Iowa approves same sex marriage

[Ravi]

What if we banned Islam? You still have the right to be Christian....

A voting population should not be able to decide upon people's rights. That should be left to the Supreme Court.

That's a great point, David. I personally am disgusted by the Muslim religion but I would fight against the idea that anyone could vote to outlaw a religion or limit the rights of American Muslims in any way.

Only because you're a bleeding heart liberal and identify with anyone or anything who your opinion is being treated unfairly.

You say that like it is a bad thing...but no, that isn't the reason.

 

[dilloduck]

That's a great point, David. I personally am disgusted by the Muslim religion but I would fight against the idea that anyone could vote to outlaw a religion or limit the rights of American Muslims in any way.

Only because you're a bleeding heart liberal and identify with anyone or anything who your opinion is being treated unfairly.

You say that like it is a bad thing...but no, that isn't the reason.

ok tell us the REAL reason then.

 

[Cecilie1200]

First of all RodISHI, happy birthday. Now, please tell me you're not equating two consenting adults loving each other with sniffing glue or having a pig farm in your neighborhood? Where is the harm in two people loving each other?

First of all thanks.

Two consenting adults may do what these please to/for one another as a personal choice. It does not mean others have to approve of it/make/change laws to suit them.

Why not compare whatever may offend anyone out there?

Heck why not just make laws that curtail anything being an offence of any kind to anyone? BTW, that is surely coming by the looks of things.

Society can force or could attempt to force everyone to think the same in order to prevent any discourse among the masses.

What you may call love others have the same right to call or consider a sickness.

You may not like the comparison used but heck some people think the smell of cow shit is pleasant. I don't but to each his own but don't try to tell another they have to accept it (or else).

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.

The law provides special privileges to couples who are "married" and there is no legitimate reason to exclude certain couples from the rights of legal partnership. There is no real harm whatsoever, so your cow dung and your pig farm aren't exactly analogous.

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?

 

[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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think if the WERE to vote on whether gay marriage should be legal, it would result in a resounding NO. But that doesn't make it right. Gays should be allowed to marry. It's discrimination for them not to be allowed to marry. And it wouldn't matter if 90 percent of Iowans thought discrimination should be legal, it never would be. How many anti-racist laws were passed in America when the majority of people didn't agree with it? This is a rights issue, not a democratic one.

There were many Quakers in Iowa that fought for an end to slavery and assisted many slaves on the road to freedom. I can't picture those same men and women battling for the cause of same sex marraige as a rights issue.

I can't either. I was mainly thinking about southern states, but I didn't want to generalize. My point is that it shouldn't come down to whether or not a majority of Americans or Iowans think gays have the right to marry. Some things people should have the right to whether the majority likes it or not.

And those things are written in the Constitution. This one isn't. Feel free to propose a Constitutional amendment for it, and see how far you get.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've spent hours, literally hours here trying to find one vote that the public made on heterosexual marriage. I've not seen ONE referendum or public vote that has ever taken place in any state where the people had a right to choose for or against heterosexual marriage. Not one conservative on this message board has been able to tell me either.

All opposite-sex marriage laws have either been written by State Supreme Court, Federal Supreme Court or state legislature. This certainly isn't the will of the people. Or is it?

Ceceille recently made a statement that the "will of the people" can be through a legislative process. Yet looking back through her posts, she contradicted herself by supporting Prop 8 in California, overturning a LEGISLATIVE process by representatives elected to the state legislature. So apparently she would only support gay marriage if it was voted on by the people themselves. However, no vote has ever been made by the public on heterosexual marriage. I assume because she's had a couple of kids by now she's married - so I must ask her and all of the other conservatives here: Do you support heterosexual marriage even though no one has been able to vote on whether or not to legalize heterosexual marriage? If you do, then why do you not support homosexual marriage that wasn't voted on by the people?

They feel that way because if they WERE to vote, heterosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly supported and homosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly shot down. But that shouldn't matter. The majority should not be able to determine the rights of the individual.

Why not? If you want to create a new right that has never existed before, why SHOULDN'T everyone else get a say in whether or not they have to recognize it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

They feel that way because if they WERE to vote, heterosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly supported and homosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly shot down. But that shouldn't matter. The majority should not be able to determine the rights of the individual.

Her beliefs are based upon the Bible, though. She's admitted to running a Biblical household. Which is fine. Gay marriage isn't for her. G-d forbid any of her children are ever gay she would dis-own them. But she does NOT have the right to tell Bob and George they can't get married and have the same rights as her and her husband. Just as I don't have the right to tell her that she and her husband can't get married.

agreed.

I like how I've "admitted" to having a Biblical household, as though it's something slightly shameful for which I then need a special dispensation of "which is fine". So glad I have permission. I also like how I've never, EVER made an argument against homosexual "marriage" based on the Bible, and yet you asshats feel free to simply decide that's al there is to it so that you never have to really address the reasons I HAVE given.

