 |
|
Daylife/AP Photo
|
| Nancy Robinson and Laura Fefchak, Gay advocates, celebrate |
Iowa has become the first state in the Midwest to approve same-sex marriage after the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously decided that a 1998 law limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional. The decision was the culmination of a four-year legal battle that began in the lower courts. The Supreme Court said same-sex marriages could begin in Iowa in as soon as 21 days.
The case here was being closely followed by advocates on both sides of the issue. While the same-sex marriage debate has played out on both coasts, the Midwest — where no states had permitted same-sex marriage — was seen as entirely different. In the past, at least six states in the Midwest were among those around the country that adopted amendments to their state constitutions banning same-sex marriage.
“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 justices said in a summary of their decision.
And later in the ruling, they said: “Equal protection under the Iowa Constitution is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. Since territorial times, Iowa has given meaning to this constitutional provision, striking blows to slavery and segregation, and recognizing women’s rights. The court found the issue of same-sex marriage comes to it with the same importance as the landmark cases of the past…”
Iowa has no residency requirement for getting a marriage license, which some suggest may mean a flurry of people from other states.
Overdue.
#25 and #27 (same poster):
Im laughing my ass off on #25 aboout how old Frank the cement truck driver pictured above with his arm in the air is fearful of being the object of a straight guy’s affection so “Frank” has to intentionally make himself unattractive…That’s funny as hell!!! Regarding post #27, I for one could not care less about who marries who. Im just fascinated about the fact that activist lesbians are always ugly as hell.
#28, I tend to agree too… get the churches out of government business. Let any couple register with the govt as partners, so they can declare as married on their tax return and get all the legal benefits of being married… next of kin, etc. Then let them go to any church they want (or none) and have a symbolic religious ceremony that’s meaningful to them. Problem solved.
And #14, it’s not about the government requiring you to get married. No one has to get married. It’s just if you want their tasty benefits that you have to jump thru their hoop. You don’t care about the benefits, don’t get the govt marriage license. But don’t complain about missing out on the benefits if you don’t want to do what’s required to get them.
Im just fascinated about the fact that activist lesbians are always ugly as hell.
Well, everyone’s got to have their secret kinks, GWL. Talking about your fascination with ugly gay women in public though… kinda tasteless. Save it for the solitude of your bedroom. 🙂
Maybe the ugly gay women should also save the public displays of affection for the bedroom as well? By the way, it appears I have touched a nerve with you. Are you perhaps “Fred” the tow truck driver from Philly?
#33 By all means, GWL, all ugly people should save the PDAs for the bedroom, right? Why stop with the gays? Why should we endure some fat guy slobbering on some fat chick, right?
You’re a funny specimen, GWL. If you’re trolling, my compliments. Well done. If not… you’re just a clueless bigot.
#34, I agree with you on the fat people thing, gay or straight. What does GWL stand for?
#35, lol
So civil rights are now dependent upon what idiots want them to look like? What a bunch of effen, stooopid, waste of human flesh.
I’ll bet every one above that thinks they are undeserving because of their looks is as effen ugly as my butt. Well, maybe not quite that purdy.
You can’t judge a book by its cover, but you can tell who is the bigot by their demands.
*
I’m looking forwards to our own raving lunatic, Alphie, the Quaalude Queen. I’m sure she has quite the bible thumping, hellfire and brimstone, bible quoting, god fearing, rant worked up.
man those guys are cute
#37, dang, you’re right… alphie hasn’t shown up here… hope he’s OK.
GWL is lazy type for guiltywhiteliberal
# 30 guiltywhiteliberal said, “Im just fascinated about the fact that activist lesbians are always ugly as hell.”
If lesbianism is genetic maybe, it tends to go hand in hand with an ugly gene?
I say let gays marry, every state, every where.
Why? It solves everyone’s problems!
How? Well, gays get to have the benefits and companionship that they want. Therefore they are satisfied.
And? Straights should like this because gays will disappear in a generation or two. Huh? Yes, of course! Isn’t it the gay community that says “It’s not my fault, I was born this way?” The gay gene anyone?
Therefore, since gay couples don’t reproduce, the gay gene isn’t passed down to the next generation.
Get it?
Oh, and to answer the “It’s a lifestyle choice” crowd, well – so what?
