King: Allowing Gay Marriage Will Make Iowa The ‘Gay Marriage Mecca’

King: Allowing Gay Marriage Will Make Iowa The ‘Gay Marriage Mecca’

thinkprogress.org

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) reacted with fury to the Court’s decision, calling the ruling “unconstitutional” and denigrating the “activist judges” who decided it. He called for an constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and pressed for immediate action to prevent Iowa from becoming a “Mecca” for gay couples:

Now it is the Iowa legislature’s responsibility to pass the Marriage Amendment to the Iowa Constitution, clarifying that marriage is between one man and one woman, to give the power that the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself back to the people of Iowa. Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court’s latest experiment in social engineering.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Iowa Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

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

The staff of writers at ThinkProgress are trying hard to support Barry Soetoro, and attack anyone, who may disagree with him & his masters (authors of the New World Order).

Although, Steve King is the target of Obama nation & his homosexual-supporters, King still seems to be willing to stand strong against those, who think they can change the proper definition of "marriage". Just like the definition of "Gay", "Marriage" has been perverted & redefined by the world.

Apparently, Steve King is 1 of many angry folks, who hate (but do not fear) homosexuals, who are:

1. Trying to change what authors of the constitution meant when they wrote it.
2. Disregarding the most common-laws & the true definition of marriage.

thinkprogress.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 6-4-2009 by News And History]

Already posted here - well the topic is:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 4/5/2009 by greeneyedleo]

reply to post by greeneyedleo

Thanks for telling me. That topic doesn't cover news about "team ThinkProgress" vs. crazy Steve King, but I will leave a link to that thread under the "related-threads note" (above).

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

reply to post by News And History


I am confused by your post.

Are you implying that this person is correct, in that gay marriage is unconstitutional?

Because truly it is his rhetoric that is unconstitutional, marriage is a religious practice, when we are suppose to have a seperation of the two, his statements make no sense.

I agree with California on this one, just change the language to Civil Union. Let the religious people get "married" and we will be content with Civil Union.

Trust me, it's not the label of "married" that we are after, it's simply the benefits provided by a lawful union between two people who love each other that we would like to enjoy as do all the heterosexual people.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower

I don't believe Steve King. There's not 1 politician that I trust. If he believes the constitution & the proper definition of marriage is not worth perverting, that's just fine. No man has the authority to change our language (especially the proper definitions of our words), nature, and common-laws.

As usual, the occult government is trying to mislead us just enough, until we are completely under their control, accepting their laws & practices. We're supposed to be sovereign-individuals, not subjects of power-hungry occult-organizations.

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

reply to post by News And History


You have yet to define these "common laws" in either this thread or your other one on this subject.

Marriage is no longer religious; if it was, a license with the state would not be necessary. Since said license is necessary, the state should not be able to discriminate against any adult couple who wants to get married. The state cannot legally discriminate.

Hence, equal rights for both gays and straights when it comes to marriage under the eyes of the law.

[edit on 4/5/2009 by skeptic1]

reply to post by News And History


Who is the person to say what the "appropriate" definition of marriage is? And how is perverted?

And homosexuality is abundant in nature, for most if not all species of animals. Also we do have the right to change our laws, without changing laws blacks would not be able to get married, or sit on the same side of the bus as you, or run for office.

Need I say more?

~Keeper

reply to post by skeptic1

For example: Look at the proper definition of "common-law marriage". It's not about homosexuals. It's for men & women, who understand the definition of marriage.

Steve King understands the proper definition of common-law marriages. Common-laws are widely-accepted, so they're not even worth trying to change. People are going to keep & observe common-laws and uphold the proper definitions of our words (especially "marriage" and "gay"), no matter how long or how many governments want to change them.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by News And History]

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by News And History

 

Who is the person to say what the "appropriate" definition of marriage is? And how is perverted? And homosexuality is abundant in nature, for most if not all species of animals. Also we do have the right to change our laws, without changing laws blacks would not be able to get married, or sit on the same side of the bus as you, or run for office. Need I say more? ~Keeper

We have the proper definition of marriage. You may want to change it to please homosexuals, but that doesn't change history. Throughout history, marriage has had the same definition. Of course, it's been perverted, but that's not going to change the proper definition.

I'm not willing to forget or ignore common-laws or definitions of our words. No one on earth has the authority or power to control our minds & change the nature of mankind.

Colored people (all of us) don't change common-laws. Slavery never ended. We're still ruled by a racist government. They wouldn't dare end slavery. Slaves are being held against their will in many: prisons, private-properties, and basements all over the world. Common-laws don't change, no matter who wants them to change. The slave-trade is a well-known business going on in this country & others.

reply to post by News And History


So your concern is that the next edition of Websters is going to have a different definition of 'marriage'? A word being changed to fit the times is hardly something to be ranting over, but I dont think thats the real problem you have here.

