Iowa SC: Gay marriage ban violates rights of gays and lesbians

[Name Lips]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30027685/

Iowa gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional
State supreme court says law violates rights of gays and lesbians

DES MOINES, Iowa - The Iowa Supreme Court says the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making it the third state where gay marriage is legal.

In a unanimous ruling issued Friday, the court upheld a 2007 Polk County District Court judge's ruling that the law was unconstitutional.

In 2005, Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, sued on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples in Polk County who were denied marriage licenses. Some of their children are also listed as plaintiffs.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

The case was appealed to the state Supreme Court in 2007, after Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson agreed with the plaintiffs and ruled that the ban was unconstitutional.

Hanson's ruling prompted nearly two dozen people to apply for marriage licenses in the county, Iowa's most populous and home to Des Moines. Only one couple, Sean and Tim McQuillan of Ames, managed to get married before Hanson stayed his decision the next day. Their marriage stands, but its validity could depend on whether the state's high court sides with the Polk County judge.

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court in December, Des Moines lawyer Dennis Johnson argued the ban violated his clients' due process and equal protection rights.

"We are suggesting that everybody be able to participate equally in an institution that has existed since the beginning of this state," Johnson said during arguments.

Separation of powers issue?
Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant Polk County attorney, argued that the lower court's ruling for the plaintiffs violates the separation of powers and that the issue should be left to the Legislature.

"We are not here opposing the individual plaintiffs' sincerity. We are here because, in our view, the issue is one for the Legislature to decide as a matter of social policy," he told the seven-member Supreme Court.

During oral arguments, Chief Justice Marsha Ternus explained that the high court would determine whether the district court erred by finding that the same-sex marriage ban violated the state constitution, and whether it erred by not allowing the county's expert witness testimony.

The timing could be awkward for state lawmakers who are on track to end the legislative session in coming weeks.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, told reporters that it's "exceedingly unlikely" the Legislature would deal with the gay marriage issue this year, regardless of the court's ruling.

"This is the final step in a lengthy legal proceedings," said Gronstal. "We're going to wait and see that decision and review it before we take any action."

Around the nation, only Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed gay marriage before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows domestic partnerships.

New Jersey and New Hampshire also offer civil unions, which provide many of the same rights that come with marriage. New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and legislators there and in New Jersey are weighing whether to offer marriage. A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont is before the state House.
Another step forward.

[Hatter]

I'm cautiously optimistic.

[Schizm]

Hell yes!

Teh gay is spreading! erm... yeah.

A midwest state having something like this occur is way huge, to me. Now, here's hoping that there isn't another proposition 8 debacle there.

[doc]

You can't help who you love, I'm all for it. Schizm before you get the wrong idea you're hunky in a hairy way but I like the poon

[Schizm]

awe, thanks doc, I didn't realize you'd noticed. :lol:

[Scarbonac]

:yes:

[doc]

awe, thanks doc, I didn't realize you'd noticed. :lol:

In a hemanish way :lol:

[Random Encounter]

Wow, a law that singles out a specific minority group to forbid them from participating in a government sponsored contract might be unconstitutional? Who'd a thunk it.

[doc]

Wow, a law that singles out a specific minority group to forbid them from participating in a government sponsored contract might be unconstitutional? Who'd a thunk it.

I hear Irony in you voice Grasshopper

[Name Lips]

Opponents still don't think of gays as a minority group. They think of them as psycologically ill at best, and evil at worst. They'll never admit gays are a minority group any more than they'd admit rapists are a minority group. It's all the same to them. Us goddamn liberals are step-by-step legalizing everything they see as evil and destructive.

But I like to think that every generation gets slightly more progressive. :)

[doc]

Gays are an intrigal part of the American landscape and a pretty big voteing block as well, it's past time people relize that and try to come to terms with the idea that a person can love thier own gender

[obryn]

Gays are an intrigal part of the American landscape and a pretty big voteing block as well, it's past time people relize that and try to come to terms with the idea that a person can love thier own gender
Doc, you're not sounding very redneckish. Could you please go back and edit your posts accordingly? It's creating cognitive dissonance with your avatar for me.

;)


Also, Go Iowa!

-O

[there_is_no_bob]

Also, Go Iowa!

-O
Less "Go Iowa", more "Go Iowa Supreme Court".

...I wouldn't lay money on this going unchallenged by some group or other of Iowans.

[AZRogue]

Opponents still don't think of gays as a minority group. They think of them as psycologically ill at best, and evil at worst. They'll never admit gays are a minority group any more than they'd admit rapists are a minority group. It's all the same to them. Us goddamn liberals are step-by-step legalizing everything they see as evil and destructive.

But I like to think that every generation gets slightly more progressive. :)

I've never thought of it as Liberal or Progressive, but I guess it can be considered that. I just thought about it from a Liberty standpoint. Imposing laws on other to limit their behavior when that behavior does not negatively impact others is, IMO, wrong. As in, deeply and disturbingly wrong.

But, then again, I'd go down the lawbooks from each State (or at least the Federal law books) with a magic marker and eliminate most of them, given the chance.

So, good news. Freedom and Liberty should always be protected from the populist opinions of any majority. Now let's see if the people fighting for this freedom continue to fight for other freedoms in the future. :)

[Merganser]

A same-sex marriage law passed the Vermont legislature yesterday. However, it did not pass by sufficient votes to overturn the promised veto, unless some representatives who voted against the bill then vote in favor of an overturn sometime next week or the week after.

[Ergeheilalt]

Less "Go Iowa", more "Go Iowa Supreme Court".

...I wouldn't lay money on this going unchallenged by some group or other of Iowans.

Hey, Iowa has one of the largest emerging state utility sponsored energy efficiency programs in the United States!

And good corn whiskey. :lol:

They're not all bad.

[tleilaxu]

it's only a matter of time. history is clearly on one side of this issue, and its not the phobes

[Utrecht]

Opponents still don't think of gays as a minority group. They think of them as psycologically ill at best, and evil at worst. They'll never admit gays are a minority group any more than they'd admit rapists are a minority group. It's all the same to them. Us goddamn liberals are step-by-step legalizing everything they see as evil and destructive.

But I like to think that every generation gets slightly more progressive. :)


I think that you are making this too black and white. Yes, there are lots of people (perhaps even a majority) think like what you said that gays are effectively "sick" or qualify as a minority group.

However, there is another significant group to consider - folks who %100 support Gays getting equal rights under secular law - but are concerned with the government telling non-secular organization who can qualify for their sacriments.

[Varaj]

However, there is another significant group to consider - folks who %100 support Gays getting equal rights under secular law - but are concerned with the government telling non-secular organization who can qualify for their sacriments.

:what:
Really? Can you point me to ANY legislation or court ruling that indicates that churches will be required to perform gay marriages?

[Harry]

However, there is another significant group to consider - folks who %100 support Gays getting equal rights under secular law - but are concerned with the government telling non-secular organization who can qualify for their sacriments.

