Iowa starts issuing same sex marriage licenses

[heartsurgeon]

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.

can you read???? (this is a rhetorical flourish, no response is desired)

why are the Democrats in Iowa waiting for a judge to overturn a law, presumably, that Democrats shouldn't agree with (or maybe they do!!)

why don't the Democrats in Iowa, who control the House, the Senate, AND the Governorship, simply pass a law making Gay Marriage legal?

how many times must i state the same question....

explain to me why the Democrats in Iowa won't do this....and why you aren't calling on them to do so

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
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?

What advantage does straight marriage provide? I honestly don't know. My parents were married, but aside from extending their miserable relationship by a few more abusive years and an even more miserable and abusive divorce for us kids to witness and be traumatized by, I don't see what good it did either them or their progeny. Of course now both sides of the family keep asking me when I am going to get married 😕
I think a man is responsible for taking care of his children, but I don't see why he has to be responsible for sticking by a woman who may have been a good lay in her glory days, but now is nothing more than a pain in the butt that deprives him of his freedom and income with no apparent benefit.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

how many times must i state the same question....

explain to me why the Democrats in Iowa won't do this....and why you aren't calling on them to do so

what kind of response are you looking for? some type of romantic, mr. smith goes to washington type thing?

politics are a dirty business, and most people accept that. the vast majority of politicians are willing to bend their positions to whichever breeze is going to get them elected (see also: Bill Clinton, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani).

the democrats in iowa won't do this because, if they did, it would be used against them in the next election. but just because the majority of the public wants something and is willing to vote people out who disagree doesn't make it right. that's what the judicial system is for.

if we lived in a country of majority rules, Al Gore would be president. /shudder

 

[heartsurgeon]

the democrats in iowa won't do this because, if they did, it would be used against them in the next election

thank you for your reply. i believe this is true. the iowa case will wind it's way through the courts, and i predict, the judges decision (to revoke the law) will be overturned.

 

[piasabird]

Marriage is a state statute, not a county statute. The judge is crazy.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DonVito
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.

Yes, I was. Otherwise, it seems like an issue that will never be resolved?

There's no point in debating that your opinion is this and my opinion is that. Law is all that really matters.

I personally see no difference between a polygamist and gays/lesbians. They're both (IMHO) aberrations of moral judgment and it really doesn't make sense to say one is protected by "Equal Protection" while the other is not. Again, IMHO.

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

Yup, and all that disgust is squarely inside of you. You have a virulent form of mental cancer. I hope you get well.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
Judicail activism? Nope, no such thing.

Fern

If Judicial Activism = A ruling I don't like, then yes.

Any state with a constitution that guarantees equal rights to all members gives same sex marriage advocates a powerful legal position. Since homosexuality is all but certain to be genetic, and our country has a strong tradition of not penalizing those who bear no fault for their condition, it is extremely difficult to advance a position of denying some the right to marry who they are attracted to, and denying the same to others. It explicitly violates the intent of the 14th amendment in my opinion (and in the opinion of an increasing number of legislators/legal professionals). This may be a ruling you dislike, but it's hardly a fringe interpretation of the constitution.

Whether people like it or not, gay marriage will be legal throughout the country sometime in the relatively near future. Within my lifetime for sure. There are no practical reasons to be against it, and rights once given are very difficult to take away. So.. well... I guess the right wing people can complain all they want about it, but they have in effect already lost. It's just a matter of time.

Fern represents the typical right-winger who uses the propaganda phrase handed to him (judicial activism) in a confused manner when he really means 'he doesn't like it'.

He fails to understand that *he's* the one calling for judicial activism by demanding the judge ignore what the law says and instead go with the 'mob' rule to ban gay marriage.

One note on your point about genetics, though, eskimo, the science I see suggests that there's something more complicated, like genetics creating a chance for homosexuality.

This is clearly indicated by the less-than-100% rate of identical genetic twins being both homosexual or heterosexual, while there appears to be a clear genetic role in the issue.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DonVito

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?

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.

Nice side step. So again, if not allowing "gay marriage" is against EP, then how is not allowying polygamy not against EP? Why can you limit "marriage" to "one and one" but not "one man and one woman"? And no, no animals(you can't get "consent") so stick to bigamy/polygamy.

And no, it's not hollow to point out the fact that homosexuals still have the "right" to marry someone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us. It's the truth no matter how much you try to dismiss or diminish it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DonVito

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.

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?

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.

Uh, if you buy the "born that way" for homosexuals then why can't you buy that men want to have more than one wife?(or wife more than one husband) Isn't it obvious with all the affairs and promiscuity that some humans aren't monogamous?