I'll take that to mean you have no argument except "religious people are meanies". Thank you.

 

[Agnapostate]

Cesspoolie: Multi-Quoting. Have ya' heard of it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, *you're* not. I mean, hypothetical situation: You're an Iowa citizen that isn't a judge. You don't have to do anything about it. In fact, from this day forward, you can continue to hate the idea of gay marriage and not recognize it. You're irrelevant in this because you're not a judge. So you don't have to recognize it, you don't have to enforce it. And you don't have to pay for it, either. Gay couples who want to get married have to pay Iowa $30 to get married.

So again, how does this effect you or anyone else in Iowa who is against gay marriage?

Well, I'm glad you think that the society around me and the laws it passes and enforces in no way affect me. Unfortunately, you're full of shit. Completely aside from the fact that, as a citizen and voter, EVERYTHING the government does is done in my name and that certainly DOES affect me, and aside from the fact that the real agenda here is to be able to use the courts to bludgeon political opponents into silence, the STATED goal is to acquire for homosexual couples legal and financial recognition such as tax breaks, Social Security benefits, forcing companies to offer them health insurance (which affects the costs to everyone else, and what if I'M the employer in question, hmmm?), etc. So please don't piss down my leg and try to tell me it's raining, and please don't try to tell me that people living in a society together are not affected by each other's actions. And DEFINITELY don't try to tell me you have the right to circumvent, undermine, and remove MY rights to vote on what is and isn't legal on the grounds that YOU PERSONALLY don't think it's any of my business.

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.

First of all, when did I ever say I was in favor of the government forcing them to pay benefits to heterosexual couples? You answer me that, and then we'll discuss it.

Second of all, when did I say I cared where they lived or in what condition? What part of "I really don't give a damn about homosexuals or their life choices" are you having trouble wrapping your head around? I know it's a matter of pride to liberals to think that conservatives are sitting around their dinner tables, obsessing over them, but we really don't.

If "a piece of paper" won't affect life, why do they want it so badly?

Yes, it affects me if my neighbor gets married, for the same reasons it affects me if we decide to legalize homosexual "marriage". Like it or not, no man is an island, and none of us live the lives of craggy, independent solitude we like to flatter ourselves we do.

Not many companies in my area currently offer domestic partner benefits, that I'm aware of. Actually, I understand that many employers here are having trouble offering bennies to regular married couples at the moment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've spent hours, literally hours here trying to find one vote that the public made on heterosexual marriage. I've not seen ONE referendum or public vote that has ever taken place in any state where the people had a right to choose for or against heterosexual marriage. Not one conservative on this message board has been able to tell me either.

All opposite-sex marriage laws have either been written by State Supreme Court, Federal Supreme Court or state legislature. This certainly isn't the will of the people. Or is it?

Ceceille recently made a statement that the "will of the people" can be through a legislative process. Yet looking back through her posts, she contradicted herself by supporting Prop 8 in California, overturning a LEGISLATIVE process by representatives elected to the state legislature. So apparently she would only support gay marriage if it was voted on by the people themselves. However, no vote has ever been made by the public on heterosexual marriage. I assume because she's had a couple of kids by now she's married - so I must ask her and all of the other conservatives here: Do you support heterosexual marriage even though no one has been able to vote on whether or not to legalize heterosexual marriage? If you do, then why do you not support homosexual marriage that wasn't voted on by the people?

They feel that way because if they WERE to vote, heterosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly supported and homosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly shot down. But that shouldn't matter. The majority should not be able to determine the rights of the individual.

i thought they already HAD that vote and this is what the IA SC over turned

I believe that's been made the law in Iowa twice now, in fact.

 

[DavidS]

There were many Quakers in Iowa that fought for an end to slavery and assisted many slaves on the road to freedom. I can't picture those same men and women battling for the cause of same sex marraige as a rights issue.

I can't either. I was mainly thinking about southern states, but I didn't want to generalize. My point is that it shouldn't come down to whether or not a majority of Americans or Iowans think gays have the right to marry. Some things people should have the right to whether the majority likes it or not.

And those things are written in the Constitution. This one isn't. Feel free to propose a Constitutional amendment for it, and see how far you get.

Please tell me which article or amendment in the constitution is written that heterosexuals have the right to get married.

I'll be patient.

 

[DavidS]

I've spent hours, literally hours here trying to find one vote that the public made on heterosexual marriage. I've not seen ONE referendum or public vote that has ever taken place in any state where the people had a right to choose for or against heterosexual marriage. Not one conservative on this message board has been able to tell me either.

All opposite-sex marriage laws have either been written by State Supreme Court, Federal Supreme Court or state legislature. This certainly isn't the will of the people. Or is it?