That is a bogus argument. The government is not saying that churches have to allow gays to get married in their sanctuaries. It's not forcing any church to perform marriages against their will. Some states allow people to get married fairly young. Are churches in those states forced to marry them? States got rid of interracial marriage laws. Does that mean an ultra-right, racist church is forced to marry black and white couples? Bogus argument. Gays will not, I predict, flood the conservative churches of this country with weddings.

[Varaj]

That is a bogus argument. The government is not saying that churches have to allow gays to get married in their sanctuaries. It's not forcing any church to perform marriages against their will. Some states allow people to get married fairly young. Are churches in those states forced to marry them? States got rid of interracial marriage laws. Does that mean an ultra-right, racist church is forced to marry black and white couples? Bogus argument. Gays will not, I predict, flood the conservative churches of this country with weddings.

Bogus isn't a strong enough word. :)

Well as a non-Catholic I'm sure I can just demand that Catholic churches perform a marriage for me. :rolleyes:
Or I can walk in to a Catholic church and demand the recognize my marriage as being sanctioned by the Pope and God. :rolleyes:

To be blunt somebody would have to have an IQ lower than a retarded sea slug to do more than snort in disgust at the argument put for by Utrecht.

[there_is_no_bob]

However, there is another significant group to consider - folks who %100 support Gays getting equal rights under secular law - but are concerned with the government telling non-secular organization who can qualify for their sacriments.
Cite!


Man, I miss the gnome

[TiQuinn]

To be blunt somebody would have to have an IQ lower than a retarded sea slug to do more than snort in disgust at the argument put for by Utrecht.

C'mon, tell us how you really feel! :lol:

[Varaj]

C'mon, tell us how you really feel! :lol:

I sick of fucking idiots that don't realize we have too different things that use the same word.

Marriage in the US means two things that have no connection except in the brains of fucking brain dead sea slugs.
A legal marriage and a religious marriage.
Guess what all you idiots out there? Getting one does not get you the other.
Get "married" in a church and don't get legally married by filling out and submitting the paper work and try to claim the legal marriage. You will get smacked upside the head.
Get "married" in a church to 40 women and three cats and one over sized porcupine and see if you can be charged for bigamy.
Now get try to file legal papers to be "married" to 40 women and three cats and one over sized porcupine and see what happens.

[TiQuinn]

I sick of fucking idiots that don't realize we have too different things that use the same word.

Marriage in the US means two things that have no connection except in the brains of fucking brain dead sea slugs.

I'll go one farther and say there are plenty of people who know the difference and don't give a shit because their thought process goes along the lines of: "They're fags and they should get back in the closet."

[Random Encounter]

I'll go one farther and say there are plenty of people who know the difference and don't give a shit because their thought process goes along the lines of: "They're fags and they should get back in the closet."

Hatter can't get back in the closet. I've already filled it with dresses and shoes. :tongue:

[Hatter]

Hatter can't get back in the closet. I've already filled it with dresses and shoes. :tongue:

Get your own goddamn closet! :shakefist:

[Scarbonac]

Bogus isn't a strong enough word. :)




Que Eff Em Tee.

[doc]

Doc, you're not sounding very redneckish. Could you please go back and edit your posts accordingly? It's creating cognitive dissonance with your avatar for me.

;)


Also, Go Iowa!

-O A guy can change

Get your own goddamn closet! :shakefist: Get RE an armoire

[Utrecht]

That is a bogus argument. The government is not saying that churches have to allow gays to get married in their sanctuaries. It's not forcing any church to perform marriages against their will. Some states allow people to get married fairly young. Are churches in those states forced to marry them? States got rid of interracial marriage laws. Does that mean an ultra-right, racist church is forced to marry black and white couples? Bogus argument. Gays will not, I predict, flood the conservative churches of this country with weddings.

Bogus isn't a strong enough word. :)

Well as a non-Catholic I'm sure I can just demand that Catholic churches perform a marriage for me. :rolleyes:
Or I can walk in to a Catholic church and demand the recognize my marriage as being sanctioned by the Pope and God. :rolleyes:

To be blunt somebody would have to have an IQ lower than a retarded sea slug to do more than snort in disgust at the argument put for by Utrecht.

OK, rereading my post, I clearly did not explain what I was trying to say - and I agree Varaj, I am aware of no legislation anywhere/anytime what suggest where my previous post was implying.

Perhaps this will do it better.

It comes down to how one defines marriage - is it a secular or non-secular institution? (or both - which is of course the correct answer) - and because of the highly polarizing aspect of the discussion - both sides tend not to hear each other.

Yes, there are people out there who want to ban any sort of union between same sex couples (and they are on the losing end of history) - but many have no issue with same sex couples using the secular definition of marriage (aka, go down to the court house and get a marriage license).

The issue becomes when people misunderstand/bring the religeous element into it (marriage as a union under god) that the shit hits the fan (and both sides do it). Afterall, the archtypel image of marrige is two people stading at the chapel door, church bells ringing in the background.

IMO, the pro-same sex movement needs to first define what marriage means to them - and ensure that this is well understood by Americans.

[Varaj]

The issue becomes when people misunderstand/bring the religeous element into it (marriage as a union under god) that the shit hits the fan (and both sides do it). Afterall, the archtypel image of marrige is two people stading at the chapel door, church bells ringing in the background.

So? Plenty of churches already provide same sex religious marriage.


IMO, the pro-same sex movement needs to first define what marriage means to them - and ensure that this is well understood by Americans.

Two points.
They already have. They are looking for the same legal rights as everybody else.
Point two. What does the religious institutions have to do with the discussion. The government isn't going to step in to stop the churches that already perform religious marriages from doing them and the government isn't going to force churches that don't want to do same sex marriages to do them.

It is a strawman argument that is completely fucking retard that only mouth breathing retard sea slugs would latch on to.

[Hatter]

So? Plenty of churches already provide same sex religious marriage.

Yep, I could march down to the Houston chapter of the MCC and get married this weekend, it just doesn't carry any weight with the government. I don't see the religious argument as being valid at all, we're talking about civil marriage, not religious marriage. Churches that see homosexuality as an affront to their religion should not have to marry same-sex couples, that's fine it's their insistence to say that because their religion has a problem with it therefore no other institution should have the official capacity to wed people of their choice that I have a problem with.

[AZRogue]

A) Legalize any marriage between consenting adults legally responsible for themselves.

B) Marriages performed by a judge or justice of the peace should be protected and available to any and all that want them, as specified above--these marriages, if they want to be completely secular yet still achieve a sense of beauty beyond that of most courtrooms, can take place in parks, museums, gardens, or an old fashioned courthouse or they may be as simple as filling out appropriate paperwork to preserve more elaborate ceremonies, as listed below.

C) Marriage ceremonies may also, and further, be conducted by any religious organization as they see fit, or not, with no restriction upon that choice other than that imposed upon themselves by the organization's leaders. These ceremonies have no legal jurisdiction and are simply ritualistic in nature and are not meant to take the place of a legal and binding marriage contract as in section B.

Now, can we all go back to insulting AIG, or the rich, or the bailouts instead? :)

[Hatter]

Now, can we all go back to insulting AIG, or the rich, or the bailouts instead? :)
What if I want to marry a rich AIG exec who received bailout money? Will no one think of the gold-diggers?

[Utrecht]

So? Plenty of churches already provide same sex religious marriage.


True, but the overwhelming majority of churches do not.


Two points.
They already have. They are looking for the same legal rights as everybody else.


Not as well as you seem to think. I have yet to see a poll that indicates that this is true.


Point two. What does the religious institutions have to do with the discussion. The government isn't going to step in to stop the churches that already perform religious marriages from doing them and the government isn't going to force churches that don't want to do same sex marriages to do them.

ummm, because that is the historical and cultural image that marriage brings to mind for most people. I agree that is not what the government is going to do - but we are again back to the issue of what does "Marriage" mean. It is very easy for pastors/priests to say that the same sex marriage folks want to change the definition of marriage (aka a union between man and woman under god).


It is a strawman argument that is completely fucking retard that only mouth breathing retard sea slugs would latch on to.

Mouth breating aside - you are fighting a looong cultural memory here - and you can chose to ignore this - but I suspect that is an inconvinient truth.

I truly beleive that we believe the same thing here - and perhaps people are further along the acceptance curve than I beleive...

[AZRogue]

What if I want to marry a rich AIG exec who received bailout money? Will no one think of the gold-diggers?

Sorry, you can only marry rich AIG executives--post-bailout, at least--after being sponsored by ACORN. Luckily, matchmaking bus-rides are even now traveling across the country in search of love. Or so I think. ;)

[TiQuinn]

I'm sticking with the homophobia argument as opposed to any cultural or semantics misunderstanding.

[Varaj]

True, but the overwhelming majority of churches do not.


Doesn't matter.


Not as well as you seem to think. I have yet to see a poll that indicates that this is true.


So they are secretly trying to get US government to force Catholics to marry them in Catholic churches? :rolleyes:


ummm, because that is the historical and cultural image that marriage brings to mind for most people. I agree that is not what the government is going to do - but we are again back to the issue of what does "Marriage" mean. It is very easy for pastors/priests to say that the same sex marriage folks want to change the definition of marriage (aka a union between man and woman under god).

Gay couples can track down a church that will provide them a religious marriage without too much trouble so in the religious arena the change is already there. It will be and always has been a choice of the individual religions.
When pastors/priests/fox news says they are trying to change the defintion of marriage they are either retarded sea slugs or using strawmen to appeal to retarded sea slugs. If it is the second they are lying to further their own hatred.



Mouth breating aside - you are fighting a looong cultural memory here - and you can chose to ignore this - but I suspect that is an inconvinient truth.

I truly beleive that we believe the same thing here - and perhaps people are further along the acceptance curve than I beleive...

I'm not ignoring it I'm pointing out the people that buy into it are retarded sea slugs. :)

[AZRogue]

I'm sticking with the homophobia argument as opposed to any cultural or semantics misunderstanding.

To be more serious, I know a lot of people who are against same-sex marriages .... until they stop and think about it. Most actually do, in my own anecdotal estimation, imagine, instinctively, that marriages are something men and women do in a church. Just like their parents. Since it doesn't concern them they rarely put more thought into it.

If you lay it out for them, explain that allowing others to have more freedom does not in any way diminish their own freedom, that our own preferences are not enough reason to inhibit someone else's Liberty, and explain that allowing same-sex marriages does not mean that their church will be forced to marry people if they don't agree with the union (something that most churches do now anyway, if they think the couples aren't right for each other or don't go through some counseling), they usually just go, "oh" and say that in that case they don't care.

How was that for a sentence from Hell, huh?

I don't think the average person out there has put a lot of thought into it because they haven't had to. It's easier to start out with preconceptions and some mental shorthand than to think it through. I believe that that is much more likely to be the case the majority of the time rather than mass homophobia or some fear of "teh gay" going "airborne".

[Utrecht]

To be more serious, I know a lot of people who are against same-sex marriages .... until they stop and think about it. Most actually do, in my own anecdotal estimation, imagine, instinctively, that marriages are something men and women do in a church. Just like their parents. Since it doesn't concern them they rarely put more thought into it.

If you lay it out for them, explain that allowing others to have more freedom does not in any way diminish their own freedom, that our own preferences are not enough reason to inhibit someone else's Liberty, and explain that allowing same-sex marriages does not mean that their church will be forced to marry people if they don't agree with the union (something that most churches do now anyway, if they think the couples aren't right for each other or don't go through some counseling), they usually just go, "oh" and say that in that case they don't care.

How was that for a sentence from Hell, huh?

I don't think the average person out there has put a lot of thought into it because they haven't had to. It's easier to start out with preconceptions and some mental shorthand than to think it through. I believe that that is much more likely to be the case the majority of the time rather than mass homophobia or some fear of "teh gay" going "airborne".

exactly - much better than I was able to describe.

[Varaj]

exactly - much better than I was able to describe.

That is just long hand for mouth breathing retarded sea slugs. ;)

[Hatter]

My experience is that most people when asked to express their opposition to gay marriage the best you can really get is "I just don't think it's right." or "Marriage should only between a man and a woman" without any real ability to articulate their precise objections.

However, I don't think it's necessarily due to them just having not thought about it. I think its deeper than that. I think the idea of changing a tradition is frightening to people. Even though the change won't affect them directly, it will force them to change the way they think about marriage, which is a very personal thing. And that's the crux of the issue.

[AZRogue]

The other point that comes from that, though (my preceding post), is that a lot of the talking points being used by the Religious-Right are being used deliberately, IMO, to take advantage of that blind spot. They know it's there, know people have only given it casual thought in passing, if that, and target their rhetoric at that weakness.

There are a sub-class of Conservatives--I know a few and we argue all the time--who feel that we should directly legislate the moral code as laid out by their church. If their church thinks it is a sin, there should be a law against it. I happen to be a believer in laws that limit direct, or likely, damage and/or actions inhibiting the individual freedom of others.

I think those public people pushing for to outlaw same-sex marriages want the public blind spot to continue because it gives their view some political traction while appealing directly to that sub-category of Conservative that feels Christianity itself should be the actual legal law-of-the-land. They ignore the key points that would make people reevaluate their positions: marriages in churches would not be effected one way or the other and allowing this freedom to others does not change or alter their own freedom in any way.

[Utrecht]

My experience is that most people when asked to express their opposition to gay marriage the best you can really get is "I just don't think it's right." or "Marriage should only between a man and a woman" without any real ability to articulate their precise objections.

However, I don't think it's necessarily due to them just having not thought about it. I think its deeper than that. I think the idea of changing a tradition is frightening to people. Even though the change won't affect them directly, it will force them to change the way they think about marriage, which is a very personal thing. And that's the crux of the issue.

a very valid point - but one that I think the pro same-sex marriage folks have not successfully tackled.

In the end, they will win the debate - but it is important to realize that they are fighting 1600 years of Judeo-Christian morales.

[Varaj]

a very valid point - but one that I think the pro same-sex marriage folks have not successfully tackled.

