It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Moving speech to Iowa legislature regarding gay marriage and civil unions

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:04 AM
Zach Wahls, a 19-year old engineering student at the University of Iowa gives a moving address on Feb.1 to the Iowa legislature, who were considering a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in the state.

Sadly, the resolution (Iowa House Resolution 6) passed, which IMO is a slap in the face to many Iowans who have successfully raised children and maintained a family life despite public prejudice and ludicrous laws which unnecessarily put undue pressure on families with gay parents.

What Zach says is probably true of all such families. It is time in this country to end the discrimination against valuable citizens and loving families who are every bit as legitimate as any heterosexual family units.

Do we need more proof that the government is actually in the business of destroying the family unit so that the state can assume the role? The entire premise of the bill is that traditional marriage between a man and a woman is somehow compromised by allowing gay couples the same privilege. I suggest the true motivation is that insurance companies do not wish to be saddled with additional coverage for spouses that recognizing gay marriage might entail.

Here is a link to the Huffington Post article where I found the video:

House Joint Resolution 6: Amending the Iowa Constitution to Define Marriage as Between One Man, One Woman:

I have known many gay couples and even some with children. They are the same as anyone else - they work, they play, they argue, they struggle to make ends meet. Most of the children of such couples I have known have been very, very bright, accepting and congenial. If this is failure someone please explain to me why it is.

Here's an excellent related thread by SaturnFX titled "GOP to widen scope of proposed same-sex marriage ban" -

edit on 4-2-2011 by Asktheanimals because: added comments

edit on 4-2-2011 by Asktheanimals because: added link

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

Yes, same sex unions should be allowed.
All marriage licenses through the government should be outlawed. Why does it take a license for a lawful activity?

The government should not be involved in contractual agreements between same sex unions and they should not be involved in marriage. I can agree with that. Marriage is a union of a man and a woman in the eyes of themselves and their God if they believe.

How bout them apples. And some probably thought I would be against it.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:43 AM
Ugggh... I honestly don't see the big deal anymore. Government officials should just let gay couples have rights as well.. I'am a lesbian and am happy with my spouse and everyday I see and hear so much things but what everyone fails to realize that nobody knows what to believe in anymore. Everyone see's that its wrong cause of the bible and religion. I myself see differ and are figuring out alot with everything going on in life. I'm at the point where I'm still gonna live my life and love my wife and fight for my relationship regardless of what the government says or does..Only cause I know that the government is a bunch of liers. I can bust everyone's bubble about the bible and contradictions of speech but I rather keep that to myself..

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:47 AM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

Lol... not really.. a person who truely supports limited government would see the contractual union of two humans for the purpose of income and liability sharing as well as medical and insurance pooling is not actually something the Government should be regulating based on gender. If anything, the government should treat it as a business arrangement (imho) and stop meddling beyond that. If the people want to call it marraige and involve a priest/minister/rabbi/monk/cleric/clown with red nose then that is a matter of ceremony, not government.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:59 AM
reply to post by rogerstigers

Well, that is kind of what I was getting at. Get the government out of both arrangements.

What purpose does the government have doing licensing marriage in the first place? Especially something that is lawful? Right?

Marriage in a church, mosque, blah, blah.

Union in a church that allows it, not mosque, blah, blah.

And a prenuptial contract. Case dismissed. I just solved the entire problem.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:09 PM
This guy just made me feel proud to be an American. Talk about family values - Zack Wahls is the living embodiment of the core American values. Respect, commitment, honesty, integrity, and above all, he's standing up to defend his family in front of his government.

He's like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Thanks for sharing! Star and Flag for you!

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:12 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

Just to give you a heads up. . . .
I am a conservative.
I am in the Army.
I am a gun owner.
I am a member of the Tea Party.
I am also a parent of a gay son. One I love very much.

Government shouldn't be the ones that define "normal". Speaking as someone who is familiar with the government, they wouldn't know "normal" if it voided its bowels on their collective heads.

That's my opinion on the subject.

S+F for the attention.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:13 PM
I do not personally believe in gay marriage but civil unions seem perfectly acceptable to me. However there is no mention within the US Constitution or Iowa state Constitution regarding the issue of marriage and I personally believe it should remain that way.

If a church leader makes the decision to marry a homosexual-couple, while I personally disagree with it, I believe no law should interfere. But the state (judges, etc…) should be allowed to only perform civil unions because marriage is a religious rather than state institution.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:40 PM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

I know that you are a conservative but somehow your response doesn't surprise me. I think marriage is a religious institution rather than civil and as such should be left for the churches to decide who they wish to marry.
I do think the government has a role in eliminating discrimination and that is my main point here. Gay couples are not treated equally by government and this is what I feel needs to stop.

