 |
|
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.
The word “marriage” does not appear anywhere in the constitution. So, as I see it, there is nothing that prohibits same-sex marriage or polygamy. But there is also nothing that requires the government to recognize any form of marriage or civil union.
The government should get out of the marriage business. There should be no benefit (or penalty) to marriage.
If we want to allow spousal benefits such as health-care or social security, then any person should be able to designate any other person as their beneficiary. And if they should choose to name more than 1 beneficiary, then the benefits should be split equally.
#95–chuck==the fact that your recommendation is limited to “persons” and to single people at that shows the cultural values that the law springs from.
#95 I’m with you on that one Chuck.
#94 Eh, could be… incremental steps. And as I said before, in 10 years or so this’ll come to pass and people will wonder what the fuss was about.
I’m definitely in favor of elections that force people to put their money where their mouth is and actually vote against gay marriage. I think it’ll bring about change faster, to make people really think about it.
#95,
Once again, civil law already has a solution to this. It is called a will. Although, if someone is entitled to a social security survivor benefit, and they want to split it more than one way, they should be requred to pay a third party to make that transaction. Oh wait, we already have those too, they are called trusts…
#93 Phydeau
>>you just keep repeating and repeating and repeating the same bullsh*t over and over.
Truth doesn’t need spin or repackaging. Not so with depravity as you so venomously prove.
#93 Phydeau – you have a great point but it’s kinda like the Palestinian and Israeli issue of both claiming the Holy Land as theirs. Idea was to meet somewhere in the middle.
I agree with #95 that having government legislate human relationships is an obsolete and useless artifact of days past when men claimed women as their property. It should be ousted from government but the religious taliban wants MORE religious infiltration in government, not less.
The idea is to make the word ‘marriage’ itself redundant and meaningless in favor of a universally accepted notion of ‘Civil Unions’. The majority of Americans favor that anyway and it accomplishes the same thing.
Never forget that 2000 years ago, Ben Hur said to his sister Ben Him “want to trade”?
She replied “No, then I would be Ben Gay”.
#99 OK, I get your strategy, contempt: “our position is so obviously right we needn’t condescend to defend it.” Good luck with that… you’re gonna need it. 🙂
#102 Phydeau
>>I get your strategy
Why would I need a strategy against your flawed tactics? You’ve already lost and don’t even know it.
Well, “in the end” the truth will out. The truth here is a steady march towards gay marriage because there is nothing but prejudice to speak against it. Course, that means the rest of the world will have it years before the USA, then we will take credit for it.
#103 Well golly, I guess you told me off, contempt. I have no answer for your brilliant statements. Guess you showed me. 🙂
#105–Phydeau==just follow contempt for humanity’s own example: When a position is so obvious, it needs no defense. In contempts case, that means step over the pile of shit and leave it to steam all on its own. Even his fellow travelers have pretty much shunned his backward advocacy, saving their hate and ignorance for the ballot box.
On the plus side, we can hope that maybe gay marriage will harm the marriages of the bigoted homophobes, and they’ll get divorced and be less likely to pass their bigoted genes on to the next generation.
I know, that was mean… I’m sorry. 🙂
#107–phydeau==that gets us back to definitions. If contempt gets divorced, has “marriage” been strengthened or weakened? Along your thoughts, I would say that marriage has been strengthened in that it makes people individually and as a group “better” than they were before. That happens when stupidity like contempts is isolated. Course, he would be set free to correupt some other person, but on average, prejudice like his slops over into every other area of life, so his mating potential is limited in direct proportion to the strength of his beliefs.
And it should always be said that hating what is different is genetic but fixating that evolutionary survival skill on any particular topic is learned. Usually from religion.
#103,
Um, actually, you lost, and all you are doing now is naval gazing unaccepting of the reality that gay marriage is be legal nationally within the next two years.
There are still only 2 genders. Gay men should still be masculine and gay women should still be feminine. Period.
#110–toxic==right you are! In the same manner that there are only two colors. Black and White. Everything we see is but shades.
Dallas,
I disagree about your idea of marriage vs. civil union.
Marriage is recognized as the union of two people who want to spend their lives together. If anything, I would classify civil unions for those who are in arranged marriage or willingly joins a couple already married (polygamy).
It is debasing to have to change the entire concept of marriage to satisfy some wing nut religious extremists.
*
Contrary to Lyin’ Mike and “tempt’s contentions that same sex marriage will damage hetro sexual marriage, it just ain’t so. If the bond between the two is so weak that another couple will break that bond, the marriage would fail anyway. Besides, if neither husband or wife are attracted to homosexuals, then wouldn’t single people of the opposite sex be more of a concern in breaking that bond?
#109 GregA
>>Um, actually, you lost… unaccepting of the reality that gay marriage is be legal nationally within the next two years.
Two years sounds more like wishful thinking than clairvoyance, but there’s no denying that once depravity is allowed to continue unfettered the resulting downward spiral tends to speed up fairly quickly.
When that happens everyone loses – you included.
#112,
Read the actual decision. If fell because in the simplest possible terms gay marriage bans violate the equal protection clause. That means the next stop is the SCOTUS, and even this SCOTUS will find gay marriage bans unconstitutional.
But more importantly, in plain and simple Iowa common sense terms, the court did this to protect the children of gay and lesbian couples so they have the same protections that straight couples enjoy
#113 you know, contempt, your doomsaying might have more credibility, if it wasn’t the same thing right wingers have said about interracial marriage, about giving women and blacks the right to vote, and even freeing the slaves. People like you are always afraid of change, and always predict gloom and doom whenever forced to consider change. Especially when it involves giving rights to people you don’t like. I feel sorry for you. 🙁 But gay marriage will come, and you’ll survive, and society will survive.
#113,
State is already planning to appeal this. I bet this SCOTUS hears it right away to prevent these cases from clogging up federal appeals courts nationally;)
But more importantly, it is the revelation that the people that the court found were being denied equal protection were the children of gay and lesbian couples;) That is new and it is catastrophic to the breeders first movement.
#115 Phydeau
>>your doomsaying might have more credibility, if it wasn’t the same thing right wingers have said about interracial marriage, about giving women and blacks the right to vote, and even freeing the slaves.
Still using deception as a tool to persuade? Each case you offer must stand on its own and does not prove or disprove any other grievance. In other words, slavery has nothing to do with gay marriage and can not be held up as a defense.
Heh, Slavery was about civil rights, gay marriage is about civil rights;) So they are releated.
You are wrong even about that trivial bit;)
#118 GregA
Wrong? Just how do you arrive at that? Slavery was forced upon people while gay marriage is a chosen action.
Not even close even in the liberal world. Well maybe that’s wrong.
#119,
Are you a retard???
The incidentals does not change the fact that they are still both civil rights issues. Nothing you say will change that.
#114 GregA,
“the court did this to protect the children of gay and lesbian couples so they have the same protections that straight couples enjoy”
Amen!
So far I haven’t seen on the news of Lesbians killing their children out of spite towards their significant others but straight women.. They even drown them in the name if Jesus Christ.
#120 GregA
Incidentals… incidentals? The PC police have sure done a number on you… my condolences.
How difficult is it to understand that there is a huge difference between “civil” marriages and “church” marriages?
A civil marriage is simply a contract between two people to share a residence and share financial responsibility for one another, and look after one another. The only reason this matters is because government (and others) grant special rights and privileges to “married” couples.
To say that a legal contract can only be made between a man and a woman, seems arbitrary and makes no logical sense. Heck, legally marriage has nothing to do with sexual compatibility at all.
The anti’s argue that justifying “gay marriage” logically leads to adult-child marriage, human-animal marriage, or even polygamy.
Umm, no. Minors cannot enter contracts, and animals have no legal rights.
As for polygamy, a contract between three or more people to share financial responsibility for one another would legally fall under “incorporation” or a “Limited Liability Contract (LLC)”. Nevertheless, There are many legal circumstances where having more than one “partner” cannot work, due to the possibility of disagreement in deciding one’s affairs. Marriage contracts is about declaring each other as mutual spokespersons, therefore logically limited to two people.
As for “church” marriages, the government has no right to dictate beliefs. Churches should be free to discriminate all they want.
#115 Phydeau
>>your doomsaying might have more credibility, if it wasn’t the same thing right wingers have said about interracial marriage, about giving women and blacks the right to vote, and even freeing the slaves.
I dont know why contempt is arguing this, it should be absolutely clear that the downward spiral began when the government decided to take away our freedom to own slaves. Infact, if it wasnt for the ban on no-cost labour, Im sure we wouldnt be in this economic mess.
Next, the government took away the freedom for white people to elect a president. Now we’ve got a black president, and he continues to take away our freedoms. If he does end up taking away the freedom for men and women to marry, I dont know If I will be able to look my wife in the eyes without thinking of two guys doing it.