

so you're saying you support making homosexuality illegal?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

In other words, "I can't refute anything you said, so I'll just whine about being mistreated like a sulky kindergartner, and hope no one notices."

Carry on.

 

[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.

You'd give a lot?

How about the same rights afforded to you?

Um, I don't have the right to legally marry another woman, either. You don't see me bitching about it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

They have the right to sue, but they had no legal grounds on which to do so. Which is why they lost.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

America is NOT a Democracy... Democracy was considered and summarily REJECTED... James Madison had much to say on the subject and considered Democracy to be the least viable alternative to self government... I'd suggest you read Federalist 10... but that would be a waste of time... as there's no chance that ya would and if ya did... you wouldn't have the historical depth to even know what he said...

The US is a Constitutional Republic...

 

[Article 15]

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?

Um, I don't have the right to legally marry another woman, either. You don't see me bitching about it.

That's because you are a heterosexual and nobody you would chose to marry are off limits to you.

Why are you against gay marriage?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, twerp, I meant quietly. When I need you to clarify what I'm talking about . . . well, I shall never need that.

I don't drag my private life out into the public and demand that everyone agree and approve and pass laws saying that I'm normal. I just live my life. Go and do the same. That's not closeted. That's just living.

 

[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.

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

You have all the rights I do. Now shut the fuck up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You're right. Talking to you as though you're intelligent, educated, or relevant IS a fool's game. FLUSH!

 

[Article 15]

Somebody needs a nap ....

 

[elvis]

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.

IT was ended by the emancipation proclamation by Lincoln. so from a representative democracy point of view, you're correct. The war was not fought to end slavery, but rather to prevent states from seceding.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

You have all the rights I do. Now shut the fuck up.

First, Sky has the right to post here as much as you do, so .... um ... yeah.

Secondly ... did you marry out of love? If so then that is the right they seek, they just suck at wording.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

I know how they're passed. 2/3 vote in congress and 3/4 of the states have to approve the measure. My question was whether Gunny thought term limits should be overturned in spite of being against the will of the majority. You may claim it wasn't passed against the will of the majority because these people were elected BY the people, but I am sure that the majority would not have agreed to limited choices in the ballot boxes.

Hey, Mensa Boy. How is 2/3 of the elected representatives in both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states "against the will of the majority"? Explain that math to me, please.

You're sure, are you? Based on what, exactly? The massive public uprising that followed it? The huge numbers of Congressmembers and state legislators who were tossed out of office over it? WHAT?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

so you're saying you support making homosexuality illegal?

No, amazingly enough, I still don't give a rat's ass what homosexuals do, anymore than I did when I first said it, as long as they don't drag the rest of us into it via the courts.

You, on the other hand, do support homosexual "marriage", so why don't you just go hunt it down and stop bothering us? I'm sure the Netherlands would love the influx of taxpayers, so shoo.

 

[Article 15]

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

so you're saying you support making homosexuality illegal?

No, amazingly enough, I still don't give a rat's ass what homosexuals do, anymore than I did when I first said it, as long as they don't drag the rest of us into it via the courts.

You, on the other hand, do support homosexual "marriage", so why don't you just go hunt it down and stop bothering us? I'm sure the Netherlands would love the influx of taxpayers, so shoo.

Why are you against homosexual marriage being allow in our country?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You'd give a lot?

How about the same rights afforded to you?

Um, I don't have the right to legally marry another woman, either. You don't see me bitching about it.

That's because you are a heterosexual and nobody you would chose to marry are off limits to you.

Why are you against gay marriage?

So what? Just because they don't want the rights they have doesn't mean I have to give them new ones.

If you have to ask why, then you haven't been reading the thread. Go back and do so, because I'll be damned if I'll repeat myself just because you're too pigheaded to listen the first time.

 

[Sky Dancer]

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.

You have all the rights I do. Now shut the fuck up.

No, I don't have all the rights you do, and I won't shut up about it until I do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Somebody needs a nap ....

So go take one. Maybe you'll be smarter when you wake up. I doubt it, but it's worth a try.