Funny thing is, of the gay people I know most of them are fiscal conservatives and were it not for the bipartisan atmosphere would probably reject much of the democratic parties platforms. It's as though they feel they must swim to one boat or the other with no option in-between.

I'm also tired of the stereotyping of conservatives and the thinking that if they believe in one policy they must believe in them all. People such as yourself constantly shatter that stereotype and shows conservatives to be true thinking people, divergent in views, willing to adapt to circumstances and even having a heart. Imagine that!

Thanks for your reply,

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:57 PM
reply to post by beezzer

I can't tell if I'm conservative or liberal anymore and frankly I think both labels have been rendered nearly useless.

I am a gun owner (and operator!)
Fiscal conservative
All for traditional marriage. But not against gay marriage
I am anti-abortion but still believe in freedom of choice. Who am I to force my views on someone else about something as important as having a child?
I believe in the Bill of Rights and the Ten Commandments.
I believe in separation of church and state.
I believe in God yet have many complaints about organized religion.
I hunt yet ascribe somewhat to the concept of "animal rights"
I believe in freedom and responsibility, they are both sides of the same coin

Anyone can see why I don't easily fit in with any party affiliation but I suspect I am far from alone. I know there's plenty of other people who don't participate in American politics for the same reason - there is no party that promotes our views. I had high hopes for the tea party but once the likes of Palin and others jumped on the bandwagon I had the strong suspicion that it had been compromised.

We know what's important - family first and everything else should act to support that. If it doesn't, it's an impediment to growth and freedom and needs to be removed. Resolution 6 is one such obstacle to human happiness.

Thank you for service to our country and being proud of your family.
Regards, ATA

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:13 PM
I think one thing that bothers me the most about the gay marriage issue is the utter and sheer hypocrisy of some. I've come across numerous folk who loudly proclaim themselves to be 'pro liberty' who in the next breath will go on a tirade about how wrong gay marriage is, and how gays shouldn't have the same rights as straights. How is that anywhere approaching being for liberty? To me that smacks of 'I'm pro liberty, as long as it fits into what my personal organized religion says is right."

Every single American citizen should have the exact same rights. I don't care what demographic one belongs to. After all, basic human rights are inalienable, correct?

The government shouldn't be in our homes or our bedrooms. A license for this, a license for that... it's getting ridiculous. Marriage is a commitment between two individuals... the State should have nothing whatsoever to do with it, other than assuring that every American has equal protection under the law.

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:53 AM
reply to post by Misoir

The term 'marriage' has nothing to do with religion. It's simply associated as such in our society, that only the blessings from a member of the church will constitute a marriage. So much so that our laws have been formed around the concept.

This is where the argument for civil unions and marriages comes to play.

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

A civil union simply establishes a union between individuals outside the realm of marriage. The individuals are seperate from everyone else, but equal, which is ultimately not equal at all.

The video shows a shining example of a percieved threat to children that those opposed to same-sex marriage suggest, that same-sex parents will somehow damage children.

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:02 PM
double post
edit on 2/5/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:02 PM
Moving speech. The government has absolutely no say about what goes on between two people or within a family. Marriage is an emotional and spiritual state that cannot be governed by laws or opinion. A license to marry? Pfft. A man-made construct and contract that doesn't bind except in our minds. That this is even an issue at all is purely financial and opportunistic in nature. We made our bed, though. Chose our own shackles. So now we have to deal with the consequences. The only way we'll ever solve this is to reject it. But too many people have too much invested financially to do this. Or at least they think they do.

edit on 2/5/2011 by ~Lucidity because: typo...grrr

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:19 PM
This issue has long struggled due to media generated false dichotomies that ultimately don't match reality.

Let us look at the real issues here. It isn't "gays can't get married". It's "2 gay people who wish to reach the same status in society as a married couple can not". There are many, MANY privileges which people married receive, that a gay couple can't receive. Even through civil unions.

I don't think many gay couples care about getting a religious ceremony. Marriage, if it is as many claim it to be a religious ceremony and a spiritual connection recognized by god, then the state needs to stay out of its affairs completely. And if the state is going to give a status to some people that is withheld from others from obtaining due to who they are, that needs to be abolished completely.

What we don't need is say, churches being forced to accept gay couples and giving them a religious ceremony. Churches should make that decision themselves, and some have as I understand it.

Really, this issue is stupid. Everything about this in the public light is spiraled into idiocy and irrationality causing this debate to continue. If you want a dichotomy to choose from, here it is; either marriage is a strictly spiritual matter and the state must be taken out of the equation completely, or marriage is a societal matter and the state must look at gay couples on the same level as straight couples. Either which way, it ends the issue completely. Either no one gets the rights, tax breaks, privileges, etc or everyone does.

new topics

top topics


log in