Ceceille recently made a statement that the "will of the people" can be through a legislative process. Yet looking back through her posts, she contradicted herself by supporting Prop 8 in California, overturning a LEGISLATIVE process by representatives elected to the state legislature. So apparently she would only support gay marriage if it was voted on by the people themselves. However, no vote has ever been made by the public on heterosexual marriage. I assume because she's had a couple of kids by now she's married - so I must ask her and all of the other conservatives here: Do you support heterosexual marriage even though no one has been able to vote on whether or not to legalize heterosexual marriage? If you do, then why do you not support homosexual marriage that wasn't voted on by the people?

They feel that way because if they WERE to vote, heterosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly supported and homosexual marriage would be overwhelmingly shot down. But that shouldn't matter. The majority should not be able to determine the rights of the individual.

Why not? If you want to create a new right that has never existed before, why SHOULDN'T everyone else get a say in whether or not they have to recognize it?

You know - I agree with you. Poor Southerners never got one vote to allow interracial marriage, ban slavery, give black people equal rights or eliminate segregation. I think you should sue the Supreme Court to undo all of these laws. Oh by the way, one of the members of the Supreme Court is black so you'll already have one vote against you.

 

[DavidS]

Her beliefs are based upon the Bible, though. She's admitted to running a Biblical household. Which is fine. Gay marriage isn't for her. G-d forbid any of her children are ever gay she would dis-own them. But she does NOT have the right to tell Bob and George they can't get married and have the same rights as her and her husband. Just as I don't have the right to tell her that she and her husband can't get married.

agreed.

I like how I've "admitted" to having a Biblical household, as though it's something slightly shameful for which I then need a special dispensation of "which is fine". So glad I have permission. I also like how I've never, EVER made an argument against homosexual "marriage" based on the Bible, and yet you asshats feel free to simply decide that's al there is to it so that you never have to really address the reasons I HAVE given.

I'll take that to mean you have no argument except "religious people are meanies". Thank you.

How's that lawsuit against the Supreme Court for overturning the ban on slavery and segregation going?

Oh by the way, not one citizen was allowed to vote on women's suffrage either. You'd better hurry before someone decides that their ancestors' rights were violated when they never got to vote on whether or not they wanted to let women have the same rights as men.

Soon, if we follow your line of thinking, women won't be able to vote, segregation will be back, black's will be slaves again, Native Americans won't be able to own land, partial birth abortions would be just fine, black people wouldn't be allowed to serve on a jury and so on.

 

[007]

heh, your "dumb pig farmers" must care more about the civil rights of Americans than you bozos do. That is a good thing, imo.

The only "bozos" involved with "homos" getting married are the mentally ill and emotionally twisted.

 

[Article 15]

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?

 

[DavidS]

heh, your "dumb pig farmers" must care more about the civil rights of Americans than you bozos do. That is a good thing, imo.

The only "bozos" involved with "homos" getting married are the mentally ill and emotionally twisted.

Come on. Gay people aren't mentally ill.

Don't judge a book by its cover.

 

[KittenKoder]

What if we banned Islam? You still have the right to be Christian....

A voting population should not be able to decide upon people's rights. That should be left to the Supreme Court.

That's a great point, David. I personally am disgusted by the Muslim religion but I would fight against the idea that anyone could vote to outlaw a religion or limit the rights of American Muslims in any way.

Only because you're a bleeding heart liberal and identify with anyone or anything who your opinion is being treated unfairly.

So .. you like having the government regulate religion .... like in ... I don't know ... Iran?

When would it stop ... when everyone is forced to be Catholic ... or Mormon ... or worse ... Rollers?

 

[Gunny]

DES MOINES, Iowa -- The Iowa Supreme Court announced its ruling in a landmark same-sex marriage case Friday morning.
The court's written ruling was to be issued on the Iowa Supreme Court's Web site, but traffic to the site crashed the server and took down the Web site.
The court ruled in favor of six same-sex couples who sought to get marriage licenses, but were denied. The ruling means same-sex couples in Iowa can now get married under state law.


BREAKING NEWS: Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage OK - Des Moines News Story - KCCI Des Moines

So, Iowa, as in the majority of voters, didn't approve anything. The law was backdoored via the judiciary.

Very democratic.

 

[Gunny]

What do you expect from a bunch of dumb as a brick pig farmers?

Read the article. There was no vote. The Iowa Supreme Court legislated from the bench. The favored tactic by leftwingnuts everywhere.

 

[KittenKoder]

DES MOINES, Iowa -- The Iowa Supreme Court announced its ruling in a landmark same-sex marriage case Friday morning.
The court's written ruling was to be issued on the Iowa Supreme Court's Web site, but traffic to the site crashed the server and took down the Web site.
The court ruled in favor of six same-sex couples who sought to get marriage licenses, but were denied. The ruling means same-sex couples in Iowa can now get married under state law.


BREAKING NEWS: Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage OK - Des Moines News Story - KCCI Des Moines

So, Iowa, as in the majority of voters, didn't approve anything. The law was backdoored via the judiciary.

Very democratic.

Since when have we been a true democracy anyway?