The real motivator of this issue is the tax issue of tax deductions that homosexual couples wish to also have like heterosexual couples.

This brings us to the issue of the tax system, it in itself is old and outdated.
We could easily end this issue and let the religious institutions decide for themselves as marriage is a religious practice.

The government has no right to try and define marriage to begin with, they couldn't even care to begin with on this because it's worth nothing more than getting into and staying in office. As in it's only a vote attractor.

This is why we need a flat taxation system without any fancy deductions or any unwanted and unnecessary complications to irritate people.
You want a flat sales tax on every purchase instead of all of this bull$#!t we have.

10% base tax that can be adjusted no higher than 15% and no lower than 5%. The money earned by this is divided by the Federal, State and Local level governments.

I sit here and read these posts about equal rights for gay couples and it really does not sit right with me,
Does anyone ever think of the parents of these gay people?
When hetrosexual couples get married they usually do it because they love each other and want a family and then thier children get married, have children and we become grandparents. that is the normal model for family life and the only reason you are here is because your parents wern't gay.
Would i like grandchildren and all the fun and joy that they bring, of course i would, But will i? NO.
My son was groomed from the age of about sixteen by a homosexual and he now lives with this person in a jointly owned house many miles from where i live.
The problem for me is that he is 51 and my son is 23, in fact, he is one day younger than my wife.
So forgive me if i knowing that my son is having oral sex and and having anal intercourse with this man makes me a bigot.....

So yes, gays getting married does effect some people and i hope it never happens where i live.

reply to post by jon1


So because of your personal experience, homosexuals everywhere shouldn't be allowed to marry? Should heterosexuals not be allowed to marry because rich old men marry women young enough to be their grand daughters?

Originally posted by TheDustman
reply to post by jon1

 

So because of your personal experience, homosexuals everywhere shouldn't be allowed to marry? Should heterosexuals not be allowed to marry because rich old men marry women young enough to be their grand daughters?

Hetrosexual sex is normal but i find that my son who i brought up from the day he was born was not meant to be sodomised by someone who was 28 when my son was born.

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by News And History

 

You have yet to define these "common laws" in either this thread or your other one on this subject.



Marriage is no longer religious; if it was, a license with the state would not be necessary. Since said license is necessary, the state should not be able to discriminate against any adult couple who wants to get married. The state cannot legally discriminate.

Hence, equal rights for both gays and straights when it comes to marriage under the eyes of the law.

[edit on 4/5/2009 by skeptic1]

I don't know why you have such a hard time with this. I don't know why any gays have a hard time with this.

THE FACT IS, GAYS were NEVER barred from getting married! TJHIS IS A LIE! They have ALWAYS been able to marry.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower


And homosexuality is abundant in nature, for most if not all species of animals. Also we do have the right to change our laws, without changing laws blacks would not be able to get married, or sit on the same side of the bus as you, or run for office.

Need I say more?

~Keeper

Oh don't even think you can compare people whose sexual bent is none of our business to the struggles the Blacks had during the civil rights movement and just because animals like monkeys, throw their fecal matter and deficate where ever they feel like, does not justify humans doing it.

reply to post by jon1


But the same dynamic your describing happens with heterosexuals. Surely you dont think the mothers of those girls are proud that a leering old vulture managed to buy her as a piece of arm candy until he dies. Those kinds of relationships are just as hair raising for parents of hetero and homosexuals alike. You cant possibly believe that EVERY homosexual relationship is like the one our son is described in, can you?



[edit on 6-4-2009 by TheDustman]

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by News And History

 

I am confused by your post.

Are you implying that this person is correct, in that gay marriage is unconstitutional?

Because truly it is his rhetoric that is unconstitutional, marriage is a religious practice, when we are suppose to have a seperation of the two, his statements make no sense.

I agree with California on this one, just change the language to Civil Union. Let the religious people get "married" and we will be content with Civil Union.

Trust me, it's not the label of "married" that we are after, it's simply the benefits provided by a lawful union between two people who love each other that we would like to enjoy as do all the heterosexual people.

~Keeper

If the Church had any say over the word marriage and how it is defined, your misplaced antagonistic views including your bigotry of religion would make sense but the Church just happens to use the same word to define that which is between one man and one woman. You see, some in Government know the meaning of words too and if Married people wanted to have the name changed to "civil unions" they would so who are gays that are not married, to have all those married people have to change all that. Like I said, Gays may think they are "special" but more and more they are beginning to justify all this alleged bigotry they believe is like not unlike Black went through.

This is why Blacks who are gay only fought for those civil rights they were being deprived of and NOT those predicated on what kind of sex they are about having.

I have no idea what goes on in the heads of people who fear gay marriage. It doesn't hurt anyone else. It certainly doesn't effect my life if two dudes or two girls decide they want to tie the knot.

Would the gay marriage fear mongers prefer gay peeps went to disco's every weekend, living promiscuous lifestyles instead?

Let em hitch I say!

IRM