In the end, they will win the debate - but it is important to realize that they are fighting 1600 years of Judeo-Christian morales.

Very true if they had successfully tackled it there would be no issue anymore.

[TiQuinn]

a very valid point - but one that I think the pro same-sex marriage folks have not successfully tackled.

In the end, they will win the debate - but it is important to realize that they are fighting 1600 years of Judeo-Christian morales.

I understand the point you are making but all I hear is a cop out masking this argument: "They are different, therefore they are wrong, and shouldn't have the same rights as normal people/decent people. "

[Harry]

a very valid point - but one that I think the pro same-sex marriage folks have not successfully tackled.

I want to change the semantics of this from defining one side as "pro-gay marriage" to defining the other side as "anti-freedom to marry". It's what the religious right has done for years, and I think this is a perfect place to use it against them.

In the end, they will win the debate - but it is important to realize that they are fighting 1600 years of Judeo-Christian Morales.

Would that be Natalie Judeo-Christian Morales or Vina Judeo-Christian Morales?

[Merganser]

In other same-sex marriage news, Governor Douglas vetoed Vermont's marriage equality bill this evening. The legislature is expected to try for a veto override tomorrow morning - it will certainly be overridden in the Senate (passed 26-4 originally), but the House is less certain, as it did not pass with enough votes to allow an override if everyone votes the same. There is some chance that some House members who voted against the bill itself may vote to override on the grounds that their constituencies desire them to do so.

(i.e., voted against the bill for personal (probably religious) reasons, but will vote to override. I consider that cheap sophistry, but whatever, I can't control their votes)

[tleilaxu]

change the name for the legal union of two people to "civil union" for everyone. let churches call it whatever they want, and recognize whatever they want. problem solved. NEXT! :p

[Utrecht]

I want to change the semantics of this from defining one side as "pro-gay marriage" to defining the other side as "anti-freedom to marry". It's what the religious right has done for years, and I think this is a perfect place to use it against them.

Ah, but we are back to that sticky wicket of who gets to define what marriage is?

If we are talking the Catholic Churches definition, then yes, it is anti-marriage and I 100% support the Churches position.

If we are talking the definition that same sex proponents use (and have unsuccessfully gotten the public to accept) then I am in 100% agreement with that as well.

The problem comes in the cross-pollination of secular and non-secular in the discussion

When you have (for example) Lori, the Catholic who hears that Susan and Lisa want to get married - she mentally hears in addition "in a church" - when most likely, Susan and Lisa could give two shits about the Catholic Sacrement or marriage. On the other side - Susan and Lisa hear that Lori is anti same-sex marriage they immediately think that Lori is trying to keep legal rights away from them - when Lori can give two shits about Susan and Lisa's tax staus (for example).

Yes, there are many who do want to keep these rights - and who do want to push relegious views into the secular world - but there are many who fall into the catagory above - and it is getting folks to seperate the definitions that this element of the culture war will be won.

[there_is_no_bob]

change the name for the legal union of two people to "civil union" for everyone. let churches call it whatever they want, and recognize whatever they want. problem solved. NEXT! :p

Less costly solution: Ignore the predjudiced.

[Varaj]

change the name for the legal union of two people to "civil union" for everyone. let churches call it whatever they want, and recognize whatever they want. problem solved. NEXT! :p

Would love for the government to be out of the marriage business so I agree.

[Name Lips]

Less costly solution: Ignore the predjudiced.

They're hard to ignore when they're elected officials.

[Freedom Canadian]

change the name for the legal union of two people to "civil union" for everyone. let churches call it whatever they want, and recognize whatever they want. problem solved. NEXT! :p

That's quite King Solomon of you, tlei. :)

[Hatter]

Well Vermont successfully overrode the veto of the same-sex marriage legislation.

[doc]

Well Vermont successfully overrode the veto of the same-sex marriage legislation.

How many states have it now ?

[Hatter]

How many states have it now ?

Mass and VT are it I believe.

[Random Encounter]

Mass and VT are it I believe.

And Iowa if the court decision stands.

[Merganser]

Mass and VT are it I believe.

Connecticut also permits same-sex marriage. A few other states have civil unions (New Jersey, New Hampshire and I think one or two more).

The veto override passed 100-49, with one representative missing from the House. That representative, Sonny Audette, is a Democrat from a fairly liberal town - he's a devout Catholic, so he voted against the bill the first go-round. Then he said he'd vote to override, then he said he wasn't sure he could do that after all, then he stayed home sick.

I don't think he was really sick, just scared of the controversy.

So hey, maybe he's a tinch spineless, but at least it was in a good cause.

[Hatter]

So Mass, VT, CT and maybe soon NH. New York politicians like to suggest they'd allow same sex marriage but they can lock the gay votes easier by stringing us along.

[Merganser]

So Mass, VT, CT and maybe soon NH. New York politicians like to suggest they'd allow same sex marriage but they can lock the gay votes easier by stringing us along.

Oh yeah, and DC voted today to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. I think NY already does that, but the gay-marriage-supporters in the legislature there claim they don't have enough votes to pass a bill, so they never bring it up.

[bunny]

Would love for the government to be out of the marriage business so I agree.

This solution also seems happy to me, but again, this forces people who couldn't (as Utrecht put it so elegantly) give two shits about the problem to suddenly have a role in it. When all of the fence sitters find out that what was once their "marriage" has now become a "civil union" how will they feel? It is just labeling, but those 1600 years of cultural labeling do have a very broad reach.

I find it interesting to read the arguments brought up in the US on this matter. They differ so heavily from what I was hearing on the news in Canuckistan. When gay marriage was legalized in Canada, a lot of the cross talk seemed more centered on the legal definitions. A marriage can still be annuled in Canada if consummation does not occur, and consummation was legally defined by male and female sexual organs. There were other niggly issues that required the delicate rewriting of laws. All very fascinating to me from a legal standpoint.

[Limper]

My experience is that most people when asked to express their opposition to gay marriage the best you can really get is "I just don't think it's right." or "Marriage should only between a man and a woman" without any real ability to articulate their precise objections.

However, I don't think it's necessarily due to them just having not thought about it. I think its deeper than that. I think the idea of changing a tradition is frightening to people. Even though the change won't affect them directly, it will force them to change the way they think about marriage, which is a very personal thing. And that's the crux of the issue.

Most people prefer not to think, they prefer not to analyze the life they live, anything that forces them to do either is regarded with hostility.

[Hatter]

Oh Tony Perkins, you're such a lovable scamp:

"Same-sex 'marriage' is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well. Time and again, we see when citizens have the opportunity to vote at the ballot box, they consistently opt to support traditional marriage," - Tony Perkins, today.

Yes, we're destroying democracy by passing laws through elected representatives. This is fun.

[Limper]

Oh Tony Perkins, you're such a lovable scamp:

"Same-sex 'marriage' is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well. Time and again, we see when citizens have the opportunity to vote at the ballot box, they consistently opt to support traditional marriage," - Tony Perkins, today.

Yes, we're destroying democracy by passing laws through elected representatives. This is fun.

Are you guys working with the Jews?

