Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman

[mr and mrs 187]

That sounds reasonable on the surface, but I doubt that would ever happen. Religion doesn't own the right to the word 'marriage'. Our laws already recognize a marriage as a social contract. I think that people just have to accept that marriage means different things to different people and religions, but in terms of civil laws, it has and always will be a definition of a social contract.

well put. and i think its important to put this debate in a SOCIAL context. social norms change and the laws of society need to be updated.

think about the laws that prevented people of different colors getting married (in some states):

wiki article: loving v. virginia 1967 VERY interesting. give it a read.

Love reigned Supreme in 1967 (blurb from the chicago sun timesfrom 2007)

MILFORD, VA. | Court tossed out bans on black-white marriages

MILFORD, Va. -- Reporters no longer beat a path to the house just over the Caroline County border -- and that's fine with its owner, a soft-spoken 67-year-old who never wanted the fame her marriage brought her.

Born Mildred Jeter, she's known mostly by the name she took when she -- a black woman living in segregated Virginia -- dared break the rules by marrying a white man named Richard Loving.

The union landed the Lovings in jail, and then before the U.S. Supreme Court, and finally in the history books; 40 years ago Tuesday, the court ruled in favor of the couple, overturning laws prohibiting interracial unions and changing the face of America. snip

It was in this setting that Mildred and Richard met. Their relationship took an abrupt turn when she became pregnant at 18.

They drove some 80 miles to Washington, D.C., in 1958, married, and returned to Central Point.

''I think he thought {if} we were married, they couldn't bother us,'' Mildred said.

Within a month, they were arrested. They spent years living in exile in Washington after being convicted of ''cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.'' Laws banning mixed marriages existed in at least 17 states.

that was 40 years ago, pretty recent history.

(i also think this particular legal decision should hit home for many vj-ers because many among us do have interracial relationships, good thing is one isnt on the books anymore! seriously. think about it.)

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If you, and other anti-gay marriage enthusiast, don't/can't answer simple questions then how do you hope to stem the tide of the gay invasion.

Social fabric? You DO think that everyone will be gay don't you? You think that if we allow gay marriage we are saying it's okay to be gay and that then everyone will be gay.

1) You stated yourself that you beleive that people are born gay.

2) Gay people are born of a man and a woman and raised in mainly hetrosexual environments, so why would a homosexual environment not create hetrosexuals. Its because its not a choice but question of hormones (which, when and how much) so really its the mothers fault that gay people exist and should be burned at the stake for their sins.

PS Don't create an insult out of nothing todeflect from the FACT that you will not answer my questions. I have answered most of yours.

What are the unintended consequesnces of a redefinition of marriage for our society?

How would you explain marriage if it is no longer between members of the opposite sex? Tell it to me as if I was a child, please.

[mRx 16]

i am sick to death of religion interfering in matters of law. it has no place and the agenda of hatred sold to millions by the religious right is disgusting. as they say, hate is not a family value.

I'm sick to death of the mindless and godless interfering in matters of law, and calling it compassion. When you don't believe in God, you'll believe in anything. . . like gay rights.

I'm not a homophobe. I have no fear of gays. Please cease with the hyperbole.

Gays have rights already. They can vote, associate freely, buy guns, go to school, travel, own property, work, have kids, lots of stuff I do every day. These are important rights and they have them already.

So why not marriage? I have read all the posts in this thread and the question keeps being asked, it has yet to be answered with a straight forward response. It will no doubt be dodged or answered with another question. Come on, don't be afraid of your beliefs and convictions. Enlighten us all.

PS. Why do they have some rights but not others?

No one has all rights. Besides, marriage is not a right.

Marriage is defined as a union between members of the opposite sex. No need to muddy the waters by changing that. If gays want unions, they can have them, just not one that redefines marriage.

Tell me. How would you define marriage if gays can marry?

huh?

A general definition of marriage is that it is a social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally.

You can enter into a contract that does that without being married. I'm contracted to other family members legally and economically via a trust fund. No contract can link you emotionally.

