• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Iowa starts issuing same sex marriage licenses

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUYHow much further should it be extended? If society moved towards "tolerating" polygamy should they be afforded more "rights"? Clearly they are consenting adults - no? Why if one man and one woman is unconstitutional then surely the number "one" is unconstitutional too under EP, right?
Click to expand...

what's so bad about polygamy?

side note: I have stated this before(years ago?) that I think we should just do away with the whole concept of the Gov't being involved with marriage/unions/whatever you want the call them.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you on that... but that's not going to change in our life times. the fact is, marriage in the eyes of the government is nothing more than a contract, and why should a man/woman be able to enter into a contract but not a woman/woman?

Contracts would take care of any property and other "shared" items(kids, homes, etc). But until that happens I do not think we need to go further down the road of creating new special "rights".
Click to expand...

that's all well and good, until you have states like virginia (I think... I'm probably wrong on that) outlawing any type of contract that could even suggest the merest hint of marriage. wouldn't overturning that be yet another act of judicial activism in your eyes?
Click to expand...

Polygamy is against the law. Should it not be overturned because of the EP clause?

The last part you responded to was related to the part where the Gov't was out of the marriage business. It'd take care of all the legal stuff. I'm not saying the courts should do anything to remove it - it should be done at the legislative level. As to the Virginia thing - I don't know what you are talking about so I can't comment on it.
 
Why polygamy is against the law is beyond me. Seeing how it was passed into law 130-ish years ago (The Anti-Bigamy Act in 1862 and The Poland Act in 1874) maybe its time to revist...time to move into the 21st century!
 
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
does any liberal dare ask the question why the Iowa legislature (democrat controlled) won't pass a law to declare "gay marriage" legal?

apparently some (you know who you are) cannot bear to admit the obvious - the Democrats in control of Iowa won't pass such a law...

instead, they hope an activist judge will make it happen through judicial "activism" because they understand they will have the vote used to get them defeated in the next round of elections.
Click to expand...

Totally irrelevant.

This should be a Federal equal protection for all.

You people into hate and discrimination should not have any state to hide behind.
 
Totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

a complete non-answer. each state is in charge of its marriage laws. If the Iowa Democrat party wants gay marriage legally recognized in Iowa, I believe they have the power to enact unambiguously, such a law. Instead, a single judge has elected to overrule a law passed by the legislature, restricting marriage to a man and a woman.

the idea that a law must be unconsitituional in you don't agree with it, is just plain wrong. one of the underpinnings of the constitution is the legitimacy of laws, and the rule of law, which requires the legislature to write and vote on laws. A "law" designed and implemented by a single individual (a judge), who may not even have been elected, and may in some circumstances have a lifetime appointment, intrinsically has little or diminished legitimacy. Without a legitimate foundation, laws become meaningless.

Actually, Bowfinger is othe only one so far to answer my question, and he has states exactly what I did, the Iowa Dems don't have the political will to enact such a law, because they fear the political fallout.

As for why should polygamy be against the law? I would say, why shouldn't it be against the law, if the legislature has passed laws saying such? I don't think that any political support would exist to get the law changed. Why have the mentality that such a law needs to be overturned by a judge, unless you are already acknowledging that it won't happen legislatively (as it should), and you need some way to get around that part of the Constitution.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
does any liberal dare ask the question why the Iowa legislature (democrat controlled) won't pass a law to declare "gay marriage" legal?

apparently some (you know who you are) cannot bear to admit the obvious - the Democrats in control of Iowa won't pass such a law...

instead, they hope an activist judge will make it happen through judicial "activism" because they understand they will have the vote used to get them defeated in the next round of elections.
Click to expand...

Totally irrelevant.

This should be a Federal equal protection for all.

You people into hate and discrimination should not have any state to hide behind.
Click to expand...

Tell us Dave what rights afforded by the Constitution do straights have that gays dont?
 
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

the idea that a law must be unconsitituional in you don't agree with it, is just plain wrong. one of the underpinnings of the constitution is the legitimacy of laws, and the rule of law, which requires the legislature to write and vote on laws.
Click to expand...

The judge might agree with the law for all you know. Maybe the judge hates the idea of gay people marrying....

The judge's personal views on the issue has nothing to do with this. The issue is that the IL constitiution provides equal protection under the law, meaning you can't use laws (existing or to be written) to discriminate against one group, in this case the group of gay people who would like the right to marry someone of their choice.

I hope you know, that something like Brown vs. the Board of Education would be considered "activism" because they were overturning existing notions of "separate, but equal."
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
does any liberal dare ask the question why the Iowa legislature (democrat controlled) won't pass a law to declare "gay marriage" legal?

apparently some (you know who you are) cannot bear to admit the obvious - the Democrats in control of Iowa won't pass such a law...

instead, they hope an activist judge will make it happen through judicial "activism" because they understand they will have the vote used to get them defeated in the next round of elections.
Click to expand...

Totally irrelevant.

This should be a Federal equal protection for all.

You people into hate and discrimination should not have any state to hide behind.
Click to expand...

Tell us Dave what rights afforded by the Constitution do straights have that gays dont?
Click to expand...

You tell me. You and your buds are the hate filled ones.
 
Ironic that one could support gay marriage yet decry polygamy.

And as usual we have Dave making statements and then when called out says "You tell me."
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Slavery treated people as though they were less human than others. So that is clearly far different than the issue of homosexuality since no one is treating them as less than human. Homosexuals have every right that Heterosexuals do - A man can marry a woman no matter what their "sexual orientation" is, being gay doesn't mean they lose that "right"(not that marriage is a "right" anyway but that's a different subject)

Now back to EP - How much further should it be extended? If society moved towards "tolerating" polygamy should they be afforded more "rights"? Clearly they are consenting adults - no? Why if one man and one woman is unconstitutional then surely the number "one" is unconstitutional too under EP, right?
Click to expand...

What a curious position. I never said slavery was the same thing as denying legal homosexual marriage - I just said both were, IMO, denials of equal protection under the law. I find your defense of the legalized concept of marriage really really hollow (though God knows it isn't the first time I've ever heard it) - would you also say it was fair if the ONLY marriage allowed was homosexual marriage? After all, everyone, male or female, would have an equal right to be married, so what's the problem?

Polygamy does not create an EP problem - nobody has the right to be married (at least legally) to more than one person. You might as well say (as some particularly moronic pundits have) that EP would require allowing marriage to animals.

EP doesn't mean ALL activities have to be lawful, just that the law can't discriminate in who derives a benefit from it and/or is burdened by it. Your argument is just obviously faulty on its face.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Polygamy does not create an EP problem - nobody has the right to be married (at least legally) to more than one person. You might as well say (as some particularly moronic pundits have) that EP would require allowing marriage to animals.
Click to expand...

Says who? And if equal protection is the end goal, why discriminate? Let the polygamists have at it right along with the gay and lesbian communities. Where is the "Legal" definition of marriage?
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Ironic that one could support gay marriage yet decry polygamy.
Click to expand...

How is that even marginally inconsistent? FWIW I don't really care one way or the other about polygamy, but decrying it is in no way logically inconsistent with supporting gay marriage. That's like saying there's no difference between, say, decriminalizing homosexual sodomy and decriminalizing child molestation. Totally different thing.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: Pabster
Ironic that one could support gay marriage yet decry polygamy.
Click to expand...

How is that even marginally inconsistent? FWIW I don't really care one way or the other about polygamy, but decrying it is in no way logically inconsistent with supporting gay marriage. That's like saying there's no difference between, say, decriminalizing homosexual sodomy and decriminalizing child molestation. Totally different thing.
Click to expand...

And it is absolutely illogical.

Yet it is used ad-nauseum by the anti-rights crowd.

We've all heard it before: first gay marriage, then polygamy, then legalized pedophilia, then beastiality, yada-yada.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: DonVito
Polygamy does not create an EP problem - nobody has the right to be married (at least legally) to more than one person. You might as well say (as some particularly moronic pundits have) that EP would require allowing marriage to animals.
Click to expand...

Says who? And if equal protection is the end goal, why discriminate? Let the polygamists have at it right along with the gay and lesbian communities. Where is the "Legal" definition of marriage?
Click to expand...


Homosexuality is not, at least IMO and according to essentially all credible research, a chosen disposition. Accordingly, denying homosexuals the right to marry is per se discriminatory. I do not believe, OTOH, that anyone is born with an insatiable desire to have more than one spouse.

Frankly I consider the argument you're making such a transparent throwaway that I think less of anyone who makes it - it's just blatantly dopey.
 
Originally posted by: sierrita
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: Pabster
Ironic that one could support gay marriage yet decry polygamy.
Click to expand...

How is that even marginally inconsistent? FWIW I don't really care one way or the other about polygamy, but decrying it is in no way logically inconsistent with supporting gay marriage. That's like saying there's no difference between, say, decriminalizing homosexual sodomy and decriminalizing child molestation. Totally different thing.
Click to expand...

And it is absolutely illogical.

Yet it is used ad-nauseum by the anti-rights crowd.

We've all heard it before: first gay marriage, then polygamy, then legalized pedophilia, then beastiality, yada-yada.
Click to expand...

Hey hey hey, one discrimination at a time.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Homosexuality is not, at least IMO and according to essentially all credible research, a chosen disposition. Accordingly, denying homosexuals the right to marry is per se discriminatory. I do not believe, OTOH, that anyone is born with an insatiable desire to have more than one spouse.
Click to expand...

I was asking for a legal grounds on the matter, not opinion.

Frankly I consider the argument you're making such a transparent throwaway that I think less of anyone who makes it - it's just blatantly dopey.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I tend to think less of those who throw out "equal protection" arguments with blatant disregard.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: DonVito
Homosexuality is not, at least IMO and according to essentially all credible research, a chosen disposition. Accordingly, denying homosexuals the right to marry is per se discriminatory. I do not believe, OTOH, that anyone is born with an insatiable desire to have more than one spouse.
Click to expand...

I was asking for a legal grounds on the matter, not opinion.

Frankly I consider the argument you're making such a transparent throwaway that I think less of anyone who makes it - it's just blatantly dopey.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I tend to think less of those who throw out "equal protection" arguments with blatant disregard.
Click to expand...


Well, for whatever it's worth, I've been in practice as an attorney for nine years (though I have only ever sued one case out alleging constitutional claims - we go to trial on Thursday, actually). I think the EP argument makes sense, even if you disagree.

Were you really looking for "legal grounds" that would distinguish gay marriage from polygamy from a constitutional standpoint? As I said, I regard the comparison as obviously faulty, for the reason I cited above.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
does any liberal dare ask the question why the Iowa legislature (democrat controlled) won't pass a law to declare "gay marriage" legal?

apparently some (you know who you are) cannot bear to admit the obvious - the Democrats in control of Iowa won't pass such a law...

instead, they hope an activist judge will make it happen through judicial "activism" because they understand they will have the vote used to get them defeated in the next round of elections.
Click to expand...

Totally irrelevant.

This should be a Federal equal protection for all.

You people into hate and discrimination should not have any state to hide behind.
Click to expand...

Tell us Dave what rights afforded by the Constitution do straights have that gays dont?
Click to expand...

You tell me. You and your buds are the hate filled ones.
Click to expand...


eh? Are you answering someone elses question? Man youre an idiot...
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: K1052
I'll never fully understand the pathological fear the social conservatives have of gay marriage. There has haver been a logical argument put forth against it that holds up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Nothing "pathological" about it. Many people (myself included) believe, and define, marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I'm just fine with them being "Partners" or a "Civil Union" but Marriage? No.

Governor Culver apparently feels the same (A Democrat.)
Click to expand...


I happen to agree with you. Marriage is a term with deep religious roots and traditionally it has been between a man and a woman. In my opinion "getting married" is not something the government should have any part of. Leave that to the Priests, Churches etc... Civil unions should be adopted by the government for both homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

It makes sense to use different terms because the meaning is completely different between the two organizations.

I still can't believe we are having this discussion. Out of all the things we have to debate and try to fix we are worried about two gay dudes filing a joint return or getting a family health insurance plan????
 
Amazing to think this came out of Iowa, but I welcome any signal of intelligence in this sorry nation we live in.
Click to expand...

What part of this post provoked your frisson of amazement and joy?

1)The law the Iowa legislature passed essentially banning "Gay Marriage"
2)The dubious actions of a single Judge in overturning the legislative actions of the representatives of the citizens of Iowa
3)The court staying the decision of the lone judge, until a appeal can be heard?

Kinda looks like you didn't read the thread.
 
I still can't believe we are having this discussion. Out of all the things we have to debate and try to fix we are worried about two gay dudes filing a joint return or getting a family health insurance plan????
Click to expand...

well that's the mentality of the libs....they are stuck trying to argue this is a morality or a constitutional issue....

the point I'm trying to make, which none of the Libs (save Bow) have even addressed, is why doesn't the legislature of Iowa, completely controlled by Democrats (the House, the Senate AND the Governor ARE ALL DEMOCRATS), pass an unambiguous bill making "gay marriage" legal?

I have no problem with the elected representatives of the state producing such a law. It is there job to produce such laws. Why won't they do that? The debate, as i see it, is about judicial activism, and the courts delving into legislating...
 
But one reason we have a health care crisis is because laws force more and more coverage. Who wants to have to pay when guys buggering each other get sick? Homosexuals are largely at war with reality, and they want to turn everything upside down so that buggery isn't the problem but people who dont accept it as normal are the problem. Polgamy actually looks good compared to this monsterous deformity of ah heck marriage. Besides they dont really want to get married anyway - they just hate being reminded of their disordered condition and want the contrat removed. If it were ever legal they wouldn't care about marriage anymore. What a revolting issue.
 
Originally posted by: Butterbean
But one reason we have a health care crisis is because laws force more and more coverage. Who wants to have to pay when guys buggering each other get sick? Homosexuals are largely at war with reality, and they want to turn everything upside down so that buggery isn't the problem but people who dont accept it as normal are the problem. Polgamy actually looks good compared to this monsterous deformity of ah heck marriage. Besides they dont really want to get married anyway - they just hate being reminded of their disordered condition and want the contrat removed. If it were ever legal they wouldn't care about marriage anymore. What a revolting issue.
Click to expand...

Ya know what? I think youre right.
 
Live and let live. Gay couples need marriage (or legal equivalent thereof) to have same protections and responsibilities as straight couples.
Also, it's the role of the judges to make sure that laws passed by the legislation agree with the constitution. If legislatures want to pass a constitutional amendment revoking the equal protection clause, they can do it, but until they do, they shouldn't expect judges to bend the constitution to accommodate their gay bashing.
 
Im curious what real benefits gay marriage would provide...trusts eliminate the inheretance issue...most companies offer insurance for significant others....maybe to share a tax return?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top