Iowa approves same sex marriage

[PubliusInfinitum]

Absolutely CORRECT... Marriage is a RIGHT... and where the TWO INDIVIDUALS... meet the simple and horribly LOW threshold, each one representing the distinct genders... ANYONE can MARRY... PERIOD.

What the queers want are SUPER SPECIAL RIGHTS... to marry within their own gender... Sadly, such is devient in it's request AND application and fails to meet the already pathetic threshold.

There is no distinction in the demands of the queer lobby and that of the Mormans who demand a right of bigomy...

(Hey Valerie... take it up with the admin... I just copied the quote and posted my indisputable thoughts below it...)

 

[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.

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 succeeding.

I think you mean "seceding", although it accomplished the other for quite a while, too. And had the war not been fought, Lincoln wouldn't have had to produce the Emancipation Proclamation, nor would it have been worth the paper it was written on had the North not won.

Like it or not, slavery ended because people decided it was wrong, and would have done so eventually with or without Lincoln for that very reason. And interestingly enough, it was those horrible religious people who were at the forefront of the movement to end it all over the world.

 

[elvis]

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?

are you always this bitchy? Just because those elected by people in a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY vote a certain way does not mean that is the will of the people. the fact people may not have demonstrated against the amendment proves nothing about whether or not they approved of the measure. Do you really think the majority would choose to have more limited choice in the ballot box?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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

It fails to meet the low threshold of TWO individuals which meet the distinct genders qualification for marriage... what's so hard to understand about that?

 

[elvis]

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 succeeding.

I think you mean "seceding", although it accomplished the other for quite a while, too. And had the war not been fought, Lincoln wouldn't have had to produce the Emancipation Proclamation, nor would it have been worth the paper it was written on had the North not won.

Like it or not, slavery ended because people decided it was wrong, and would have done so eventually with or without Lincoln for that very reason. And interestingly enough, it was those horrible religious people who were at the forefront of the movement to end it all over the world.

I never said religious people were "horrible". I am one, myself. I just don't think religion belongs in government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

For starters, because the people don't want it, and I sure as hell don't want to see our system of government brought down even faster by more rampant judicial usurpation of power. I didn't sign on to live under an oppressive, tyrannical, unelected oligarchy, and I don't appreciate you and your cohorts forcing it on me because at the moment, it happens to fit your own personal view of cosmic justice.

Get your lazy asses out there and win at the ballot box by convincing people you're right, instead of just forcing it down their throats, and then we'll talk about any other reasons I might have.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Really? You don't have the right to a legal marriage with a member of the opposite sex? I'm pretty sure you do. Go try it, and let me know how it works out.

 

[Valerie]

Absolutely CORRECT... Marriage is a RIGHT... and where the TWO INDIVIDUALS... meet the simple and horribly LOW threshold, each one representing the distinct genders... ANYONE can MARRY... PERIOD.

What the queers want are SUPER SPECIAL RIGHTS... to marry within their own gender... Sadly, such is devient in it's request AND application and fails to meet the already pathetic threshold.

There is no distinction in the demands of the queer lobby and that of the Mormans who demand a right of bigomy...

Please fix your post. Those are not my words.

 

[elvis]

There I fixed the post so it says "seceding." Happy now?

 

[elvis]

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.

Am I bothering you? Aw. I'm sorry. how rude of me.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Just because those elected by people in a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY vote a certain way does not mean that is the will of the people.

ROFL... actually that is PRECISELY what that means... The US is governed through a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC... Look it up... it's DISTINCT from a Democracy... the people elect the representatives and those people determine the will of the people...

Now what you MAY have intended to say was that the majority vote by those representatives does not make their decision intellectually sound and logically valid; which is often the case... but the will of the people is a certainty.

Clearly the will of the people is often wrongheaded and foolish, as was exemplified in the recent couple of elections... but that's another argument entirely.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

are you always this bitchy? Just because those elected by people in a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY vote a certain way does not mean that is the will of the people. the fact people may not have demonstrated against the amendment proves nothing about whether or not they approved of the measure. Do you really think the majority would choose to have more limited choice in the ballot box?

I'm only this bitchy when people are being this stupid. Ignorance and deliberate obtuseness make me cranky.

And yes, it DOES mean it's the will of the people. Because unlike judges, representatives have to be responsive to the people who elected them. Judges, who for the most part are not elected, don't have to give a rat's ass what the people say. If the people don't like an amendment, trust me, it doesn't get passed. Look at the ERA.

And yes, I do think the people DID choose to limit the terms of the President, precisely because they thought debacles like FDR were a bad idea. How much choice do you really think the people were given at the ballot box while he was around? Did the Republicans even bother to put up viable candidates against him?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 succeeding.

I think you mean "seceding", although it accomplished the other for quite a while, too. And had the war not been fought, Lincoln wouldn't have had to produce the Emancipation Proclamation, nor would it have been worth the paper it was written on had the North not won.

Like it or not, slavery ended because people decided it was wrong, and would have done so eventually with or without Lincoln for that very reason. And interestingly enough, it was those horrible religious people who were at the forefront of the movement to end it all over the world.

I never said religious people were "horrible". I am one, myself. I just don't think religion belongs in government.

Tell me, how do you take the core beliefs by which people live their lives out of the government which allegedly represents those people, and is voted on by them? Do you demand that people vote without consulting their core beliefs, or merely exclude religious people from voting?

 

[Article 15]

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?

For starters, because the people don't want it, and I sure as hell don't want to see our system of government brought down even faster by more rampant judicial usurpation of power. I didn't sign on to live under an oppressive, tyrannical, unelected oligarchy, and I don't appreciate you and your cohorts forcing it on me because at the moment, it happens to fit your own personal view of cosmic justice.

Get your lazy asses out there and win at the ballot box by convincing people you're right, instead of just forcing it down their throats, and then we'll talk about any other reasons I might have.

Blatant deflection and dodge.

The question isn't about anybody but yourself, what "people" want isn't relevant to the question and I doubt you are the kind of person who lets others do your thinking for you. This is personal. If YOU had a vote why would YOU, Cecilie, cast a vote against it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

There I fixed the post so it says "seceding." Happy now?

I was happy before, because the way you had it was really funny.

 

[Valerie]

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.

Really? You don't have the right to a legal marriage with a member of the opposite sex? I'm pretty sure you do. Go try it, and let me know how it works out.

Cecilie, get a grip. You've posted a zillion posts in five minutes.

Sky has made it clear she's in a long term committed relationship with a woman.

Are you able to demonstrate a legitimate reason why they shouldn't be able to share the legal benefits of marriage? What are you so afraid of?

 

[elvis]

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?

are you always this bitchy? Just because those elected by people in a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY vote a certain way does not mean that is the will of the people. the fact people may not have demonstrated against the amendment proves nothing about whether or not they approved of the measure. Do you really think the majority would choose to have more limited choice in the ballot box?

I'm only this bitchy when people are being this stupid. Ignorance and deliberate obtuseness make me cranky.

And yes, it DOES mean it's the will of the people. Because unlike judges, representatives have to be responsive to the people who elected them. Judges, who for the most part are not elected, don't have to give a rat's ass what the people say. If the people don't like an amendment, trust me, it doesn't get passed. Look at the ERA.

And yes, I do think the people DID choose to limit the terms of the President, precisely because they thought debacles like FDR were a bad idea. How much choice do you really think the people were given at the ballot box while he was around? Did the Republicans even bother to put up viable candidates against him?

How did the judges in Iowa come to power?

You think that every time Congress makes a decision, it reflects the will of the people?

 

[KittenKoder]

From the lack of response I am guessing straight people don't marry for love ... well then, we should pair them up for genetic compatibility only, those who will produce the strongest, smartest, and best offspring will only be allowed to marry, all others tough.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

For starters, because the people don't want it, and I sure as hell don't want to see our system of government brought down even faster by more rampant judicial usurpation of power. I didn't sign on to live under an oppressive, tyrannical, unelected oligarchy, and I don't appreciate you and your cohorts forcing it on me because at the moment, it happens to fit your own personal view of cosmic justice.

Get your lazy asses out there and win at the ballot box by convincing people you're right, instead of just forcing it down their throats, and then we'll talk about any other reasons I might have.

Blatant deflection and dodge.

The question isn't about anybody but yourself, what "people" want isn't relevant to the question and I doubt you are the kind of person who lets others do your thinking for you. This is personal. If YOU had a vote why would YOU, Cecilie, cast a vote against it?

No deflection or dodging. You asked me why I oppose it, and I told you. Who the hell are you to tell me what MY reasons can and can't be?

I oppose it because I don't like the methods being used to promote it. Like it or fucking lump it, but that is my reason, and you don't get to tell me it isn't.

I voted against it in the last election, not that it's any of your business. My state, Arizona, was one of three - including Caifornia - which passed an amendment to its state Constitution barring homosexual "marriage", and I voted to pass that amendment. No one has ever given me sufficient reason to believe it should be legally sanctioned, and as I've said, they've given me one HELL of a good reason to oppose it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

are you always this bitchy? Just because those elected by people in a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY vote a certain way does not mean that is the will of the people. the fact people may not have demonstrated against the amendment proves nothing about whether or not they approved of the measure. Do you really think the majority would choose to have more limited choice in the ballot box?

I'm only this bitchy when people are being this stupid. Ignorance and deliberate obtuseness make me cranky.

And yes, it DOES mean it's the will of the people. Because unlike judges, representatives have to be responsive to the people who elected them. Judges, who for the most part are not elected, don't have to give a rat's ass what the people say. If the people don't like an amendment, trust me, it doesn't get passed. Look at the ERA.

And yes, I do think the people DID choose to limit the terms of the President, precisely because they thought debacles like FDR were a bad idea. How much choice do you really think the people were given at the ballot box while he was around? Did the Republicans even bother to put up viable candidates against him?

How did the judges in Iowa come to power?

You think that every time Congress makes a decision, it reflects the will of the people?

It does if the people are stupid enough to let it stand and let the idiots who did it remain in power.