• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Activist Judge Overturns Iowa AntiGay Marriage Law

parky76 said:
I am not a fan of same-sex marriage. I think marriage should between a man and a woman and same-sex couples should get EVERYTHING but the title of married.
Click to expand...

Sooo...

If it walks, quacks, and swims like a duck, please call it a "duck facsimile"?
 
KingMerv00 said:
Sooo...

If it walks, quacks, and swims like a duck, please call it a "duck facsimile"?
Click to expand...

Remember: Separate, but equal! Separate, but equal!

I've really never understood that position on the issue, since I'm really having a hard time coming up with an example from history where parallel programs instituted to deal with the thing for two different groups ended up NOT diverging significantly. Hell even male/female sports programs have issues, and there's really really good reasons to keep them separate (as opposed to really non-existent reasons to keep a gay 'not-marriage marriage' and a 'real marriage' separate (and in the language I used, I think we can see where I see THAT going).
 
parky76 said:
I am not a fan of same-sex marriage. I think marriage should between a man and a woman and same-sex couples should get EVERYTHING but the title of married.
Click to expand...

What difference does the title make if you're giving them the exact same rights anyway?

It seems like you're saying, "You can be married, just not married."
 
ponderingturtle said:
Interesting that intersexed individuals do not have equal rights in Iowa.
Click to expand...

HA! Well this should amuse you...maybe...

Where I work(in Iowa) we had a M to F transexual patient. He was married to a woman when he was a man, and then became a woman and is now married to a man. The thing is he is still pre-op when he got married and was still technically a man. The state however recognized him as a woman because he was in the preparation to become a fully converted male to female.

What I wonder is why the anti-gay lobby doesn't attack situations like that? Why is just the straight up homosexuals?
 
thesyntaxera said:
HA! Well this should amuse you...maybe...

Where I work(in Iowa) we had a M to F transexual patient. He was married to a woman when he was a man, and then became a woman and is now married to a man. The thing is he is still pre-op when he got married and was still technically a man. The state however recognized him as a woman because he was in the preparation to become a fully converted male to female.

What I wonder is why the anti-gay lobby doesn't attack situations like that? Why is just the straight up homosexuals?
Click to expand...

I was talking about intersexed though, not transexuals. That individual always identified as only one sex though.
 
My dad voted to ban gay marriage in Georgia while I voted against banning it, but his reasoning was allowing gays to marry would hurt the social security system.

Just to point out someone that doesn't seem to fit into any of the categories all ready listed.
 
Sefarst said:
My dad voted to ban gay marriage in Georgia while I voted against banning it, but his reasoning was allowing gays to marry would hurt the social security system.
Click to expand...

A pretty poor arguement though. It is such a small percentage of the population that it will have little effect.
 
ponderingturtle said:
A pretty poor arguement though. It is such a small percentage of the population that it will have little effect.
Click to expand...

That's not even the reason why it's a terrible argument. You could achieve a comparable result by not allowing redheads to marry, or Muslims, or people whose last names start with "W," or people born in February. That it will (allegedly) save some money doesn't make it okay.

The second reason it's a terrible argument is that people spend a ton of money on weddings, and that is ultimately going to mean more tax revenues, which includes putting money into social security.
 
Brown said:
According to the Des Moines Register (and other sources), Catholic leaders are upset and say that the decision will grievously harm children. From my standpoint, I don't think the Catholic Church has any moral authority to lecture anyone about hurting children.
Click to expand...

The obvious reference aside, I will argue that no homosexual marriage would do more harm to children than did Sister Claire Marie Meyer, the big fat nun I (and hundreds of others) had as our second grade teacher.

So don't think this is just about "priests molesting alter boys." The extent of abuse went a lot further than that.
 
There are still rumblings about the Iowa Supreme Court's decision, but (as of this writing) the Earth has not opened up and swallowed the State. There has been at least one death threat made against a gay legislator, and some politicians have put forth pig-ignorant approaches, such as "overruling" the Court with an executive order or simply saying that the Court's decision is "only an opinion" and not legally binding in any sense.
 
Brown said:
There are still rumblings about the Iowa Supreme Court's decision, but (as of this writing) the Earth has not opened up and swallowed the State. There has been at least one death threat made against a gay legislator, and some politicians have put forth pig-ignorant approaches, such as "overruling" the Court with an executive order or simply saying that the Court's decision is "only an opinion" and not legally binding in any sense.
Click to expand...

Ah, conservatives. They're all for law & order, except when they don't like it.
 
Upchurch said:
...


What?
Click to expand...
From the Des Moines Register:
"If I have the opportunity to serve as your next governor," Bob Vander Plaats told about 350 people at a rally, "and if no leadership has been taken to that point, on my first day of office I will issue an executive order that puts a stay on same-sex marriages until the people of Iowa vote, and when we vote we can affirm and amend the Constitution."
...
Bill Salier, co-founder of Everyday America, told the crowd that state lawmakers need to thank the Supreme Court justices for their opinion but say that it is merely opinion and that the law is still on the books.
Click to expand...
Being bat-spit crazy and being pig-ignorant would ordinarily be two strikes against someone, but for publicity hounds, they are an absolute boon.


One wonders: what WILL these folks do if the machinery to amend the Iowa Constitution is engaged and the citizens decide that they don't want to amend the State Constitution to take a giant step backward?
 
I'm trying to understand the Lt Gov's comments. They make absolutely no sense. At least, they show no indication that he has any clue about how the government works.

"The courts rule that the legislation is unconstitutional. So the governor should issue an executive decree."

Welcome to the world of a dictatorship. Or am I missing something?

My initial thought was, "He wants the Governor to pull a George Wallace?" Recall, Wallace later regretted his actions.
 
Cleon said:
Ah, conservatives. They're all for law & order, except when they don't like it.
Click to expand...

Kids, you can play this game too!

Ah, (insert political group). They're all for (blank), except for when they don't like it.
 
I'm wondering if someone closer to the action in Iowa can explain the whole "Let us vote" thing to me. What do they want, a direct referendum for the majority to squash the rights of a minority group? I mean, does Iowa even have state-wide referenda? I remember seeing local initiatives that were sent up, but generally regarding funding issues (to float a bond to pay for schools, or such). I don't remember laws being made by referendum at all.

So what are the "let us vote" people going on about (aside from ignorance of the government)? Mob rule? When can we vote to prevent lefties from getting driver's licenses? I mean, cars in the US are made for right footed people - lefties have to use their weaker foot to accelerate and brake; that makes them a bigger risk on the road; besides, driving is a PRIVELIDGE, not a right.

(ok, I realize that is BS, but it makes about as much sense as the anti-gay arguments)
 
I know some conservatives that think that it is ok for the majority to impose their will on the minority, simply because they don't like the ruling/law/whatever. Its really quite unfortunate, and I really really want to find the reasoning for it.

I am quite in favor of Gay Marriage. I don't see any problems, and it certainly does NOT diminish the marriage I currently have. if that makes me an evil godless heathen liberal out to destroy the United States, then so be it. better that then a true god-fearing american conservative who want to use the constitution of the States/country to QUASH the rights of another group.

And some people wonder why I refuse to become an American Citizen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom