I must say I chuckled giventhe situation with Craig, but this is no joke.
A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa’s law banning gay marriage. ” The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered Polk County Recorder Tim Brien to issue marriage licenses to several gay couples.
“It’s a moral victory for equal rights,” said Des Moines lawyer Dennis Johnson, who represented six gay couples who filed suit after they were denied marriage licenses.
Brian at Liberty Pundit: “Obviously, this will eventually wind up in the Iowa Supreme Court:it might even go beyond that. Eventually there will be an amendment offered to the Iowa Constitution, but I highly doubt it will pass. Stranger things have happened, though.”
Jay at STACLU: “most of the time when this kind of thing is “ordered” and forced on the people by the judicial branch it only results in backlash, new legislation, and making it even more difficult down the road for their advocates.”
Jeff at Protein Wisdom: “This is not an application of the law we’re witnessing. Instead, it is a form of moralizing from the bench ” and it emboldens social engineers of all stripes to look at court precedents analogously to find in their pet projects legal ground for overturning traditions that they cannot convince the electorate to overturn through the legislative process.”
My thoughts on this: I believe in benefits for gay couples, which is what these people are after. I support gay rights, but don’t feel that marriage needs to play a part in the process. This judge is out of order, as their constitution is clear. This will get ugly.
As you mention Craig…
I don’t think that most or these homophobic Republicans are hidden fairies- they simply don’t have any interest in any sex or fun at all. That’s why they are such unhappy & aggressive personalities!
Or to quote Woody Allen:
“All those Greeks were homosexuals. Boy, they must have had some wild parties.” :d
Mattias, go get an enima. You are full of scheiss.
Once again I look at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to lead the way in Civil Rights struggles and in things American. It’s only a matter of time before all decent and thinking Americans realize that you cannot rewrite the Constitution of any state to include anything but the identical rights and privileges afforded ALL Americans.
You cannot amend a Constitution to exclude people. It’s just unAmerican.
Craig is just another coffin in the nail of the Republican party. You’d think these people would learn that what you say and what you do needs to CONVERGE.
Eben, The order was stayed and appealed to a higher court here.
yes PCD.
That happened in Massachusetts too. It’s all part of the process. But as we’ve seen here reason prevailed and this is still the United States of America. The major thrust against it in this Commonwealth was the Roman Catholic Church who put forth a petition to get parishoners to sign and to have it put on the next ballot… it’s bias parading as religious sanctimony.
But in the end it won’t hold up to public vote nor should it.
Civil Rights cannot be held up to public vote in that same way that school integration in the 1960s couldn’t be in the South.
“But in the end it won’t hold up to public vote”
Seems to me everywhere the concept of calling a homosexual union a “marriage” has been voted on it lost.
Eben, afraid of the voters? I mean, you are a Democrat. Any time you don’t get your way, you scream the Public’s will. If the public’s will is to leave marriage as between one man and one woman, why are you so anti-american public?
2- “Mattias, go get an enima. You are full of scheiss.”
I knew, PCD, that I could count on you to assert my theory… :d
Mattias,
You have no theories, just scheiss.
- #8
PCD? ‘Afraid’ is the wrong word with reference to my feeling about the voters. ‘Hold little stock’ would be more appropriate. Once cannot (as aforementioned) trust a largely uneducated and often myopically religious public to vote on Civil Rights of any kind be it the ability for interracial marriage in the 1940s, school and public integration in the South in the 1960s, or gay marriage today.
Should we (homosexuals) be required to meet all the rest of the American standards/requirements you folks meet then we need – of obvious necessity – be afforded the identical benefits. And I sincerely doubt with the religionists and the fear innately there for the homosexuals in our midst that the public (even in Massachusetts) can be expected to do the equitable thing. The number of angry Roman Catholics circulating that petition is proof-positive.
And this isn’t about ‘getting my way’. I’ve been fighting for ‘my way’ (something I’d call FAIR play) my entire life.
It’s about fairness and equality. Make no more of it than that. If you do then it speaks only to an innate irrational fear of homosexuality.
We’ve had legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts since 2004 and it’s recently been held up in the State Supreme Court so it’s for real now. The sky’s not fallen, heterosexual marriage has not suffered for it, and no one (to the best of my knowledge) is marrying their dog. So there you have it.
#7 to Robert:
Yes the voters cannot be relied upon – en masse – to understand the Constitution be it State or Federal so what you write is scarily and unfortunately true. It’s pitiful but it’s the fact.
That’s why it must be mandated by those we put in office who (more often than not) have a greater sense of fairness than your average Joe. That’s why States have Supreme Courts.
Look- I love my man. I pay my taxes. I get headcolds, I have good days and bad and I like to sleep late on Saturday mornings.
I take out the trash on trash day. I keep my affairs in order – I don’t want you guys dictating whether or not I can marry the man I love. It’s none of your fucking business.
Just put yourselves in another’s shoes:
Should the tables be turned and you heterosexual folk were the ten percent- plus of the population and gay folks were saying you should be marginalized yet pay out of pocket identically to the majority you’d just possibly understand the fervor those of my orientation feel around this painfully obvious topic.
Marriage is a word. It’s not been copyrighted by Christians. It implies a loving union between two people who want to make a commitment. The word marriage holds a social connotation around it that is very important to anyone (irrespective of orientation) who has grown up around it. It means, quite simply, COMMITMENT of the highest order.
I think if we’re truly about fairplay and justice in this great nation we’d best move on to things which truly affect us as Americans and just “Move On”. Homosexuals aren’t going anywhere and to be behind the times will only make you appear foolish to the generations who come after you … much in that way we look at George Wallace and Anita Bryant now.
More reasons why we need to reign in the powers of judges who have abused their power of athority:-ss
There is no abuse in this area of which I’m aware just due process Snowy Egret with equal distribution of fairplay and civil rights in OUR Commonwealth.
How would you ‘reign in’ that power you suggest is being abused and why? You appear to prefer a totalitarianism of public opinion. That’s not democracy that’s quasi-fascism.
To which portions of my thought-through post do you take exception?
Eben,
You are the totalitarian. You support the tyranny of unelected judges to rule by fiat, not rule upon duly passed legislation.
If, as you claim, marriage is a word made up by Christians, why do you wish to PERVERT it so?
4- The Common Wealth did just that Eban. When the voters wanted to have their say, the legislature said no way..so I am not so sure that the arguement holds water.
Again you bring religion into the arguement, when it has been proven that this is an individual issue. Some of the most liberal states, without a strong religious voice, have banned gay marriage. Catholics, Jews, Lutherans, Wiccans, Blacks, Asians, Mexicans, etc., are all voicing their position,and the results don’t even come close to anything like the picture you try to paint. People of all persuassions talk a big talk about tolerance, until they get into that voting booth, and that’s where the truth comes out.
15- “When the voters wanted to have their say, the legislature said no way..so I am not so sure that the arguement holds water.”
Peejz,
what I am not sure about is why the legislation (apart from the formal procedures) should have any kind of decision on this at all.
If two people of the same sex decide to live together, they will do it anyway! If they don’t get married or have some sort of officially signed partnership, will it make them heterosexuals as a consequence???
There is only one argument against homosexuality as a drawback to the society and that is that it is rather unlikely that gay couples become biological parents and therefor they may harm the demography- they might not “produce” new future taxpayers… But honestly: not allowing them to marry eachother will not prevent this. And with some step further, whealthy gay couples might be allowed to adopt unwanted children of poor families and this would compensate the social drawback.
I really don’t care about what gay people do to be happy or to prove their love. It is their privacy and no gay (so far) interfered with my privacy either.
#1: “Or to quote Woody Allen:
“All those Greeks were homosexuals. Boy, they must have had some wild parties.—
Yeah, what great fun that sounds like, right Matthias?
But for most of the human race, it is something they can do without, have no interest in.
There is no such thing as gay “marriage”, and never will be. Marriage is a term that is defined within the context of religion. It is homosexual union and needs no euphemisms.
I don’t care what they do, it is their business. But they have no right, no cause to twist the meaning of yet another word to their bidding as they have already done with gay, partner, etc.
17- So to you it is just a question of the word/term that is used for the procedure?
Coming to your question on the fun of greek parties… well, as I am straight I am not sure how much fun one may have with only guys around (actually I DO know, because I studied at a technical college with the only few girls around, and those ones were a good argument FOR homosexuality
)…
I guess the real profitable kind of sexual orientation would be bi-sexuality because it sounds like “endless possibilities”, but I guess I’m not as cool as David Bowie to “attempt” that just like that… :”>
“…actually I DO know, because I studied at a technical college with the only few girls around…”
Yes, unfortunately, when you get into upper division classes, it is generally true that there are fewer women and they are less attractive.
#14 I never claimed PCD that ‘marriage was a word made up by Christians’. I simply implied that appear to be laying claim to it. The institution existed long before Jesus walked the earth.
There is no ‘perversion’ to it – simply equal application.
And again. Had one left Civil Right in th’60s up to the general population for public vote (since the American public is SO enlightened 8-1) black Americans would still be sitting at the back of the bus and drinking from separate fountains.
#17 Robert:
“I don’t care what they do, it is their business. But they have no right, no cause to twist the meaning of yet another word to their bidding as they have already done with gay, partner, etc.”
Yes it IS ‘our business’ and none of yours. So bug off.
Gay Marriage in Massachusetts doesn’t affect heterosexuals in any manner shape or form. You’re simply sounding idiotic and rather provincial.
No twisting going on. We simply refuse to allow you bastards to deny us our inalienable rights Robert. You guys suck at being married. Why not give us a shot at it? /:)
#17 Robert writes:
“There is no such thing as gay “marriageâ€, and never will be. Marriage is a term that is defined within the context of religion. It is homosexual union and needs no euphemisms.”
Name your religious source for that mistaken remark Robert.
It’s a part of this Commonwealth’s LAW no as much as that makes your skin crawl. Gay Marriage is alive, well, and thriving with many of my friends here in the Bay State.
……. I love how marriage goes from being a ‘sacred’ religious term to Robert to being in his next breath a “euphemism”. :d
20,21,22, Eben, your gay agenda was enacted by rogue Masshole judges by fiat. It isn’t going to be the law of the land.
If you want to set back your lifestyle, just stay in people’s faces. You get pushed back so bad it will make your head spin.
would my gay ‘agenda’ be similar to your ‘straight’ one PCD?
Yes. I believe it would. And one cancels out the other.
I have no more a ‘lifestyle’ than you do. A lifestyle is choosing to live on the French Riviera. An orientation is yours and my gift from God and genetics.
And I’m planning on staying right ‘in people’s faces’ PCD .. you’re losing ground you and yours. The candidates have to address their gay constituency now and the media is representing us as are the advertisers for local and national progamming.
The world is changing PCD and unless you live blindly burried in an ostrich’s sand hole I suggest you wake up to the reality that over ten percent of the population you pass daily on the street or on your freeways is (and intents to remain) happily gay in orientation.
Live with it or be left behind.