Hello:

Wow. What happened to those right wingers in Iowa?? The unanimous ruling on Friday makes Iowa the first Midwestern state where same-sex marriage will be legal.

Iowa says YES, and California says NO?? Dude! Something weird is going on here.

Ok, nothing weird is going on. The Iowa Supreme Court stated the obvious, and they stated it UNANIMOUSLY. “If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded.”

Hmmmm. I wonder where I've heard THAT argument before??

excon

IOWA??

Now that's what I call the Twilight Zone!

Hello again:

I just noticed the category of my question. Sorry. I didn't intend this question to be a "religious discussion", but rather under "current events"...

I'd much rather discuss the LEGAL implications of the decision and not the religious ones. I KNOW what you guys think.

My bad.

excon

Moved!

Hello, J:

Thanks. But, that doesn't mean I won't argue with you Christians if you insist.

excon

LOL, I don't want to argue. I just find it funny that IOWA did this and not California!

Okay. So everybody knows what IOWA means? It means Idiots Out Wandering Around. Pretty much makes sense to me that they'd approve it as all the gay folks will want to move there when they leave good old California. Hey, they're not as dumb as they'd like us to think they are. Pretty clever, those dumb folks in Iowa if you ask me. Pretty darn clever.

Ex Iowa has had a Democrat Governor for over a decade.This is the State that gave us Sen. Tom Harkin. Not sure how many "right wingers" are there .

What is there to wonder about ?Again,the people of Iowa made their wishes known and the unelected oligarchs struck it down.

The people of Iowa I'm sure will do the necessary steps to reinforce their will by passing a State Constitutional Amendment . (although their amending process is lengthy )

The people of Iowa I'm sure will do the necessary steps to reinforce their will by passing a State Constitutional Amendment . (although their amending process is lengthy )Hello again, tom:

It's my view that, as popular as it might be to do so, the people cannot remove a groups Constitutional rights through the legislative process. This was affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court.

It's also my view that, as much as the majority wish to do so, the people cannot remove the Constitutional rights of the minority by amending their Constitution. This, I believe, will be affirmed by the California Supreme Court.

It DOES remain to be seen, however, what kind of country we live in. One that memorializes discrimination in its Constitution, or one that represents freedom and justice for all.

excon

The way I see it ;this whole issue ,although traditionally a State's rights issue will have to be decided at the Federal level with a Constitutional amendment one way or the other .

The courts as ususal have polorized the issue.

You should read the convoluted logic by the Iowa Supreme Court.

http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20090403/07-1499.pdf

Love this gem in the ruling : the legal requirement of equal protection of the laws "can only be defined by the standards of each generation."

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.

Do you believe these so called rights are universal or apply to the standard of the age ,when judges decide the time is right ?Why not just shut down the legislative branches of the States and have the courts make the laws also ?

Hello again, tom:

Like global warming, I don't care of the logic is right, as long as the decision is.

excon

It wasn't the People of Iowa that made this decision. It was the COURTS of Iowa.

Another case of Judicial Fiat. Abrogating the will of the PEOPLE in favor of the politics of a few UNELECTED officials in black robes.

I'm not surprised the court made this decision. That doesn't make it correct.

Elliot

You did not answer the question. If you think that rights are universal and ageless as you often argue ,then you have to reject their contention that they "can only be defined by the standards of each generation."

Would you think that if the issue was slavery ?

Another case of Judicial Fiat. Abrogating the will of the PEOPLE in favor of the politics of a few UNELECTED officials in black robes.Hello again, El:

The will of the people cannot overturn the Constitutional rights of American citizens. It has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with the law. Would you be saying the same thing about the court if they were upholding the Second Amendment?? No, you wouldn't.

Nope. Got to stay consistent with the Constitution, El. If you don't support ALL the amendments, the one you DO support may be next...

excon

As I have said before, there is no constitutional right for men to marry men or women to marry women. Never has been, never will be.

As I have said before, there is no constitutional right for men to marry men or women to marry women. Never has been, never will be.Hello again, El:

As long as marriage is a civil contract, with civil rights attached, ANY citizen may enter into it. To deny ANY citizen access to those rights, is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

I know you don't want to believe it.. It's OK with me.

excon

*sigh*

don't know where to begin. Where the sarcasm starts or the bashing begins.

iowan here. Idiot out wandering... ah hell, not like I haven't heard it before.

preceding the vilsak/culver years (current/former gov) we had 30 years of (R) leadership with branstad and ray, and ray is still a beloved public figure. The conservative rural areas and more liberal cities (tho' I refuse to call our cities liberal) make for a balance.

for every wacky harkin... and he IS... we have a grassley, senior senator, ranking member and former chair of the finance com.

personally... this decision came as a shock to me. I'm as shocked as others who state "iowa and not cali???" one morning it was on the front page as a decision to be rendered and the next day *poof* it was done.

don't know.

we lose all our young talent to other states. Maybe this'll lead to a reverse to the "brain drain"... gay couples and callous-handed farmers sharing waffle houses and hayrack rides. Let me go find my overalls. Oh wait. I don't gots me none.

wow.. I'm such a reject. Neither hick nor gay in Iowa. {cries self to sleep}

=P

As long as marriage is a civil contract, with civil rights attached, ANY citizen may enter into it. To deny ANY citizen access to those rights, is a violation of the 14th Amendment.


There are plenty of restrictions on who can be married ;even heterosexual ones... age ,family ,numbers of people in a marriage ;restrictions for marriage to the handicapped the list goes on and on. A man cannot have a concubine ,a commune cannot wed .

KP, I really didn't mean to be mean to you. I was just being funny (or trying to be). If anything Iowa can be really progressive in a lot of things that an onlooker would not even imagine. Been to Iowa and through it many times and I've always liked the good folks out there as they were sensible and down to earth types.

I do find it remarkable that Iowa did decide to do this though...

Just as long as the marriage is not to several men or several women... but just to one man or one woman is okay.

Just as long as the marriage is not to several men or several women...... but just to one man or one woman is okay.

Reference to dated, previous Idaho customs, not Iowa?

Corn. Potatoes. Same difference?

excon,

What makes you think that marriage is a civil contract? Or that it in any way is supposed to mimick civil contracts.

There are no limitations on what can and can't be done in a civil contract. There ARE limitations on marriage. Marriage cannot include more than 2 parties (polygamy is illegal). Marriage is not permitted between parent and child (incest is illegal). Marriage cannot include those under a certain age. There are many restrictions on marriage that do not apply to civil contracts. Ergo, marriage is NOT a civil contract.

Does marriage give certain rights between the partners in the marriage? Certainly. So do civil unions. Mostly those rights are the same in both cases, including laws under medical privacy and medical insurance coverage. That doesn't make them civil contracts.

What is wrong with civil unions for homosexual couples? Civil unions give the same rights as marriages. Your argument, excon, is that same-sex marriage is important because of the "rights" that marriage brings. But if civil unions give the same rights (and they do), why is it an issue for you?

As long as the outcome is the same...

Elliot

Elliot .I've been there with Ex before . He will invoke separate but equal in his apples and oranges comparison. As you point out; as far as the legal contractual issues are concerned ,a pursuit of civil union guarantees would more than fulfill all the requirements for "equal rights" .

Way to go Iowa! :)

Just to let you all know, we Canadians accept gay marriage, have for a long time. Why? Because we believe that all people have the same rights, regardless of color, ethnicity, sexual preferance or gender. Wow, what a concept.

Canada, a peaceful place, where everyone has the right to be who and what they are. So, welcome Iowa, you won't regret it, we never have. :)

Elliot .I've been there with Ex before . He will invoke separate but equal in his apples and oranges Hello again,

And, I've been here with you guys before too. But, when I ask the following question, you change the subject.

The right says that gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage, whatever that means, or they'll destroy it in some other manner. But, DESTROY marriage, the gays surly will. However, they can't seem to tell me how THEIR particular marriage will be destroyed by the marriage of Ted and Fred down the block. They can't tell me how gay marriage negatively impacts upon their children's marriage - or ANYBODY for that matter.

They just can't answer that... I know why... You do too.

excon

Actually the right say that marriage is a state law, and not even a "right" at all. And that the people of the state should have their rights to vote on this issue and not have it forced on them by a court ruling.

The right says that gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage, whatever that means, or they'll destroy it in some other manner. But, DESTROY marriage, the gays surly will. However, they can't seem to tell me how THEIR particular marriage will be destroyed by the marriage of Ted and Fred down the block. They can't tell me how gay marriage negatively impacts upon their children's marriage - or ANYBODY for that matter.

Exy, that's the religious aspect of gay marriage, not the legal aspect, and the two don't mix well at all.

The reasoning is that it states in the bible that Tom and Fred are forbidden to be in love, are forbidden to be a couple and therefore are forbidden to marry. But, shellfish is also forbidden and beating your wife is okay (big can of worms, I am opening you!).

If people put religion aside for a moment and realized that being gay is what it is, not a choice, not a "way of life" but a fact, something that cannot and will not be changed no matter how many scripture verses you cite, then we could move on. I don't see that happening.

Prejudice takes on many forms, this is one of them. Forget that the bible also says love thy neighbor, forget that God is forgiving and loving, just pick then stand your ground.

Religion shouldn't take precedence over the law, the constitution (which I admit, as a Canadian, I don't know much about) but somehow it does.

How can we ask the people to vote on this issue when the majority claim that gay marriage is against their religion, the very religion they have a right to practice because of the constitution.

I wonder what would happen if you all took away freedom of religion? It's the same thing as denying gays to marry.

And now I'll slink away, as I'm sure this post won't go over well.

Hello alty:

It goes over well with me, and I'm the only one who counts.

excon

Hello alty:

It goes over well with me, and I'm the only one who counts.

excon

Well, that explains a lot.

However, how will gay marriage affect MY marriage?

By changing the definition of marriage, it DEVALUES my marriage from a religious perspective. It affects my freedom of religion.

Furthermore, from a sociological/historical perspective, the purpose of marriage is to create a system by which children can be birthed and raised in a protected environment. Children cannot be birthed in a gay marriage. Ergo, a "gay marriage" is a misnomer and serves no purpose.

I would also argue that gay marriage is detrimental to the gay community. If "gay" is, as many gay people would have us believe, a genetic or biological occurrence, then gay marriage is a receipe for disaster for the gay community. Marriage is, by its nature, binding in terms of whom one has sex with. A gay marriage would have to be monogamous... otherwise it's a sham. A monogamous gay marriage cannot create children, which means that the genetic or biological proclivity for "gayness" cannot be passed on to the next generation. Yes, gay couples could adopt, but that doesn't pass on the genetic/biological factors to the next generation. Therefore, a gay, monogamous couple will, by nature, kill itself off from the genetic/biological perspective by not having children.

The only way that such a couple could pass on their genes is by having sex outside the gay marriage with someone of the opposite sex. Which means that the marriage vows are being broken... that there is no real marriage in the sense of monogamy.

The result is either a dying off the gay community from a lack of passing on their genes, or else a mass-breaking of marriage vows that dilutes and devalues the meaning of marriage. Either way, it is a receipe for disaster.

THAT is how it affects MY marriage... by devaluing it and diluting the meaning.

Again, you have not answered a basic question, excon, and keep changing the subject. If civil unions grant the partners all the same rights as marriages, why do you need gay marriage? What purpose does it serve other than to piss off those who are against it?

Elliot

Again, you have not answered a basic question, excon, and keep changing the subject. If civil unions grant the partners all the same rights as marriages, why do you need gay marriage? What purpose does it serve other than to piss off those who are against it?Hello again, El:

When and IF the country, (that would be ALL the states) passes a civil union law that grants the same rights to gay people as to straight people, we can have that discussion.

But, the country and/or states hasn't, and they're not about to. If they did, tom is right, I WOULD raise the separate but unequal doctrine, but I don't have to YET. The argument is moot.

So, until that becomes a question, why not go for the whole ball of wax? Who knows? If you righty's would actually OFFER civil unions like you wag your tongues about, things might be different... But, they're not. We're still in the tongue wagging stage.

excon

Ex polls show a majority favor civil unions. Where States have passed civil union and domestic partner laws laws through their legislatures (and there are a bunch ) ,you have not heard a peep of opposition from me.

Excon,

Currently 15 states offer civil unions, domestic partnerships, or reciprocal beneficiary relationships, all of which offer the same rights as marriage. Only 3 offer gay marriage. I think there's something to talk about, excon. The country is moving toward civil unions, and you COULD be supporting a movement that has momentum and will likely become the law. You COULD be a part of that movement, which grants all the rights you are talking about without pissing off the conservatives. Instead, you choose the side that will likely lose in the long term because the vast majority of the country is against it. You'd rather fight for a lost cause than accept a reasonable alternative that grants you all the rights that you are looking for.

That's because it isn't about rights or equality or anything of the sort. You are simply a contrarian. You are against anything that smacks of the status quo, no matter its value.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Here's a hint: just because it's new and hasn't been tried before doesn't mean it's better. Just because the majority like something doesn't make it necessary to topple it.

Elliot

(and there are a bunch ) Hello again, tom:

A bunch?? Really.

The first civil unions in the United States were offered by the state of Vermont in 2000. The federal government does not recognize these unions, and under the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA), other U.S. states are not obliged to recognize them.

By the end of 2006, Connecticut and New Jersey had also enacted civil union laws; New Hampshire followed in 2007. Furthermore, California's domestic partnership law had been expanded to the point that it became practically a civil union law, as well. The same might be said from 2007 for domestic partnership in Maine, domestic partnerships in District of Columbia, domestic partnership in Washington, and domestic partnership in Oregon.

I wouldn't describe that as a bunch. Plus, in terms of actual rights, you'll notice that these laws grant less than married people get.

So, when you guys actually step up to the plate, and propose legislation that backs up the talk, we can have this discussion... But, you guys want it BOTH ways. I'm used to that.

excon

I see no reason for me to openly propose such laws . I simply said I don't object to them when they are the will of the people of the States.. AND.. I strongly object to the court's interference .

You COULD be a part of that movement, which grants all the rights you are talking about without pissing off the conservatives. You are simply a contrarian. Hello again, El:

Couple things. What good Jewish negotiator asks for half a loaf?

In terms of pissing off people, you don't mind doing that with your support of Israel. So, I'm a contrarian when I piss off conservatives, but when you piss off the world, you're a patriot. I understand.

Like I said about you guys. You want it BOTH ways. Too bad. The world doesn't work that way.

excon

Hello again, El:

Couple things. What good Jewish negotiator asks for half a loaf?

The one that knows that asking for the full loaf is a losing battle, and if he keeps pushing for the full loaf, he's not going to get anything.


In terms of pissing off people, you don't mind doing that with your support of Israel. So, I'm a contrarian when I piss off conservatives, but when you piss off the world, you're a patriot. I understand.

Like I said about you guys. You want it BOTH ways. Too bad. The world doesn't work that way.

Excon

No, I'm a contrarian too. That's why I'm able to recognize it in others.

But I also know which battles to fight and which to step back from for fear of losing the war. I also know which ones NOT to step back from, regardless of whether I lose the war or not because some things shouldn't be compromised.

This particular full loaf you are asking for is going to turn off those who would support you on the half loaf. The decision you have to make is whether to step back or continue the fight anyway. Is this something that you cannot compromise on? Even if it costs you the entire war?

Your decision, buddy, but if it were me, I'd go with the partial win over the complete loss.

Your decision, buddy, but if it were me, I'd go with the partial win over the complete loss.
Hello again, El:

Nahh. Victory is within our grasp. Do you know how I know?? Because we live in a wonderful country with a wonderful Constitution, written by very smart and insightful men, who granted equal rights to all its citizens. I'm just dopey enough to believe it.

I don't think that's contrarian at all. In fact, I think it's quite patriotic.

excon

PS> Besides, not to be outdone, the Vermont legislature just overrode the governors veto and legalized gay marriage... Whaddya know about that?

PPS> (edited) If this were an earlier debate on the same subject, you wouldn't be calling me contrarian. You'd be calling me uppity.

I'm just dopey

You should have stopped right there.


You'd be calling me uppity.

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

:D

The VT over ride and passing of Same Sex marriage is the first time this decision has been made by an elected legislature in the United States. However ;keep in mind that the original VT civil union law was imposed on them by the courts.

I think that social issues should be decided by a statewide referendum. It is not right for elitist, unnelected judges to force their often radical views on an entire state.

I think that social issues should be decided by a statewide referendum. It is not right for elitist, unnelected judges to force their often radical views on an entire state.

Thank G-d... another Federalist.

Thank G-d... another Federalist.

holy crap... I completely agree.

I choose to live in this state. If the judges, the politico's, and/or the people do not represent my values... well, I can get the hell out of dodge.

nobody promised that living your values would be convenient, no matter what side of the fence you live on.

Kp you just summed up the necessity of mobilty being central to the Federalist concept very well . Elliot in an earlier posting detailed the freedom of financial mobility Americans have .

But on a social level the most often argument made in favor of Federalism has been that a state can experiment and put into practice various ideas in order to find the best and most effective strategy before implementing that idea at the National level. Even more important ,Federalism allows the citizen to move from state to state to avoid or to find state and local governmental ,culture and society that best suit each individual.

Even more important ,Federalism allows the citizen to move from state to state to avoid or to find state and local governmental ,culture and society that best suit each individual.Hello again,

There are certain Constitutional rights that ALL citizens enjoy no matter where they live. That's what the Fourteenth Amendment says.

States are free to be as different from each other as they wish, as long as those differences don't infringe upon the Constitutional rights of its citizens. For example, a state couldn't tell its citizens that they were precluded from owning guns, even if it wanted to attract an anti-gun population. Or, it couldn't enact segregation, in order to attract a white supremacy type population.

As long as "marriage" comes with civil rights, ALL citizens are eligible to share in those rights. I refer again to the Fourteenth Amendment. No matter what you think about homosexuality, I truly don't understand how any American, cognizant of the freedoms this country is founded upon, would attempt to deny RIGHTS to people, that they themselves enjoy. I truly do not understand it. I don't spose I ever will.

excon

Hello again:

Before I go, did you stop arguing with me, because I've convinced you? Or did you stop because we've said it all?

I'm just trying to keep score here.

excon