Why are you so protective of your definition of marriage? What are you afraid will happen if gays are allowed to be married?

NB: I was about to continue with other points that I would like you to confirm but I figured you would answer those and leave these two questions alone. Also I am off to bed so I will respond in the morning.

The government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Let the govt recognize only civil unions, whether they be gay or straight, and the rights affecting both be the same.

Religious organizations should handle marriages, and marriages should have no meaning when it comes to legal rights. If people disagree with their religious organizations approach to gay marriage, they can work within that organization to seek change, but gay couples in civil unions would still have the same legal rights as straight couples in civil unions.

The so-called definition of marriage is preserved, and well all have equal treatment/rights under the law.

Without directly answering the question about the difference between a marriage and a union I have conluced this from your response. Marriage and Civil Union are the same but just called something different for religious reasons?

I'm pretty sure aisha kandisha was saying that it should be that way, not that it necessarily is.

IMO, the government should simply issue a paper to any consentable couple desiring to be recognized as a couple amongst society. (it can be similiar to the marriage license that is required now.) If they want to, they can get married in accordance with their faith of choice, but it would have no bearing on your rights. Completely remove the religious aspect from it. A couple recognized by State, needn't follow the same guidelines as a couple recognized by God. My wife and I were married by a judge, because we had no desire for any relgious ceremony.

The gheys would be happy cuz they get to be recognized as a couple and the homophobes would be happy cuz no one is messing with their definition of marriage.

[fozzie 41]

No rubbish at all. The push for gay marriage is all about social-political engineering.

I'm not a Christian.

Like I said, if you don't believe in God, you'll believe in anything. Social order requires limits and boundaries, something social liberals abhore. They do not like being told NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. They are narcisstic and believe that what makes them feel good, but requires little sacrifice is a win win. Support of same sex marriage requires no sacrifice on their part, makes them feel good for creating and supporting another poor, downtrodden minority plight, and all they have to do is pepper their protests with allusions to misappropriated "rights", "unfairness", "injustice" and "unfairness", and it's all good. No thought given to what affect it as on the larger society, as long as they feel righteous and superior to knuckle dragging religous folk.

I'm a former liberal hippie. I've known this drill for decades.

I ask again, but know whats coming, What do you think wil lhappen? You keep writing those words so explain, please.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The government is in the civil union business. You still need government recognition to get the rights allowed in marriage. There is no requirement to marry religiously to be married legally. All legal marriages are civil unions. Gays can have civil unions, they just can't be married in most places in the US.

When you get married in a civil ceremony, as a man and a woman, its is legally a "Marriage". No? (sorry I forgot you don't answer my questions).

I said that already in a previous post:

The government is in the civil union business. You still need government recognition to get the rights allowed in marriage. There is no requirement to marry religiously to be married legally. All legal marriages are civil unions. Gays can have civil unions, they just can't be married in most places in the US.

[fozzie 41]

If you, and other anti-gay marriage enthusiast, don't/can't answer simple questions then how do you hope to stem the tide of the gay invasion.

Social fabric? You DO think that everyone will be gay don't you? You think that if we allow gay marriage we are saying it's okay to be gay and that then everyone will be gay.

1) You stated yourself that you beleive that people are born gay.

2) Gay people are born of a man and a woman and raised in mainly hetrosexual environments, so why would a homosexual environment not create hetrosexuals. Its because its not a choice but question of hormones (which, when and how much) so really its the mothers fault that gay people exist and should be burned at the stake for their sins.

PS Don't create an insult out of nothing todeflect from the FACT that you will not answer my questions. I have answered most of yours.

What are the unintended consequesnces of a redefinition of marriage for our society?

How would you explain marriage if it is no longer between members of the opposite sex? Tell it to me as if I was a child, please.

That was your question to me? I thought I asked that of you in various round about ways without an answer!

The government is in the civil union business. You still need government recognition to get the rights allowed in marriage. There is no requirement to marry religiously to be married legally. All legal marriages are civil unions. Gays can have civil unions, they just can't be married in most places in the US.

When you get married in a civil ceremony, as a man and a woman, its is legally a "Marriage". No? (sorry I forgot you don't answer my questions).

I said that already in a previous post:

The government is in the civil union business. You still need government recognition to get the rights allowed in marriage. There is no requirement to marry religiously to be married legally. All legal marriages are civil unions. Gays can have civil unions, they just can't be married in most places in the US.

Everywhere in the US when a man and woman get married in a civil marriage it IS a MARRIAGE! What don't yo understand about that statement?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

That sounds reasonable on the surface, but I doubt that would ever happen. Religion doesn't own the right to the word 'marriage'. Our laws already recognize a marriage as a social contract. I think that people just have to accept that marriage means different things to different people and religions, but in terms of civil laws, it has and always will be a definition of a social contract.

well put. and i think its important to put this debate in a SOCIAL context. social norms change and the laws of society need to be updated.

think about the laws that prevented people of different colors getting married (in some states):

wiki article: loving v. virginia 1967 VERY interesting. give it a read.

Love reigned Supreme in 1967 (blurb from the chicago sun timesfrom 2007)

MILFORD, VA. | Court tossed out bans on black-white marriages

MILFORD, Va. -- Reporters no longer beat a path to the house just over the Caroline County border -- and that's fine with its owner, a soft-spoken 67-year-old who never wanted the fame her marriage brought her.

Born Mildred Jeter, she's known mostly by the name she took when she -- a black woman living in segregated Virginia -- dared break the rules by marrying a white man named Richard Loving.

The union landed the Lovings in jail, and then before the U.S. Supreme Court, and finally in the history books; 40 years ago Tuesday, the court ruled in favor of the couple, overturning laws prohibiting interracial unions and changing the face of America. snip

It was in this setting that Mildred and Richard met. Their relationship took an abrupt turn when she became pregnant at 18.

They drove some 80 miles to Washington, D.C., in 1958, married, and returned to Central Point.

''I think he thought {if} we were married, they couldn't bother us,'' Mildred said.

Within a month, they were arrested. They spent years living in exile in Washington after being convicted of ''cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.'' Laws banning mixed marriages existed in at least 17 states.

that was 40 years ago, pretty recent history.

(i also think this particular legal decision should hit home for many vj-ers because many among us do have interracial relationships, good thing is one isnt on the books anymore! seriously. think about it.)

That decision dealt with marriage between a man and a woman, not two men or two women. It is more of a leap from one paradigm to the other than you care to admit. There is much resistance against gay marriage in the Black community, for example. They are not all that happy about the history of racial struggles being co-opted as equal to the battle over gay marriage.

I addressed Loving in a prior post, btw. It didn't immediately affect change in state laws; some continued to have laws against mixd race marriage o the books for another 40 years. Laws can change, but acceptance is much, much slower among the populace.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If you, and other anti-gay marriage enthusiast, don't/can't answer simple questions then how do you hope to stem the tide of the gay invasion.

Social fabric? You DO think that everyone will be gay don't you? You think that if we allow gay marriage we are saying it's okay to be gay and that then everyone will be gay.

1) You stated yourself that you beleive that people are born gay.

2) Gay people are born of a man and a woman and raised in mainly hetrosexual environments, so why would a homosexual environment not create hetrosexuals. Its because its not a choice but question of hormones (which, when and how much) so really its the mothers fault that gay people exist and should be burned at the stake for their sins.

PS Don't create an insult out of nothing todeflect from the FACT that you will not answer my questions. I have answered most of yours.

What are the unintended consequesnces of a redefinition of marriage for our society?

How would you explain marriage if it is no longer between members of the opposite sex? Tell it to me as if I was a child, please.

That was your question to me? I thought I asked that of you in various round about ways without an answer!

The government is in the civil union business. You still need government recognition to get the rights allowed in marriage. There is no requirement to marry religiously to be married legally. All legal marriages are civil unions. Gays can have civil unions, they just can't be married in most places in the US.

When you get married in a civil ceremony, as a man and a woman, its is legally a "Marriage". No? (sorry I forgot you don't answer my questions).

I said that already in a previous post:

The government is in the civil union business. You still need government recognition to get the rights allowed in marriage. There is no requirement to marry religiously to be married legally. All legal marriages are civil unions. Gays can have civil unions, they just can't be married in most places in the US.

Everywhere in the US when a man and woman get married in a civil marriage it IS a MARRIAGE! What don't yo understand about that statement?

What don't you understand about how I said that very thing many posts ago? I don't understand why you keep acting as if I didn't, and what that fact does to further your argument for same sex marriage.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

i am sick to death of religion interfering in matters of law. it has no place and the agenda of hatred sold to millions by the religious right is disgusting. as they say, hate is not a family value.

I'm sick to death of the mindless and godless interfering in matters of law, and calling it compassion. When you don't believe in God, you'll believe in anything. . . like gay rights.

I'm not a homophobe. I have no fear of gays. Please cease with the hyperbole.

Gays have rights already. They can vote, associate freely, buy guns, go to school, travel, own property, work, have kids, lots of stuff I do every day. These are important rights and they have them already.

So why not marriage? I have read all the posts in this thread and the question keeps being asked, it has yet to be answered with a straight forward response. It will no doubt be dodged or answered with another question. Come on, don't be afraid of your beliefs and convictions. Enlighten us all.

PS. Why do they have some rights but not others?

No one has all rights. Besides, marriage is not a right.

Marriage is defined as a union between members of the opposite sex. No need to muddy the waters by changing that. If gays want unions, they can have them, just not one that redefines marriage.

Tell me. How would you define marriage if gays can marry?

huh?

A general definition of marriage is that it is a social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally.

You can enter into a contract that does that without being married. I'm contracted to other family members legally and economically via a trust fund. No contract can link you emotionally.

Why are you so protective of your definition of marriage? What are you afraid will happen if gays are allowed to be married?

NB: I was about to continue with other points that I would like you to confirm but I figured you would answer those and leave these two questions alone. Also I am off to bed so I will respond in the morning.

The government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Let the govt recognize only civil unions, whether they be gay or straight, and the rights affecting both be the same.

Religious organizations should handle marriages, and marriages should have no meaning when it comes to legal rights. If people disagree with their religious organizations approach to gay marriage, they can work within that organization to seek change, but gay couples in civil unions would still have the same legal rights as straight couples in civil unions.

The so-called definition of marriage is preserved, and well all have equal treatment/rights under the law.

Without directly answering the question about the difference between a marriage and a union I have conluced this from your response. Marriage and Civil Union are the same but just called something different for religious reasons?

I'm pretty sure aisha kandisha was saying that it should be that way, not that it necessarily is.

IMO, the government should simply issue a paper to any consentable couple desiring to be recognized as a couple amongst society. (it can be similiar to the marriage license that is required now.) If they want to, they can get married in accordance with their faith of choice, but it would have no bearing on your rights. Completely remove the religious aspect from it. A couple recognized by State, needn't follow the same guidelines as a couple recognized by God. My wife and I were married by a judge, because we had no desire for any relgious ceremony.

The gheys would be happy cuz they get to be recognized as a couple and the homophobes would be happy cuz no one is messing with their definition of marriage.

Gays can already own property together, parent together, confer inheritance rights, confer legal rights to guardianship to each other. They just can't do it as a married couple.

[fozzie 41]

What don't you understand about how I said that very thing many posts ago? I don't understand why you keep acting as if I didn't, and what that fact does to further your argument for same sex marriage.

Okay, so lets assume missed something among the 10 pages. Would you please kindly explain it again? What will happen to society if Gay Marriage is allowed? I only want the answer to this one question...thats it. Once I have an answer I will end this debate from my side.

Lets make it two questions. If a civil union between a man and a woman is considered a marriage, why is a civil union between a man and a man not?

Edited April 4, 2009 by fozzie

[mRx 16]

Gays can already own property together, parent together, confer inheritance rights, confer legal rights to guardianship to each other. They just can't do it as a married couple.

They are not recognized by the government as having the same rights as a married couple.

The definition of marriage is largely irrelevant, and I don't know why you two are getting hung up on it. The fundamental debate is one of rights.

When specific rights are conferred to some couples, but not others, then there is an inequality.

Again, what the State recognizes as marriage, and what a God recognizes as marriage CAN be different things.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gays can already own property together, parent together, confer inheritance rights, confer legal rights to guardianship to each other. They just can't do it as a married couple.

They are not recognized by the government as having the same rights as a married couple.

The definition of marriage is largely irrelevant, and I don't know why you two are getting hung up on it. The fundamental debate is one of rights.

When specific rights are conferred to some couples, but not others, then there is an inequality.

Again, what the State recognizes as marriage, and what a God recognizes as marriage CAN be different things.

Yes.

[fozzie 41]

Gays can already own property together, parent together, confer inheritance rights, confer legal rights to guardianship to each other. They just can't do it as a married couple.

They are not recognized by the government as having the same rights as a married couple.

The definition of marriage is largely irrelevant, and I don't know why you two are getting hung up on it. The fundamental debate is one of rights.

When specific rights are conferred to some couples, but not others, then there is an inequality.

Again, what the State recognizes as marriage, and what a God recognizes as marriage CAN be different things.

The definition of marriage is part of it beacause it keeps getting raised so needs to be knocked down again. The main part of the discussion that I am truley seeking an answer to related to the fear of the anti-gay marriage posters. What exactly ar they afraid of? What is going to happen to society if we allow this? Yes it is a fundamental issue of rights, equal rights. Unfortunately some people are more equal than others.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The elephant in the room is this (IMO)...

Religions are worried that once gays are fully embraced and accepted into society, then those religions who look down upon gay people will be forced to reckon with their own hang-ups and misplaced judgment. So they want society, through our civil laws to make a distinction between gay relationships and heterosexual couples. The irony is that meanwhile, this country continues to have a high divorce rate and infidelity is commonplace among heterosexual marriages. If protecting the sanctity of marriage was truly their goal, they are focusing on the wrong target - gay marriage.

[mRx 16]

Gays can already own property together, parent together, confer inheritance rights, confer legal rights to guardianship to each other. They just can't do it as a married couple.

They are not recognized by the government as having the same rights as a married couple.

The definition of marriage is largely irrelevant, and I don't know why you two are getting hung up on it. The fundamental debate is one of rights.

When specific rights are conferred to some couples, but not others, then there is an inequality.

Again, what the State recognizes as marriage, and what a God recognizes as marriage CAN be different things.

The definition of marriage is part of it beacause it keeps getting raised so needs to be knocked down again. The main part of the discussion that I am truley seeking an answer to related to the fear of the anti-gay marriage posters. What exactly ar they afraid of? What is going to happen to society if we allow this? Yes it is a fundamental issue of rights, equal rights. Unfortunately some people are more equal than others.

I don't speak for them, but I think the anti-gay community is concerned that this is being forced on society as normal and acceptable. I do think that there is some legitimacy to this claim.

Being recognized as a couple who've accepted a contractual agreement, doesn't mean that society as a whole should be forced to accept that agreement. I don't think they should either. Naturally, I doubt the anti-gay community is worried about the government forcing them to establish social relationships with people they don't want to. The issue that would arise about force would be an economic one.

If Barza Woman has a business, I don't believe that she should be forced to do business with anybody that she doesn't desire to. If she is the head of an insurance firm, and she doesn't want to insure gay couples, I don't think she should be forced to.

Eventually, she may find that her selective service process is economically unwise. Because one business's loss is a competitor's gain. But it's her business, and her decision to make, not anyone elses.

But again, I don't speak for the anti-gay crowd, so my assessment may be off the mark.