 

[K1052]

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.

Library out of books to ban already or speaking in tongues night called off?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DonVito

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.

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?

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.

Uh, if you buy the "born that way" for homosexuals then why can't you buy that men want to have more than one wife?(or wife more than one husband) Isn't it obvious with all the affairs and promiscuity that some humans aren't monogamous?

the chief problem seems to be that polygamy is illegal, but I'd have no problem with legalizing it. seems kind of silly.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

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.

can you read???? (this is a rhetorical flourish, no response is desired)

why are the Democrats in Iowa waiting for a judge to overturn a law, presumably, that Democrats shouldn't agree with (or maybe they do!!)

why don't the Democrats in Iowa, who control the House, the Senate, AND the Governorship, simply pass a law making Gay Marriage legal?

how many times must i state the same question....

explain to me why the Democrats in Iowa won't do this....and why you aren't calling on them to do so

Why are you caught up on Democrats? WTH do they have to do about all this? Jesus, dude...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

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.

can you read???? (this is a rhetorical flourish, no response is desired)

why are the Democrats in Iowa waiting for a judge to overturn a law, presumably, that Democrats shouldn't agree with (or maybe they do!!)

why don't the Democrats in Iowa, who control the House, the Senate, AND the Governorship, simply pass a law making Gay Marriage legal?

how many times must i state the same question....

explain to me why the Democrats in Iowa won't do this....and why you aren't calling on them to do so

Why are you caught up on Democrats? WTH do they have to do about all this? Jesus, dude...

Maybe because they are in power in Iowa? Jesus, dude...

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DonVito
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.

Yes, I was. Otherwise, it seems like an issue that will never be resolved?

There's no point in debating that your opinion is this and my opinion is that. Law is all that really matters.

I personally see no difference between a polygamist and gays/lesbians. They're both (IMHO) aberrations of moral judgment and it really doesn't make sense to say one is protected by "Equal Protection" while the other is not. Again, IMHO.

When a few million polygamists start complaining that they are being discriminated against we can discuss the issue then. I could be wrong but I don't hear a lot of polygamists complaining.

In the meantime, who exactly does it hurt by allowing gays to enter into a legal union similar to marriage?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DonVito

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?

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.

Nice side step. So again, if not allowing "gay marriage" is against EP, then how is not allowying polygamy not against EP? Why can you limit "marriage" to "one and one" but not "one man and one woman"? And no, no animals(you can't get "consent") so stick to bigamy/polygamy.

And no, it's not hollow to point out the fact that homosexuals still have the "right" to marry someone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us. It's the truth no matter how much you try to dismiss or diminish it.

Are you intentionally trying to be dense? He DID address it.

The reason that EP doesn't apply to polygamy is simply that polygamy is ILLEGAL FOR ALL citizens. There is no discrimination of a particular subgroup.

How freaking hard is that to understand and why do the righteous "sanctity of marriage" folks continue to trot that horse out when it clearly should be euthanized or turned into glue already?

And to HeartSurgeon....

I responded to your feigned outrage over the Iowan dems directly on page 4 of this thread but you either you didn't see it of dodged my post because you don't like the answer.

Here it is again so that I can see how you try to spin it:

They Iowa dems don't have a need to pass a law to allow gay marriage because it would be absolutely useless. State laws cannot override federal or constitutional laws/rights.

The 14th amendment clearly states that states must apply laws fairly and equally to ALL those in its jurisdiction. If states want to sound as sanctimonious as you guys wrongly believe that you are, then there are only two options:

1. Allow gay marriage so that all are treated equally under the law
2. Do not sanction marriage licenses so that all are treated equally under the law

Those are the only choices. If they want to issue a license that is required by state law for marriage, then they cannot say that gays are not entitled to that same license without discriminating.

Don't like it? Too bad. Thankfully, the founding fathers were smart enough to realize that their particular points of view were not going to be everlasting in a society that will be ever changing and took steps to keep up with the times and push out other's bigotry and inferiority complexes.

 

[manowar821]

Here we go again, assholes like Pabster piss me off so much I'll probably live 10 less years just by having higher blood pressure.

If you pigs are so worried about the so called "sanctity of marriage", perhaps you should concern yourself with murderers, rapists, and white-supremacists who are all allowed to get married. You know, BAD PEOPLE? Personally, if there was some kind of magical force holding marriage together that could be damaged by evil, I think these people would be more damaging that homosexuals.

Your religion or moral high-horse-issues are irrelevant in the lives of other people, the only place that bullshit is relevant is in your own life. They are not hurting you, taking rights from you, or otherwise damaging society around you or themselves.

Yeah, I'm pretty foul mouthed and disrespectful toward these bigots, but honestly, bigots do not deserve one bit of respect. Period. End of story. You're like some kind of totalitarianism wannabees. Get out of other peoples lives. Shut up. Go back to church. YOUR OPINION ON GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT VALID, AND I DON'T LIKE YOU.

::ARG FIST::

 

[palehorse]

Good news for the gays in Iowa. I wish them all the happiness and unhappiness that marriage grants them! 😀

Seriously, this doesnt bother me at all. They're already out there, so why not let them throw on a ring, say some vows, and suffer through divorces like everyone else?

Hell, for those who can't handle this concept, think positive - the more rights they get, the quieter they'll become, and the less you'll have to see and hear about their lifestyle!

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Good news for the gays in Iowa. I wish them all the happiness and unhappiness that marriage grants them! 😀

Seriously, this doesnt bother me at all. They're already out there, so why not let them throw on a ring, say some vows, and suffer through divorces like everyone else?

Hell, for those who can't handle this concept, think positive - the more rights they get, the quieter they'll become, and the less you'll have to see and hear about their lifestyle!

That's one way of looking at it... :beer:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

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.

can you read???? (this is a rhetorical flourish, no response is desired)

why are the Democrats in Iowa waiting for a judge to overturn a law, presumably, that Democrats shouldn't agree with (or maybe they do!!)

why don't the Democrats in Iowa, who control the House, the Senate, AND the Governorship, simply pass a law making Gay Marriage legal?

how many times must i state the same question....

explain to me why the Democrats in Iowa won't do this....and why you aren't calling on them to do so

Why are you caught up on Democrats? WTH do they have to do about all this? Jesus, dude...

Maybe because they are in power in Iowa? Jesus, dude...

Dems control Iowa??? :shocked:

Alright!!! :thumbsup: When did this happen? Best news I've seen in a looooong time.

 

[heartsurgeon]

They Iowa dems don't have a need to pass a law to allow gay marriage because it would be absolutely useless. State laws cannot override federal or constitutional laws/rights.

You silly!!You make me laugh!!

If the Dems passed a law, it would allow Gays here and now to get hitched...instead, they passed a law that restricted marriage. Now the issue is in the courts.

While your statement about state laws not overriding the consitution is correct,

there has been no definitive legal ruling that the current Iowa law (restricting marriage) is unconsitutional You may believe it to be so, but that doesn't count for much...

so yes, it makes emminent sense for the Dems to pass a law making it legal, in a practical and pragmatic way.

Me, personally, gays, let'm get married, serves em right...

I would then encourage my kids to become gay divorce attorneys, cause there's gonna be some serious money to be made in that field.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I would then encourage my kids to become gay divorce attorneys, cause there's gonna be some serious money to be made in that field.

Imagine that, a Neo Conservative not only encouraging his children to become lawyers but also to become gay:shocked:

 

[heartsurgeon]

assholes like Pabster

you pigs

::ARG FIST::

this forum states "PERSONAL FLAMES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED"
I think this post maybe over the line in this regard. Perhaps the Forum moderators will agree.

A little bit of personal banter, and mild dispargement seems to be the rule of the road in P&N, but pulling out the swearwords and threatening physical violence is unacceptable behavior, i believe.


I'd do something about it but since I've participated in this thread it wouldn't be in good form according to the new kinder/gentler moderating guidelines set forth by AT HQ.

Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn

 

[heartsurgeon]

Imagine that, a Neo Conservative not only encouraging his children to become lawyers but also to become gay

sighh..

yet again, a misrepresentation of facts by a leftie...
besides, i thought the party line was that gaydom was genetic, and not a "choice"

i am just encouraging them to be Capitalists, and go where the money is/will be.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

assholes like Pabster

you pigs

::ARG FIST::

this forum states "PERSONAL FLAMES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED"
I think this post maybe over the line in this regard. Perhaps the Forum moderators will agree.

A little bit of personal banter, and mild dispargement seems to be the rule of the road in P&N, but pulling out the swearwords and threatening physical violence is unacceptable behavior, i believe.


I'd do something about it but since I've participated in this thread it wouldn't be in good form according to the new kinder/gentler moderating guidelines set forth by AT HQ.

Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn

We're all like a-holes, we all have one.

Pigs? Everyone's a cop now?

What's an ::arg fist::? Sounds kinky :shocked: