Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman

Ah, crap.

I suggest you all ready yourselves for the coming apocalypse. I've been preparing for this for a very long time, so I humbly recommend that you follow my lead. I'm off to secure my doors, windows and chimneys and take position behind my fortress of weaponry in preparation for the arrival of the marauding bands of homosexuals that will surely come my way. The gays are renowned for their amorphous nature and remarkable agility, so take care to seal even the smallest openings in your home.

I knew this was coming, I knew it!


[edit on 5/4/09 by paperplanes]

Does this mean that I could marry two women in the state of Iowa? If so sign me up!!!!!! "I'd rather have two women at the age of 21, than one at the age of 42" W.C. Fields.

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by News And History

 

Then, what are the common laws?

Political laws? Man-made laws? God's laws?

They're misleading, just like the people, who wrote them. F* the government. We don't need them, and we don't want them.

Originally posted by paperplanes
Ah, crap.

I suggest you all ready yourselves for the coming apocalypse. I've been preparing for this for a very long time, so I humbly recommend that you follow my lead. I'm off to secure my doors, windows and chimneys and take position behind my fortress of weaponry in preparation for the arrival of the marauding bands of homosexuals that will surely come my way. The gays are renowned for their amorphous nature and remarkable agility, so take care to seal even the smallest openings in your home.

I knew this was coming, I knew it!

Are you making fun of gay people? Read the proper definition of the word, "gay". You don't have to be a homosexual just because you're gay. The mood of gayness doesn't depend on anyone's sexuality.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by News And History]

Originally posted by News And History

Are you making fun of gay people? Read the proper definition of the word, "gay". You don't have to be a homosexual just because you're gay. The mood of gayness doesn't depend on anyone's sexuality.

Way to reveal yourself as a troll. If you honestly think the argument you're about to launch into is in any way valid, you're beyond debate and really should just be ignored. If you want to argue over semantics and the English language in general, you better first take a long hard look at how you've butchered 90% of your posts with your flagrant misuse of hyphenated words and realize how weak your position is. Don't try to act like an expert if you aren't one.

Also: Congrats Iowa, it's getting rare these days to see such a sudden outbreak of common sense.

[edit on 5/4/2009 by Thousand]

Originally posted by News And History
Homosexuals & their supporters (especially the world-government) celebrate as more people are forced to accept homosexuality and other acts, which are done to provoke christians & get a negative reaction from all non-occult religious-groups, "orthodox jews", "christians", and muslims. Those same groups influence most (if not all) people, who have joined Abrahamic groups or those, who claim to believe in the father of Abraham.

www.desmoinesregister.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 4-4-2009 by News And History]

Wow, you sound like you want the crusades starting up again. Your talk here is extremely scary. Why is it that the religious are often the most violent and bigoted of people? I really don't see the problem with gay marriage. In the words of George Carlin, "Why don't we let them all get married and be as unhappy as straight people are?"

Your talk of the occult is ignorant at best. Do you have any idea how peaceful some of the occult religions are? Why is your religion the right one? You have just as much evidence as any other religion that you have the right one, that being no evidence at all.

Oh and did you mean these laws are created to provoke Christians or people being gay is? The laws are created because there are many people who support gay rights, that's how a republic or democracy works. Let us also remember something, the constitution of the USA is free from your religion. Maybe you should read it again, i'm not even American and i seem to understand it more than yourself.

If you meant that people being gay is designed to provoke christians, well i'm sure when these guys and gals are bedding down for the night, extreme religious people don't really enter into their minds

[edit on 5-4-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by skeptic1
This is about humanity. All of us are equal. None are more or less than others. That being the case, all of us should have equal rights.

Quite obviously, we are not all equal. There's nothing in the Bible nor in the Declaration of Independence nor anywhere else that says we are all equal. This equality nonsense is a civil rights mantra, but it's a lie.

The only "equality" we are assured in America is equal opportunity. Period.

What other kind of equality is there? Equal intelligence, equal morality, equal wealth? There is no equality anywhere in this world, and in most countries there's not even equal opportunity to change your station nor increase your wealth.

So don't give me that we are all equal baloney.

Equal opportunity does not mean that you're guaranteed happiness and comfort in life. All we're guaranteed is freedom to pursue happiness. Doesn't mean you're going to get it, but you're welcome to pursue it.

But, no, the minority does not have the right to impose its will on the majority. That's what overturning the vote is: Imposing the will of a handful of people over and above the will of the masses.

That is tyranny.

I have no problem with gays or blacks or legal immigrants or anybody else — but I do have a problem with minority activists using the court system to overturn the majority vote. That's a good way for minorities to get their asses killed, attempting to force the majority to change against their will.


— Doc Velocity

The attitude of this country towards the gay community is so ridiculously silly and out-right pathetic. I live in Seattle which has a very awesome, vibrant, and open gay community. My business partner is gay. So to me the hysteria in this country over gay marriage is just a symptom of how mentally behind this country is. In all my life out of all the gay people I've met (some I liked, some I didn't) their lifestyle choices effected me in absolutely no way. People are just people. I really don't get the hate for gays in this country. Although I do have some issues with the gay culture because I think it advocates being some what powerless and strongly pushes stereotypes, but again that has absolutely no effect on me or my life so why should I care or involve myself in their lives?

This is just another thing American Religion takes a swing and misses at.

Gays getting married... serves absolutely NO purpose on ANY level.

You don't have to be married to be happy. I'm sooooooooo sick of hearing the whole "we have a right to the pursuit of happiness." Just be happy you're allowed to make your relationship public for the love of God..

Me and my girlfriend have been together for over two years and we're as happy as two peas in a pod. No plans to get married within the next few years.

Them wanting to get married is a call for attention, nothing more.

Originally posted by Ketzer22
Gays getting married... serves absolutely NO purpose on ANY level.

You don't have to be married to be happy. I'm sooooooooo sick of hearing the whole "we have a right to the pursuit of happiness." Just be happy you're allowed to make your relationship public for the love of God..

Me and my girlfriend have been together for over two years and we're as happy as two peas in a pod. No plans to get married within the next few years.

Them wanting to get married is a call for attention, nothing more.

That is a ridiculously clueless statement.

Here's one example: gay partners together 20 years. They bought life insurance to take care of the remaining spouse when the other dies. They bought it in a state where it was legal and binding. Insurance companies sell policies all the time. Their policy was sold to a company out of their state. When the surviving spouse tried to collect the insurance he and his partner had been paying on for 20 years - - it was deemed null & voice. The company it was sold to refused to recognize same sex partners.

If they had been legally married - - there would never have been any question.

Marriage is about legal and equal rights.

reply to post by News And History


Wow you're a busy little propaganda machine aren't you?
With all these threads you're creating, I have to wonder if you are being paid by some religious organization??? Scientologist maybe??? Just curious

In any case, what's the problem with this?

Who does it hurt?

Are you an American? If so, since you hate this country soooooo much, why not leave and find one that is more to your liking? How about Iran or Syria?

[edit on 5-4-2009 by jfj123]

Umm... OP, I hate to break this to you. But marriage PREDATES Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. It backtracks into pre-history. People should be ashamed of themselves for forcing their ideals on others who believe something different. Homosexuals getting married doesn't effect heterosexuals int he slightest, but because your religion says so, you have to try and strip their rights away from them. People opposed to gay marriage always say that those evil gays are trying to force their agenda on you... but that's exactly what you're doing by attacking them. Them getting married doesn't effect you, but you PREVENTING them form getting married greatly effects them. It's like telling them that they're less than human because they're different.

How dare they, those evil godless heathens who dare to love someone of the same gender, try to impose their will over yours. Only you are allowed to do that to others. Is that what I"m hearing? often times, it is.

Whenever someone argues against gay marriage, they usually fall into that category. They don't use common sense, they use religious arguments and flawed logic. Guess what... homosexuality exists in the animal world, to. Which means it's completely natural. People love who they love.Telling them they can't get married is just like telling women that they don't have the right to vote. You'd be telling the woman that she's less than a man because of the way she was born.


edited to add this: It's not about accepting homosexuality. You're always free to disapprove of things. But you have to ask yourself, do your desires carry any more weight? Should your beliefs trump someone elses? At what point is it acceptable to impose your will over another and restrict their choices? Are you really so much more important that you can bind their actions? Is it ok to tell people they're less than you because you can do something they can't? If you disapprove, again,nothing wrong with that. But how is it your place to force religious ideals in a non-religious situation? Marriage carries legal benefits, should they be prevented from having those benefits just because you dislike them?

[edit on 5-4-2009 by DemonicAngelZero]

I'm certainly no lawyer but the court's decision seems to use broad language. When they state that marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman, they invite all sorts of variety to become entertained.

For instance a man a woman and a farm animal.

Two men Three women.

Two farm animals.

Three women and a gorilla.

I am being a little humerous here, but I assure you, whoever brings something creative to the clerks office in the courthouse will not be joking.

What will they say when some crazy old cat lady wants to marry her tabby?

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Cyberbian]

reply to post by News And History


How can you say that? Just because someone is homosexual it doesnt make them evil or any less of a person! They deserve the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage. Does it really affect you if they are able to get married? No it doesnt. I am all for it. Good for them!

reply to post by Cyberbian


Why do people automatically go to such extremes when discussing gay marriage?? :shk:

There is nothing remotely similar between gay marriage and marriage to a farm animal.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Quite obviously, we are not all equal. There's nothing in the Bible nor in the Declaration of Independence nor anywhere else that says we are all equal. This equality nonsense is a civil rights mantra, but it's a lie.

— Doc Velocity

You might want to review the United States Declaration of Independence wherein it states, in the opening paragraph no less, that,

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created Equal, ...". (Emphasis mine)



Thomas Jefferson, in that famous oberservation was not naively claiming that everyone was equally as intelligent, or wealthy or blessed with equal social status. He was stating that all men (and by modern interpetation, we are to infer that to include all women as well) are Equal Under The Law.

This concept, revolutionary for its time, is, quite literally one of the founding principles of our nation; that All are equal under the law.

Established as such, this principle, and the others upon which our nation was based, form the benchmark against which all subsequent laws and writs must be measured. These principles form the basic codicil, the fundemental "Will of the People" as expressed in the creation of the Nation.

To claim that a court ruling which upholds the precept of Equality under the Law is somehow an abrogation of the the people's will is to engage in the most disengenuous form of "spin".



How callous and cynical must one be, how dismissive of the collective intelligence, how weak of character, to cry that one's "rights" are being denied while actively seeking to deny similarly basic rights to one's fellow humans and countrymen!

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Once more, the central government not only refuses to acknowledge but refutes the Will of the People. Why even bother to vote when a handful of malcontent activists can overturn any vote through our corrupted socialist court system?

— Doc Velocity

Because they ruled it unconstitutional?

Seems they did this on the grounds of equality...

“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them,” Cady wrote.

“This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all.”

This is an amazing step forward!


"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created Equal, ...".

[edit on 5-4-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
You might want to review the United States Declaration of Independence wherein it states, in the opening paragraph no less, that, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created Equal, ...". (Emphasis mine)

Hold on, you're not going to get away with that... The full quote is actually the second paragraph of the Declaration, goes like this: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now, what do you think Jefferson meant by all men are created equal? Right off the bat, I could say that it's a sexist statement in that there is no mention of women. And, when the Declaration was written, very few people considered blacks to be "men," so you could say the Declaration was racist, as well. However, these are all meaningless word games, the semantics of the 20th Century.

Just so, modern activists glom onto Jefferson's words about equality without even understanding what he was saying.

When Jefferson said all men are created equal, he referred to all humankind deserving of certain rights from birth, that everyone is endowed by the Creator with the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

He is NOT saying that all people are equally competent — because they're not. He's NOT saying that all people are equally intelligent — because they're not. He is NOT saying that all people are equally wealthy and healthy and free — because they're not.

It's absurd to suggest that all people are equal except in the opportunity to pursue our own objectives. That's the only equality there is, and the USA is one of the only places on earth where your right to pursue your own goals is protected.

Yes, we can all run hither and tither pursuing our respective goals, but what we know to be true is that when many people put their heads together to pursue the same goal as a group, they are much more likely to succeed in their endeavor.

We also know this to be true, that the objectives of one group can and do often step on the toes of other groups, or rile them in some way.

This is why we have The Vote. In America, we vote for political candidates, we vote to enact new laws, we vote for all sorts of things that one group supports but another group opposes. We are all agreed that The Vote is better than civil war, yes? The majority does rule, as it should; and when the minority finally impresses its values on enough people, guess what? They become the majority, and then they win The Vote.

Like it or not, The Vote has worked in America — or at least it did until recently. By "recently" I mean within the last 25 years or so, as we have seen more and more minority activists challenging the majority vote through the court system, overturning perfectly legal votes and pissing off a lot of people.

Overturning The Vote is the same as saying "We don't NEED The Vote! We don't respect The Vote, we're going to IMPOSE our will on the majority IN SPITE OF The Vote! How do you like them apples?"

Well, I don't like them apples worth a damn. Because, see, I don't give a pig's ass what cause you are championing, I don't care if you're a militant black transsexual vampire, you do not have the right to impose your will on the majority. When you impose your will on the majority, in political terms, we call that tyranny.

Tyranny. That's a good reason to stage a revolution.

So, I don't know who's been massaging your balls and telling you that the minority deserves to run the world, but I've got a surprise for you. When a handful of people try to force the majority to change, and even break the rules to impose change on the majority, that little handful of people usually end up kneeling down to the guillotine before a cheering mob, yes?

Do what you gotta do, but be forewarned.


— Doc Velocity







[edit on 4/6/2009 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by Doc Velocity

Now, what do you think Jefferson meant by all men are created equal?

I think Mr. Jefferson meant that all men were created Equal under the Law; that no man, unlike the monarchs that ruled in the past and were ruling in what was his present day, could be allowed to be considered above the law. That no man could declare that he and his minions were somehow deserving of rights and privledges under the law that could be summarily denied his countrymen.

That for the Law to be the law it must apply To All as The Law.

Just so, modern activists glom onto Jefferson's words about equality without even understanding what he was saying.

When Jefferson said all men are created equal, he referred to all humankind deserving of certain rights from birth, that everyone is endowed by the Creator with the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I'm afraid that you must count yourself amoung those activists lacking in their understanding of Jefferson's words.

It might help your comprehension if you were to quote him correctly; "...Amoung these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Jefferson did not imply, as your editing of his text would suggest, that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were the only rights granted to men by their Creator; but that life, liberty and the pursuit of happines were Amoung the rights so granted. Inclusive in those inalienable rights was the right to be treated equally, under the law at least, if not in life.

He is NOT saying that all people are equally competent — because they're not. He's NOT saying that all people are equally intelligent — because they're not. He is NOT saying that all people are equally wealthy and healthy and free — because they're not.

Nor did I.

So, I don't know who's been massaging your balls and telling you that the minority deserves to run the world, but I've got a surprise for you. When a handful of people try to force the majority to change, and even break the rules to impose change on the majority, that little handful of people usually end up kneeling down to the guillotine before a cheering mob, yes?

Ah vulgarity, the last bastion of the rhetorically challenged.

Or do they call that "rallying the ideological base" nowadays?

And have a care when you speak of guillotines and tyrrany; my family was forced to flee to this country (USA) more than 300 years ago to escape persecution by religious tyrants.


I notice that you seem to have side-stepped the basic premise of my prior posting; that what the Iowa court (and the California court before it) determined was that the legal precept of Equality Under the Law is intrinsic to the State's constitution. The court, in its ruling, determined that a law banning same-sex marriage, a law which must base itself in the precedents set forth by the State's constitution and draw its legitmacy from said document, was itself, in violation of one of the state's constitutional precepts; that of Equal Treatment under the Law.


Perhaps you have no valid argument that proving Mr. Jefferson incorrect in his propostion that all men are created equal. No wonder you find it so difficult argue that some men are deserving of rights and privledges deniable to others of their countrymen?

Perhaps you would also argue that the "Right of Kings" is indeed a valid and necessary concept for establishment and maintenence of a well ordered society? As you say...

Do what you gotta do, but be forewarned.

You might not be chosen to be the King.

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
Ah vulgarity, the last bastion of the rhetorically challenged.

Wait a minute! Was that invective? Oh, I am so devastated, I think I'll go out and stage a protest, or maybe file a lawsuit... Are you not treating me as an equal?




— Doc Velocity







[edit on 4/6/2009 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by Doc Velocity

That's a good way for minorities to get their asses killed, attempting to force the majority to change against their will.

And if its the other way around, the majority attempting to force a minority to change against their will, then is killing also justified?
Is killing the only solution you can come up with?