 |
|
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.
PMitchell, I agree, if the law says the people can vote for a constitutional amendment, let them do it.
As I said before, it’s only a matter of time before this issue is resolved. Repeated surveys have shown that young people have no problem whatsoever with gay marriage… it’s the older folks who do. Eventually people will wonder what the fuss was all about, just like the controversy over letting people of different races marry.
It’ll happen, the sky won’t fall, and people will move on with their lives.
#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.
Uh, Mike… that was about making divorce easier… this is about making marriage easier, i.e. available to more people.
So how again does allowing homosexuals get married harm any heterosexual marriage? Has your heterosexual marriage been harmed by gays getting married in California?
#58- you’re right! If marriage is sacred, then we need to make divorce illegal.
Brilliant.
I answered #4’s question and went to lunch and the topic went crazy.
#11 Phydeau “I don’t suppose you know any gay people.”
*Pulls out family photo album* Yep, at least 3 gay or lesbians in the photo album. (I am not counting pictures of the partners, some of whom I met.)
Does not contradict the point I made in #9.
I also worked in a retail department store. Gay men (with the exception of Barney Frank) care about their personal appearance. Why don’t militant lesbians? Don’t they want to look good for each other?
The cute lesbians from college now have husbands and children. I know that from their Facebook pages.
Full disclosure…I know a small group of lesbians, friends of my wife. We’ve hung out and had beers, but they’re not much for the company of straight guys. Most are stereotypical, they wear “the uniform” and you can spot them from a mile away. Those are the ones who are cool to hang with. Some are regular women from all appearances, and that sounds weird when I write it, but that’s what it is. There are a couple in the group who are attractive (hot) ladies, made up and dressed nice. They are not a couple, btw. They don’t even say hello to the likes of me…I understand there’s some bad man-stuff in their lives. Whatever. Clearly, my experience is anecdotal.
Anyway, I could care less if gays marry, so long as no guy is proposing to me.
Couldn’t care less, either.
Alfred! There you are! We were starting to worry about you… 🙂
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.
Care to provide a link on that APA assertion? What exactly does the APA say about pedophilia now?
But this is the same tired, old, bogus argument. And as always, the response is “consenting adults”. Pedophilia is wrong because it doesn’t involve consenting adults. As is sheepophilia, goatophilia, or any -philia that involves anything but CONSENTING ADULTS. Not that I expect you to understand or acknowledge this simple argument.
who cares about marriage. the important question that has yet to be answered is why are lesbian activist so ugly? This is a scientific question that must be answered. No one would complain if beautiful lesbians got married. If we could solve the ugly, butch, slob lesbian issues we could also solve the gay marriage thing…
#71 Glad you’re focusing on what’s really important, GWL… 🙂
I was silent on the whole Prop 8 or whatever deal in California because I do not live in California. I do not have to be silent on this because I live in Iowa. This issue isn’t anyone’s business except Iowans.
Thank you #71. Finally someone recognizes the real issue. Marriage is a word. Obama is going to raise everyones taxes and neutralize any tax advantage to being married and many states already have laws giving same sex couples all the other legal rights so we are back to the true scientific question of why are militant lesbians mistaken for plumbers from Birmingham Alabama?
Sorry, I meant to acknowledge #72.
#70 read the sentence from the court’s ruling above. It doesn’t matter if you think pedophilia, etc are wrong. The logic they give leads to rights there as well.
#76 Yeah, keep on saying that, Mike. See how many people take you seriously.
So I don’t believe you’ve answered the fundamental question. Has your heterosexual marriage been harmed since gays have been allowed to marry? Do you know of any heterosexual marriage that has been harmed by gays being allowed to marry? If this is such a huge, terrible threat to society you must know dozens, if not hundreds. Do tell. I’m all ears.
The state of Iowa is harmed by this ruling. For example, that blowhard, Fred Phelps, and his group of crazies is bound to come pollute the state with their vileness.
#78
If gays are allowed to marry, and I am married, then how am I supposed to know if I am gay or not?
That’s not how social science works. Trends can be spotted. For example, we know id McDonald’s raises the price of french fries by one cent, sales will drop. Would you stop buying over 1 cent? Can you point out any lost sales?
The point about divorce and no-fault is similar. At the time, people were saying this won’t harm your marriage to have this violent marriage broken. But the overall cultural and legal effect does weaken marriage, as would redefining marriage to include gays. It weakens the meaning of marriage, and makes it less attractive. You also further decouple marriage from child-rearing, a trend which had been moving in a positive direction til about 5 years ago.
I didn’t know Nathan Lane was a lesbian.
In Footnote 26 these justices conclude: “The traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.”
I suppose it is appropriate that a thread about Iowa would have so many strawmen.
#80 LOL. Best one yet
It weakens the meaning of marriage,
That’s a meaningless assertion. Your entire rationale is based on nothing but opinion, the same baseless and empty opinion the christian guys will be saying on Fox and CNN tonight.
People learning that they married idiots weakens marriage. If you want to strengthen the meaning of marriage, require some relationship training and counseling *before* granting licenses.
#81,
You just made the argument for civil union, and eliminated any governmental construction for marriage at all…
We should just get rid of the concept of marriage all together, and replace it with civil unions, then the various parties can dictate in their contract the terms of the marriage and the terms of the eventual disillusion of that contract, however they want.
It is nice to see that you agree with Obama on something;)
#81 Golly gee Mike, if gay marriage is such a huge, terrible threat to society, surely we don’t need a bunch of pointy-headed scientists to sort through mounds of data to come up with statistically significant indicators. Gay marriage is out there now! It’s happening as we speak, gay people sitting in their homes, married! Gasp! Show us the terrible, horrible effects that are surely happening right now, judging from the rantin’ and ravin’ coming from the anti-gay-marriage people.
But you can’t. Seriously. And this:
It weakens the meaning of marriage, and makes it less attractive.
Any shred of evidence? Any signs that heterosexuals are not getting married because gays are getting married? Come on. Put up or shut up. Or just admit that gays make you feel kinda squicky and they should go back in the closet where they belong.
Interesting word play and nonsense over the completely undefined notion of “strong” or “weak” marriages, or even worse the “institution” of marriage.
Its all only a projection of half perceived emotions and values. Actually kinda gay in that “I’m a weak thinker” sort of way.
Here is a win-win proposal if the government must be in the business of human relationships:
(1) Declare “Civil Unions” as the universally recognized ‘contract’ across states.
(2) Give the word “marriage” to the religious community as a means to show that some other special ceremony took place (like blessed by something).
(3) The gays can come up with some other clever word for their own special day like “Blessed”.
I think that would make everyone happy. No?
#78 Phydeau
>>Has your heterosexual marriage been harmed since gays have been allowed to marry?
As usual the homosexual agenda tosses out a question of misdirection that has nothing to do with if gay marriage is a positive for the long term health of a society.
The fact that this society is forced to deal with gay marriage is only another measurement of how human depravity is infiltrating the core, rotting it to the point of termination.
#90 Dallas, I said something similar in #32, but why not let the gays call their religious ceremonies “marriage” too? To appease the fundies who hate gays and don’t want their relationships to have the same name? Screw the fundies. They’ll get over it. Just like they got over black and white people getting married (and blacks getting to vote, and women getting to vote, and blacks being free, but I digress).
As usual the homosexual agenda tosses out a question of misdirection that has nothing to do with if gay marriage is a positive for the long term health of a society.
Ok, you’re such a smart guy, contempt… give me one way that gays being able to get married negatively affects the long-term health of a society. (Hint: pissing off right-wing bigots isn’t one of them.)
So far you guys haven’t been able to come up with a single bit of evidence to support your claim, you just keep repeating and repeating and repeating the same bullsh*t over and over.
#92–phydeau==why not? Because the law to do so gets overturned/refused regularly. The issue will be forced over the next few decades but any “smart” advocate would understand Dallas’s point==call it whatever but get the right to the rights and obligations of the status. The name will follow shortly thereafter once the spirocetes work their magic on what brain matter remains in mostly vacant cranial areas of shit for brains like contempt.