[Freedom Canadian]

Are you guys working with the Jews?

No, they are working with the chicken deniers.

[Limper]

No, they are working with the chicken deniers.

But don't they control the Orbital Mind Control Lasers? I'm pretty sure the Jews and the Fags, in addition to using Floride to control thoughts, are trying to destroy America and Western Civilization.

[Name Lips]

You're all fools. The Zionists are just a cover for the shapechanging, dinosaur-descended Reptoids who live in the Hollow Earth. We're all just puppets in their grand scheme.

[Freedom Canadian]

But don't they control the Orbital Mind Control Lasers? I'm pretty sure the Jews and the Fags, in addition to using Floride to control thoughts, are trying to destroy America and Western Civilization.

Sure, but it's more a matter of common goals than cooperation. Both work with the chicken deniers, though.

[Random Encounter]

But then some jokers all unmask as the Shangri-La to win a co-op victory and tournament play is ruined.
Bastards. :mad:

[doc]

What about the Gnomes of Zurich ?

[Limper]

What about the Gnomes of Zurich ?

He decided he was to good to talk to any of us any longer and became the elitist stuck up prick he was so often accused of being.

[doc]

He decided he was to good to talk to any of us any longer and became the elitist stuck up prick he was so often accused of being.

I thought that was Leo

[Freedom Canadian]

I thought that was Leo

Leo IS the Gnome of Zurich, numbnuts ! That should be obvious by now.

[doc]

Leo IS the Gnome of Zurich, numbnuts ! That should be obvious by now.

LOL I was thinking of the old Illuminate card game when post it, and who you calling numbnuts Garçon de castor ?

[Trainz]

LOL I was thinking of the old Illuminate card game when post it, and who you calling numbnuts Garçon de castor ?

Heh. ;)

FAIL!

"Beaver boy" does NOT translate as "Garçon de castor". :tongue:

More like... "Homme-castor"... MAYBE...

And FC... return your geek card for not getting the Illuminati ref.

[AZRogue]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sFmNIqJh3vA/Rx93DBhpc-I/AAAAAAAAAXE/IKgmqddWywM/s400/Illuminati.gif

Whether we're talking chickens or same-sex marriages, it's always a relevant answer.

[doc]

Heh. ;)

FAIL!

"Beaver boy" does NOT translate as "Garçon de castor". :tongue:

More like... "Homme-castor"... MAYBE...

And FC... return your geek card for not getting the Illuminati ref.

Me a babel fish :( what does Garçon de castor mean ???

[Freedom Canadian]

And FC... return your geek card for not getting the Illuminati ref.

Not getting something and ignoring it are two very different things, music boy.

[Freedom Canadian]

Me a babel fish :( what does Garçon de castor mean ???

It means beaver's boy.

Nice try, though !

[doc]

Not getting something and ignoring it are two very different things, music boy.

You're still my favorite left wing Candian beaver (next to AI)

[Varaj]

Oh Tony Perkins, you're such a lovable scamp:

"Same-sex 'marriage' is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well. Time and again, we see when citizens have the opportunity to vote at the ballot box, they consistently opt to support traditional marriage," - Tony Perkins, today.

Yes, we're destroying democracy by passing laws through elected representatives. This is fun.

I love this quote. :grey:
the will of the people is continually overridden by activists who are hijacking, one by one, state houses and state supreme courts.

[obryn]

I love this quote. :grey:
It's like they've forgotten that civil rights legislation more or less always moves from the courtroom, downwards.

In fact, it's a judge's job to interpret the laws and see how they fit within the framework of a given state/federal Constitution.

-O

[Varaj]

It's like they've forgotten that civil rights legislation more or less always moves from the courtroom, downwards.

In fact, it's a judge's job to interpret the laws and see how they fit within the framework of a given state/federal Constitution.

-O

It's worse than that, even with it is legislated it isn't the will of the people. :grey:

I guess "will of the people" means "what we agree with". :rolleyes:

[obryn]

It's worse than that, even with it is legislated it isn't the will of the people. :grey:

I guess "will of the people" means "what we agree with". :rolleyes:
Oh, I have no doubt it's unpopular with a plurailty of voters. That doesn't change the fact that social rights legislation is nearly always unpopular with the majority. It's kind of the way it works - minorities are, by definition, a minority of the voting public. And the majority can be tough to convince.

Part of the government's job is protecting minority rights from the tyrrany of the majority.

I don't see any reason why this should be looked at differently from, say, interracial marriage. Legalizing that was also against the will of the people, and prominent theologians had plenty of good reasons why it was against God's will, as well.

-O

[Hatter]

I think most people are indifferent to gay marriage, but there's more people against it than for it. It's hard to get people motivated to support something that doesn't directly impact them.

[bunny]

I think most people are indifferent to gay marriage, but there's more people against it than for it. It's hard to get people motivated to support something that doesn't directly impact them.

Exactly. And those who oppose it are more active, vocal, and mobilized to encourage others to "vote !!YES!! on prop n". If the indifferent people don't pay attention to the issues, either they don't vote at all, or they vote the way that many, many people (2 million dollar LDS advertising campaign, anyone?) told them to without giving it much thought.

It's always sad though, because as soon as the tables are turned and the pro-gay activists are making waves, they are accused of talking about sex, and the idea that one's sexual orientation (IE, you wish to marry the same gender) and sex (ie, people in thongs giving each other oral in the streets) become somehow linked. It's all so very depressing.

[Schizm]

It's worse than that, even with it is legislated it isn't the will of the people. :grey:

I guess "will of the people" means "what we agree with". :rolleyes:

Oh come on Varaj! niggers, kikes, faggots, wetbacks, mics, wops, gooks, chinks, spics, and crackers aren't people. Everyone knows this.

;)

[Hatter]

The National Review posted this commentary:

The Future of Marriage
One of the great coups of the movement for same-sex marriage has been to plant the premise that it represents the inevitable future. This sense has inhibited even some who know perfectly well that marriage is by nature the union of a man and a woman. They fear that throwing themselves into the cause of opposing it is futile — worse, that it will call down the judgment of history that they were bigots.

Contrary to common perception, however, the public is not becoming markedly more favorable toward same-sex marriage. Support for same-sex marriage rose during the 1990s but seems to have frozen in place (at least according to Gallup) since the high court of Massachusetts invented a right to same-sex marriage earlier this decade.

Our guess is that if the federal judiciary does not intervene to impose same-sex marriage on the entire country, we are not going to see it triumph from coast to coast. Rather, we will for some time have a patchwork of laws. The division will not be so much between socially liberal and conservative states as between those states where voters can amend their state constitutions easily and those where they cannot. Thus same-sex marriage is likely to stay the law of the land in Massachusetts, Iowa, and Vermont, and perhaps also in New Hampshire.

In two of those states, at least, democratic procedure is now being respected. Vermont has chosen to recognize same-sex marriages legislatively, and New Hampshire may do so. Other states, such as Connecticut, have legislated recognition of civil unions for same-sex couples. While free from the taint of lawlessness, these decisions seem to us unwise. Few social goods will come from recognizing same-sex couples as married. Some practical benefits may accrue to the couples, but most of them could easily be realized without changing marriage laws. Same-sex couples will also receive the symbolic affirmation of being treated by the state as equivalent to a traditional married couple — but this spurious equality is a cost of the new laws, not a benefit. One still sometimes hears people make the allegedly “conservative” case for same-sex marriage that it will reduce promiscuity and encourage commitment among homosexuals. This prospect seems improbable, and in any case these do not strike us as important governmental goals.

Both as a social institution and as a public policy, marriage exists to foster connections between heterosexual sex and the rearing of children within stable households. It is a non-coercive way to channel (heterosexual) desire into civilized patterns of living. State recognition of the marital relationship does not imply devaluation of any other type of relationship, whether friendship or brotherhood. State recognition of those other types of relationships is unnecessary. So too is the governmental recognition of same-sex sexual relationships, committed or otherwise, in a deep sense pointless.

No, we do not expect marriage rates to plummet and illegitimacy rates to skyrocket in these jurisdictions over the next decade. But to the extent same-sex marriage is normalized here, it will be harder for American culture and law to connect marriage and parenthood. That it has already gotten harder over the last few decades is no answer to this concern. In foisting same-sex marriage on Iowa, the state’s supreme court opined in a footnote that the idea that it is best for children to have mothers and fathers married to each other is merely based on “stereotype.”

If worse comes to worst, and the federal courts sweep aside the marriage laws that most Americans still want, then decades from now traditionalists should be ready to brandish that footnote and explain to generations yet unborn: That is why we resisted.

And Andrew Sullivan's raging response:

The Right's Contempt For Gay Lives
National Review's new editorial comes out firmly against even civil unions for gay couples, and continues to insist that society's exclusive support for straight couples is designed

"to foster connections between heterosexual sex and the rearing of children within stable households."

This is an honest and revealing point, and, in a strange way, it confirms my own analysis of the theocon position. It reaffirms, for example, that infertile couples who want to marry in order to adopt children have no place within existing marriage laws, as NR sees them. Such infertile and adoptive "marriages" rest on a decoupling of actual sex and the rearing of children. The same, of course, applies much more extensively to any straight married couple that uses contraception: they too are undermining what National Review believes to be the core reason for civil marriage. Now, you could argue - and I suspect NR's editors would - that society nonetheless has a role in providing moral, social and legal support for couples with children, however those children came about, and to provide "a non-coercive way to channel (heterosexual) desire into civilized patterns of living." I agree with this, actually, which is why I do not want to alter or weaken traditional marriage in any way, and regard it as a vital social institution that deserves our support.

But what of "channeling homosexual desire into civilized patterns of living?" Ah, there's the rub.

National Review clearly believes that gays exist beyond the boundaries of civilized life, or even social life, let alone the purview of social policy. But, of course, a total absence of social policy is still a social policy. And such a social policy - leaving gay people outside of existing social institutions, while tolerating their existence - has led to some rather predictable consequences. We have, for example, lived through a period in which around 300,000 young Americans died of a terrible disease that was undoubtedly compounded by the total lack of any social incentives for stable relationships. Imagine what would happen to STD rates or legitimacy rates if heterosexual marriage were somehow not in existence. Do you think that straight men would be more or less socially responsible without the institution of civil marriage?

This is not to deny the responsibility of those of us who contracted HIV. It is to make the core conservative case that culture matters, and that in so far as we can non-coercively encourage and support committed relationships, society, which includes gay people, will be better off. But National Review, stunningly, regards the well-being, health and flourishing of gay people as unworthy of any attention at all. Here is the passage that reflects the core homophobia - and yes, I see no alternative to using that word - in that magazine:

"Same-sex couples will also receive the symbolic affirmation of being treated by the state as equivalent to a traditional married couple — but this spurious equality is a cost of the new laws, not a benefit. One still sometimes hears people make the allegedly “conservative” case for same-sex marriage that it will reduce promiscuity and encourage commitment among homosexuals. This prospect seems improbable, and in any case these do not strike us as important governmental goals."

Ponder those sentences for a moment. The fact that gay Americans may feel equal because of inclusion within their own families and societies is now a cost to society, not a benefit. Encouraging commitment, fewer partners, and greater responsibility are important governmental goals with respect to heterosexuals but not with respect to homosexuals. As far as National Review is concerned, homosexuals can go to hell. Their interests and views cannot even be accorded respect. They are non-persons to National Review: means, not ends.

Flip this around and you see what the theocon right actually believes: that society has no interest in the welfare of its gay citizens, and an abiding interest in ensuring that they remain unequal, feel unequal and suffer the consequences of a culture where family and commitment and fidelity are non-existent. And they write this within living memory of an appalling and devastating plague. This is how the social right is responding to our times, and to put it personally, my life and the lives and deaths of countless others. One day, they will understand the callousness and bitterness and willful ignorance they currently represent. As civilized society leaves them increasingly behind.

[Schizm]

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/SteinE/2009/SteinE20090212B_low.jpg

[AZRogue]

What does allowing same-sex marriages actually do that's so dangerous, other than being considered a "sin" by some people? Does anyone know the argument? I have some trouble with this sort of thing as it just makes no sense to me.

Is anyone willing tp lay devil's advocate and tell me what the popular reasons against allowing homosexuals the right to marry are? Not counting the argument that uses religion as its only justification (the "it's a sin" argument)?

Basically, what are straight people losing if same-sex marriages become legal? There has to be some kind of mainline, official, response, doesn't there? And, what exactly is the heart of that argument? Can anyone help a brotha out? There just has to be, it seems to me, something they're actually arguing for beyond just not liking it themselves.

[Varaj]

One argument is as follows.

Marriage is a stabilizing factor on society that creates large benefits for all and allowing homosexuals to marriage will weaken the stabilizing benefit marriage provides for everybody.
It will weaken the stabilizing benefit for marriage in a few ways.
0. Marriage is sacred.
1. Homosexuals can't have kids.
a. Heterosexual couples can at least in theory have kids even if specific individuals can't or don't.
b. Even if homosexuals do have kids, though adoption/birth/bringing into the marriage, letting the kids around homosexuals will mean those kids will not develop correctly; both morally and gender wise.
2. Homosexuality is a a sin and sins hurt good things.
3. Homosexuality is selfish and selfish things hurt good things.
4. Marriage was ordained by God, allowing homosexuals to marry will make God angry and he will not protect marriage.

It will be a removal of freedom of religion because our religion demands we don't allow homosexuals to marry and if they are allowed to marry we can't practice our religion.
We also won't be able to support charities that help families or provide adoption services because that aid might go to homosexuals.

This one I will quote because if I paraphrase everybody will tell me I'm making it up. :)

Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.


Slightly different set of arguments here.
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp

Summerized
1) Scandanavia allows gay marriage and has a large number of children born out-of-wedlock. Therefore allowing gay marriage will cause children to be born out-of-wedlock (Seriously I’m not joking).

2) Legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy.

3) The creation of gay marriages will make divorce easier.

4) Public schools will be forced to teach that homosexuality is not immoral.

5) Gays will have equal rights in court relating to child care issues such a custody, adoption, or foster care.

6) Straight foster-care parents would be required to undergo homosexual senstitivity training (I swear I didn’t make that one up).

7) Allowing gays to collect Social Security for their deceased husbands/wives will cost the government billions of dollars.

8) Allowing gay marriage in the US will lead to the legalization of gay marriage in other countries.

9) “Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed.”

10) The social conservatives will have lost the culture war.

[Hatter]

Here's an argument from yesterday:

"If we don't save marriage, we can't remain pro-life." Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

[Name Lips]

1) Scandanavia allows gay marriage and has a large number of children born out-of-wedlock. Therefore allowing gay marriage will cause children to be born out-of-wedlock (Seriously I’m not joking).

2) Legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy.

3) The creation of gay marriages will make divorce easier.

4) Public schools will be forced to teach that homosexuality is not immoral.

5) Gays will have equal rights in court relating to child care issues such a custody, adoption, or foster care.

6) Straight foster-care parents would be required to undergo homosexual senstitivity training (I swear I didn’t make that one up).

7) Allowing gays to collect Social Security for their deceased husbands/wives will cost the government billions of dollars.

8) Allowing gay marriage in the US will lead to the legalization of gay marriage in other countries.

9) “Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed.”

10) The social conservatives will have lost the culture war.
Wow, you can't make this shit up. I swear no matter how hard I try I just don't understand conservative thought...

1) This demonstrates to me not that homosexuality is responsible for anything, but that conservatives will happily use acceptance of homosexuality as a scapegoat for any and all societal problems. Having a scapegoat is actually convenient - they should reconsider their position here.

2) IMO, consenting adults should be able to enter into whatever kind of relationship they want. So yeah I might be able to buy this particular "slippery slope" argument, though I'm not going to bother going out and lobbying for it myself.

3) Make divorces easier? WTF? The only way they could be any easier is if you could file online.

4) Public schools shouldn't be teaching morality at all. It's not their job.

5) Is that a problem? Oh, right, we're supposed to think gays are all also pedophiles. Those poor children!

6) I'm not sure I understand.

7) No it won't. If conservatives have their way, the gays would all engage in heterosexual marriages, even though they're disinclined to do so, because it's "better for society." In which case they'll still cost the government SS money.

8) Yay! I'll accept this as a true statement.

9) Christ didn't say one damn thing about homosexuality. If you want to go back to Leviticus, fine, but I won't let you pick and choose.

10) Ah, fight the war just because you can't bear losing (again)? Perhaps it would be wiser to pick and choose your engagements.

[Dacke]

1) Scandanavia allows gay marriage and has a large number of children born out-of-wedlock. Therefore allowing gay marriage will cause children to be born out-of-wedlock (Seriously I’m not joking).
"Scandinavia" is not a country. Sweden, for example, does not yet allow gay marriage (we have civil unions though, and the parliament voted to legalize gay marriage this week, though the law doesn't go into effect until May 1st). Norway has had gay marriage since Jan 1st, 2009 - hardly enough time to draw any conclusions.

I have no idea about how many children are born in and out of wedlock in Sweden compared to the US (a minute spent googling didn't show any useful results).

2) Legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy.
Why would that be? Not that I would, in theory, mind allowing multi-partner marriages (though I recognize that in practice, they're usually a symptom of a seriously skewed power balance).

3) The creation of gay marriages will make divorce easier.
Why?

4) Public schools will be forced to teach that homosexuality is not immoral.
Why would that be a problem?

5) Gays will have equal rights in court relating to child care issues such a custody, adoption, or foster care.
Why would that be a problem?

6) Straight foster-care parents would be required to undergo homosexual senstitivity training (I swear I didn’t make that one up).
Why?

7) Allowing gays to collect Social Security for their deceased husbands/wives will cost the government billions of dollars.
Big fucking deal.

8) Allowing gay marriage in the US will lead to the legalization of gay marriage in other countries.
Good.

9) “Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed.”
Good.

10) The social conservatives will have lost the culture war.
Good.

[AZRogue]

Well, thanks for the list, even if it did make me throw up a little in my mouth. If anyone could say those points and keep a straight face I think it would become a full fledged upchuck.

Sorry for the imagery.

[Scarbonac]

Well, thanks for the list, even if it did make me throw up a little in my mouth. If anyone could say those points and keep a straight face I think it would become a full fledged upchuck.

Sorry for the imagery.

Thanks. I just got done eating. :grey:

[Varaj]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztZHEPiHb_M

[bunny]

Wow Varaj. Just wow. The appropriation of language in that (ie calling themselves a "rainbow coalition") is sick.

[AZRogue]

Veraj, you clean my keyboard. :ack:

[Hatter]

The audition tapes were hysterical. Too bad NOM forced youtube to take them down. I haven't been able to track down another copy.

[Schizm]

That, right there, is fucking foul.

[Varaj]

That, right there, is fucking foul.

It is pretty tame for the anti-same sex marriage crowd. :(

[Schizm]

Any group that can claim Fred Phelps as one of it's own is pretty fucking foul, in general.

[Ancalagon]

Man, this is so ridiculous...

[doc]

On the plus side I bet the wedding gown would be to DIE for !!

[Hatter]

NOMs latest initiative: 2M4M (seriously)

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/09/10573

In just a few minutes, NOM President Maggie Gallagher and I will hold a press conference in Trenton, NJ, announcing an ambitious new nationwide “2 Million for Marriage” (2M4M) initiative.

They should probably google these terms before they publish them.

[Merganser]

Man, I wish I'd gotten to see those NOM audition videos. These guys seem hilarious.

[Varaj]

2 m4m looking for tea bagging partner.

[Hatter]

I'm just waiting for the new GOP strategy to beat the Democrats - the Donkey Punch strategy.

[Varaj]

I'm just waiting for the new GOP strategy to beat the Democrats - the Donkey Punch strategy.

Maybe they will saddleback the donkey.

[bunny]

Maybe they will saddleback the donkey.

According to Jesus, it's not really sex if it's up the bum. :)

[Hatter]

Bwahahaha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0pPEAdDn64

[doc]

Maybe they will saddleback the donkey.

They could teabag him instead

[there_is_no_bob]

...crazy NOMA video...There be a competition on for the craziest:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9d38EoQ9pg

[Dr_Avalanche]

Wow.

[Dacke]

Seriously, is that video for real, or a parody?

[there_is_no_bob]

Seriously, is that video for real, or a parody?
I think it's real (http://www.illinoisfamily.org/), but you never can tell for sure...

[Varaj]

There be a competition on for the craziest:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9d38EoQ9pg

I love the irony of them explaining what "jamming" is.

[AZRogue]

All that crap seriously makes my head hurt. It's ridiculous. Why is it so hard to give the same freedom to others that we would wish for ourselves? Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry? Of course. That's their prerogative, and I would fight for them to have that freedom.

Also, in response to some of the claims in some of the propaganda lately, I would fight just as hard for a church's prerogative to not allow same-sex marriage under their roof or by its leaders. I think everyone agrees with that part, too, right?

I just really boggle when I try to conceive of the argument against it and I wish someone could articulate it to me so that I could understand. The only argument I've heard that has merit is that, somehow, every church would be forced to perform same-sex marriages whether they like it or not and that's just not the case from anything I've seen, but it's the only real argument people tell me.

As for it being "wrong" as in "against a particular religious belief system" well, woopdifuckingdo. So is fornication. And adultery. And lying. And Coveting, and a hundred other things that most people do all too often but that aren't against the law and don't have groups asking for legislation against.

The funny thing is that, as I try to point out to some of my more "fire and brimstone" friends, the people who are most vocal against same-sex marriages are often aghast at Muslim states and their Shariah law. Yet they see nothing wrong with achieving their "wish-upon-a-star" goal of creating a Christian version here, in the States. You can't have it both ways. It. Does. Not. Make. Sense.

[Hatter]

Also, in response to some of the claims in some of the propaganda lately, I would fight just as hard for a church's prerogative to not allow same-sex marriage under their roof or by its leaders. I think everyone agrees with that part, too, right?

Just to be clear, I would fight just as hard for a church's right to marry whomever they choose.

[Varaj]

Just to be clear, I would fight just as hard for a church's right to marry whomever they choose.

Word.

It is worth noting that nobody outside of the fear mongers is suggesting that any groups are pushing to force churches that don't want to to perform gay marriages perform them.

[AZRogue]

Just to be clear, I would fight just as hard for a church's right to marry whomever they choose.

That's what I believed. I just wanted to put the question out there in case I had missed something. Nobody's led me to remotely imagine that anyone is trying to infringe upon the rights of individual churches, especially you, Hatter. :)

Word.

It is worth noting that nobody outside of the fear mongers is suggesting that any groups are pushing to force churches that don't want to to perform gay marriages perform them.

That's pretty much what I thought. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere but in anti-same-sex marriage ads. And never with specifics, just as some dubious threat that is self-evident because Teh Bigots told us so.

Another example of what I think I've mentioned before: Instead of talking about the issue rationally, the groups fighting same-sex marriage are taking the extremely hypocritical (and disgusting) tactic of recognizing that a lot of people don't care enough about the subject to educate themselves on the particulars, or think the issue through with any real effort, and then targeting their message deliberately at that weak spot. It doesn't have to be true when a lie will fool enough people to turn a political profit.

I've seen it done over gun control, the honoring of our country's Christian history, and a host of other issues and it never fails to piss me off.

[Hatter]

Here's (http://www.kipesquire.net/2009/04/on-religious-bigots-new-found-faux-libertarianism/) and interesting article on libertarianism vs. religious bigots.

An excerpt:

The “victimized” Christian bigots are of course not making a thorough, comprehensive (i.e., truly libertarian) demand for full entrepreneurial freedom of contract — and its reciprocal “right to refuse service to anyone.” All they want to do is discriminate against gays. Not “anyone and everyone.” Just gays.

Which is precisely why they should not be allowed to do so. As I have blogged previously: Whether or not you approve of bans on private discrimination is not the point — we are not debating the creation of Libertopia.

[Merganser]

The only argument I've heard that has merit is that, somehow, every church would be forced to perform same-sex marriages whether they like it or not and that's just not the case from anything I've seen, but it's the only real argument people tell me.

And yet, somehow, no one seems to expect that rabbis are going to be legally compelled to perform Hindu weddings, or that Catholic churches will be forced to permit Seventh Day Adventist weddings inside their church structures.

But when it's gays, they'll all be forced at gunpoint to marry 'em! Gol dang it!

[Varaj]

Another state has legalized same sex marriage, with another likely to today or tomorrow.

[Ancalagon]

Just to be clear, I would fight just as hard for a church's right to marry whomever they choose.
indeed!
Another state has legalized same sex marriage, with another likely to today or tomorrow.
I'm in a bit of a rush - which one?

[Harry]

indeed!

I'm in a bit of a rush - which one?

Maine yesterday, New Hampshire likely to follow in the next day or so.

[AZRogue]

Here's (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kipesquire.net %2F2009%2F04%2Fon-religious-bigots-new-found-faux-libertarianism%2F) and interesting article on libertarianism vs. religious bigots.

An excerpt:

Thanks for the link. I have to agree with the guy. The guy sighted recent cases where people were fined and/or punished in some way by the government, or by the Supreme Court, for not offering their services to gay couples due to religious reasons.

I don't agree with those actions.

The guy also made an excellent point, where he changed the reason why service was denied to, and I'll paraphrase, "because they were Jews, or because they were Black, or because they were disabled."

Most people currently lamenting against gay marriage would not support allowing a doctor to refuse service to, let's say, Jews and Muslims, but they do want to support a doctor denying service due to a person being gay.

You have to be consistent. I would support the doctor refusing service to Jews, Muslims, and gays, as he chose, if it was his own practice/business, and let consumers and competition sort it out.

That probably isn't explained very well, as I'm not in the mood to type the amount of text I would need, but it's an interesting point. Many of the same people defending their right to discriminate do not normally try to defend other groups an equal right to discrimination, and are only trying to make a little convenient loophole to protect their own, preferred, flavor of bigotry.

[Hatter]

AZRogue: They don't see sexuality as being in the same class as race, religion or gender. they don't believe homosexuality as an inborn trait. They see it as aberrant behavior akin to kleptomania or pedophilia.



Unrelated side note: Kelly McGillis and David Ogden Stiers both recently came out. Go team gay.

[Random Encounter]

AZRogue: They don't see sexuality as being in the same class as race, religion or gender. they don't believe homosexuality as an inborn trait. They see it as aberrant behavior akin to kleptomania or pedophilia.



Which of these words doesn't belong in a list of inborn traits?

[Bagpuss]

AZRogue: They don't see sexuality as being in the same class as race, religion or gender. they don't believe homosexuality as an inborn trait. They see it as aberrant behavior akin to kleptomania or pedophilia.

Religion technically is a matter of choice (although parents have a lot to do with it in some cases). Still I think a church can still refuse to marry people because they don't follow the same faith.

By law does A Christian Union have to except Jews and Muslims? A Roman Catholic church has to marry Buddhists?

[Varaj]

Religion technically is a matter of choice (although parents have a lot to do with it in some cases). Still I think a church can still refuse to marry people because they don't follow the same faith.

In the US a church can refuse to marry somebody because they don't think you are a good follower of their faith. Since a church marriage is a purely religious ceremony that has zero legal bindings the government has no say in the matter.


By law does A Christian Union have to except Jews and Muslims? A Roman Catholic church has to marry Buddhists?

No and no.

[The Wanderer]

i like to think that anycouple that wants to marry should be able to. i have nothing against it hell it can start a whole new chain of reality shows "Divorce Court Iowa"

[Name Lips]

Maine just legalized gay marriage. Yay!

[doc]

Maine just legalized gay marriage. Yay!

So how many Pinkstates are there now ?

[The Wanderer]

So how many Pinkstates are there now ?

dont you mean rainbow?