What if I CHOOSE to be a child molester? What if I CHOOSE to be a polygamist? What if I CHOOSE to marry my goat?
If it’s a CHOICE option, then all these should be legal as well. Otherwise, the entire gay movement is one small minority legally and socially forcing it’s CHOICE on the majority.
So, if gay marriage is not genetic, but a CHOICE, then why not polygamy?
Wow, Im thinking about Rachel Maddow here and Ellen, and if those two would just put on some makeup and a sexy dress they would both be smokin hot. Why wont they put on a dress and makeup??? Ohhhh I see, because they are lesbians!
Oh wow and they are both activist as well???
#41 Think about it, pal. There have been homosexuals mentioned as long as there’s been recorded history. If it was a genetic breeding thing, it would have long vanished. From what I’ve read, fluctuations in hormones during pregnancy seem to be the current most plausible theory… caused by what, unclear yet.
And regarding #42, think “consenting adults”. Children and goats are not adult humans who can make a choice.
Personally, I have nothing against polygamy as a choice between consenting adults (they call it polyamory), but the people who do polygamy nowadays seem to be into that whole icky child bride thing. 🙁
It is time for me two come out as a polygamist.
I live with two sisters, and their children, which are… gasp…. both mine, in the most redneck situation you can imagine. We are effectively poly, drawn into this situation by an accident of biology.
So you anti poly people, what would you have us change?
#44, Phydeau.
I applaud you on a good, thoughtful, comeback. Quick, too.
I also happen to agree with your assessment “I have nothing against polygamy as a choice between consenting adults”.
The operative phrase being “consenting adults”. Not kids, and not with the intent of sucking on the teat of welfare.
Hey, GregA, you’re not that guy shacking up with the Barbi Twins, are you?
If you are, I HATE YOU!
Regarding polygamy, from what I can gather it has been most popular in societies where women are second-class citizens, really not much more than property. So it’s a small step between an adult woman as property and a girl child as property. 🙁
Phydeau.
Historically, it does seem to be that way. All too often used as a tool of oppression. Or should I say one of many tools of oppression.
Legally, it would be a different matter. It’s one very small step to go from a pair of consenting adults to a group of consenting adults. Consenting, again, being tantamount.
#48, it has also been prevalent in societies where, for whatever reason, the women greatly outnumbered the men.
I have no problem with sheep-lovers who want to marry more than one sheep. As long as the sheep are not gay.
Good point Sea Lawyer, I’ve read that too.
Ah_Yea, I think the anti-gay marriage people might have a point… once we accept marriage as a “consenting adults” relationship between any two people, the next step is between any N people, where N > 2. But I’d bet the number of polyamorous people is tiny, and they probably don’t have the political power to pull that off.
#51 Good point, Chuck. Because gay sheep would be perverted! 🙂
#7 I do not know the constitution of Iowa but if it did not state marriage was between a man and a woman then the court was correct in their action, if the people want a ban on gay marriage then write an amendment to the constitution and over rule the court it is that easy.
courts should not be the final decision on things like this the voice of the people should be, but that voice should also do it by the letter of the law
Great news indeed !
I’ll read the responses here later but scanning through I see the usual key words “child molester”, sex with sheep, ugly, polygamy, God and something amount cement drivers?
Anyway, great news !!
So, what’s happening with the CA law?
#8 regarding no marriages hurt by this,
this is the same thing that elites said when they passed no-fault divorce laws and weakened marriage then as well.
#53 Phydeau
LOL!
The headline should read ‘high court invents gay marriage rights’ as that is more accurate.
The reasoning is bogus, as they say that equal protection is defined by each generation. They don’t mean that they will uphold the recent laws passed by the Iowa legislature of course. They will invent new rights on the spot. Plus polygamy and incest and pedophilia rights are certainly the next step. ere is part of the ruling:
The point in time when the standard of equal protection finally takes a new form is a product of the conviction of one, or many, individuals that a particular grouping results in inequality and the ability of the judicial system to perform its constitutional role free from the influences that tend to make society’s understanding of equal protection resistant to change.”
Pedophilia certainly has a stronger historical basis than gay marriage, whether it is ancient Greece or Kandahar. Plus the American Psychiatric Association has reversed their position on pedophilia, as they previously did for homosexuality. If the previous timeline holds, then it’s about another 10-20 years before being opposed to that practice will be seen as bigotry.