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

[dalegg 143]

The reasons I mentioned in an earlier post:

1. file taxes as married.

2. Ability to be "next-of-kin" for emergency and legal reasons.

3. Family insurance (the partner is a professor, and therefore has good health insurance while the guy who was our friend first has minimal - if any - health insurance.)

Our country offers benefits to married people. As such, our government is discriminating against certain citizens by denying them those same benefits. It's like those damn discount cards at supermarkets.... It's $3.99 if you have a card - $5.29 if you don't.

#1 doesn't really take a change in marriage laws. The government could amend the tax code and solve that issue without offending anyone.

#2 can be solved with a legal writ I would think. If it can't, again a simple amendment to make those legal statements most binding would solve the problem.

#3 - well, at least with my insurance that is already the case. Significant others have every right to the same insurance coverage as wives and children. The answer there is to change insurance companies.

Of course, you could use that logic to argue against heterosexual marriage just as readily.

Only if those were the only reasons for a heterosexual couple to get married. But those usually aren't the only reasons. Heterosexual couples get married also because they want to have sex and/or children together and have it legitimate in the eyes of their family and/or God. I think this is the number one reason why marriage began in the first place.

This doesn't really apply to gay marriages. They certainly aren't going to have children together, and I can't really believe most parents are going to change from being unapproving of a gay union until the day they are actually married, and then suddenly be happy about it.

Marriage is also about commitment. Saying to someone officially in front of family and friends that we are married and love each other. Do we need to to? No but we want to . As for having kids in the traditional sense of the word then no gay couples can't do that. However there other ways such as adoption.

Yeah, and do they need to be married to do that? No.

What difference does that make though?

You can have sex and have kids as a heterosexual without being married.

Why do we need to scrutinise a persons reasons for wanting to do it?

If you or I did that to a straight couple we'd rightly be told to piss off and mind our own business.

Why the need to act as judge and jury over why someone's desire to get married, just because they're gay?

You can have sex and have kids as a heterosexual without being married- And for many, you will not be seen as legimate by your church or your family, in fact you might be shunned. You are no more or less shunned by anyone for being a gay couple- married or just shacking up.

I'm scrutinizing these peoples reasons because they seek to shake up a very old tradition and upset a lot of people. I think before you do that, your motives should be scrutinized thoroughly.

[Peikko 1,575]

The point is though that legally your coupledom will be recognized, whether or not you are married, if you are a hetro couple. Not so homosexual couples.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Wait a second. You said earlier that getting married to gain the right to be together (namely, immigrate to the US) is perfectly acceptable; but you think that gay couples wanting to get married to achieve the same benefits are a no-no? A bit of a double standard, don't you think?

[fozzie 41]

The reasons I mentioned in an earlier post:

1. file taxes as married.

2. Ability to be "next-of-kin" for emergency and legal reasons.

3. Family insurance (the partner is a professor, and therefore has good health insurance while the guy who was our friend first has minimal - if any - health insurance.)

Our country offers benefits to married people. As such, our government is discriminating against certain citizens by denying them those same benefits. It's like those damn discount cards at supermarkets.... It's $3.99 if you have a card - $5.29 if you don't.

#1 doesn't really take a change in marriage laws. The government could amend the tax code and solve that issue without offending anyone.

#2 can be solved with a legal writ I would think. If it can't, again a simple amendment to make those legal statements most binding would solve the problem.

#3 - well, at least with my insurance that is already the case. Significant others have every right to the same insurance coverage as wives and children. The answer there is to change insurance companies.

Of course, you could use that logic to argue against heterosexual marriage just as readily.

Only if those were the only reasons for a heterosexual couple to get married. But those usually aren't the only reasons. Heterosexual couples get married also because they want to have sex and/or children together and have it legitimate in the eyes of their family and/or God. I think this is the number one reason why marriage began in the first place.

This doesn't really apply to gay marriages. They certainly aren't going to have children together, and I can't really believe most parents are going to change from being unapproving of a gay union until the day they are actually married, and then suddenly be happy about it.

Marriage is also about commitment. Saying to someone officially in front of family and friends that we are married and love each other. Do we need to to? No but we want to . As for having kids in the traditional sense of the word then no gay couples can't do that. However there other ways such as adoption.

Yeah, and do they need to be married to do that? No.

Are you reiterating my point for me?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The reasons I mentioned in an earlier post:

1. file taxes as married.

2. Ability to be "next-of-kin" for emergency and legal reasons.

3. Family insurance (the partner is a professor, and therefore has good health insurance while the guy who was our friend first has minimal - if any - health insurance.)

Our country offers benefits to married people. As such, our government is discriminating against certain citizens by denying them those same benefits. It's like those damn discount cards at supermarkets.... It's $3.99 if you have a card - $5.29 if you don't.

#1 doesn't really take a change in marriage laws. The government could amend the tax code and solve that issue without offending anyone.

#2 can be solved with a legal writ I would think. If it can't, again a simple amendment to make those legal statements most binding would solve the problem.

#3 - well, at least with my insurance that is already the case. Significant others have every right to the same insurance coverage as wives and children. The answer there is to change insurance companies.

Of course, you could use that logic to argue against heterosexual marriage just as readily.

Only if those were the only reasons for a heterosexual couple to get married. But those usually aren't the only reasons. Heterosexual couples get married also because they want to have sex and/or children together and have it legitimate in the eyes of their family and/or God. I think this is the number one reason why marriage began in the first place.

This doesn't really apply to gay marriages. They certainly aren't going to have children together, and I can't really believe most parents are going to change from being unapproving of a gay union until the day they are actually married, and then suddenly be happy about it.

Marriage is also about commitment. Saying to someone officially in front of family and friends that we are married and love each other. Do we need to to? No but we want to . As for having kids in the traditional sense of the word then no gay couples can't do that. However there other ways such as adoption.

Yeah, and do they need to be married to do that? No.

What difference does that make though?

You can have sex and have kids as a heterosexual without being married.

Why do we need to scrutinise a persons reasons for wanting to do it?

If you or I did that to a straight couple we'd rightly be told to piss off and mind our own business.

Why the need to act as judge and jury over why someone's desire to get married, just because they're gay?

You can have sex and have kids as a heterosexual without being married- And for many, you will not be seen as legimate by your church or your family, in fact you might be shunned. You are no more or less shunned by anyone for being a gay couple- married or just shacking up.

I'm scrutinizing these peoples reasons because they seek to shake up a very old tradition and upset a lot of people. I think before you do that, your motives should be scrutinized thoroughly.

You can get married as a heterosexual but still have your family shun you because they don't like your SO.

I'm not sure what purpose is served by saying on the one hand that heterosexual couples marry because of X, Y and Z, and on the other that these same reasons are somehow illegitimate when applied to homosexual couples.

[dalegg 143]

The reasons I mentioned in an earlier post:

1. file taxes as married.

2. Ability to be "next-of-kin" for emergency and legal reasons.

3. Family insurance (the partner is a professor, and therefore has good health insurance while the guy who was our friend first has minimal - if any - health insurance.)

Our country offers benefits to married people. As such, our government is discriminating against certain citizens by denying them those same benefits. It's like those damn discount cards at supermarkets.... It's $3.99 if you have a card - $5.29 if you don't.

#1 doesn't really take a change in marriage laws. The government could amend the tax code and solve that issue without offending anyone.

#2 can be solved with a legal writ I would think. If it can't, again a simple amendment to make those legal statements most binding would solve the problem.

#3 - well, at least with my insurance that is already the case. Significant others have every right to the same insurance coverage as wives and children. The answer there is to change insurance companies.

Of course, you could use that logic to argue against heterosexual marriage just as readily.

Only if those were the only reasons for a heterosexual couple to get married. But those usually aren't the only reasons. Heterosexual couples get married also because they want to have sex and/or children together and have it legitimate in the eyes of their family and/or God. I think this is the number one reason why marriage began in the first place.

This doesn't really apply to gay marriages. They certainly aren't going to have children together, and I can't really believe most parents are going to change from being unapproving of a gay union until the day they are actually married, and then suddenly be happy about it.

Marriage is also about commitment. Saying to someone officially in front of family and friends that we are married and love each other. Do we need to to? No but we want to . As for having kids in the traditional sense of the word then no gay couples can't do that. However there other ways such as adoption.

Yeah, and do they need to be married to do that? No.

Are you reiterating my point for me?

No, I was lazy and didn't highlight the part about having kids.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The point is though that legally your coupledom will be recognized, whether or not you are married, if you are a hetro couple. Not so homosexual couples.

It also doesn't matter what "society" thinks. If it noone would have eloped.

[dalegg 143]

The reasons I mentioned in an earlier post:

1. file taxes as married.

2. Ability to be "next-of-kin" for emergency and legal reasons.

3. Family insurance (the partner is a professor, and therefore has good health insurance while the guy who was our friend first has minimal - if any - health insurance.)

Our country offers benefits to married people. As such, our government is discriminating against certain citizens by denying them those same benefits. It's like those damn discount cards at supermarkets.... It's $3.99 if you have a card - $5.29 if you don't.

#1 doesn't really take a change in marriage laws. The government could amend the tax code and solve that issue without offending anyone.

#2 can be solved with a legal writ I would think. If it can't, again a simple amendment to make those legal statements most binding would solve the problem.

#3 - well, at least with my insurance that is already the case. Significant others have every right to the same insurance coverage as wives and children. The answer there is to change insurance companies.

Of course, you could use that logic to argue against heterosexual marriage just as readily.

Only if those were the only reasons for a heterosexual couple to get married. But those usually aren't the only reasons. Heterosexual couples get married also because they want to have sex and/or children together and have it legitimate in the eyes of their family and/or God. I think this is the number one reason why marriage began in the first place.

This doesn't really apply to gay marriages. They certainly aren't going to have children together, and I can't really believe most parents are going to change from being unapproving of a gay union until the day they are actually married, and then suddenly be happy about it.

Marriage is also about commitment. Saying to someone officially in front of family and friends that we are married and love each other. Do we need to to? No but we want to . As for having kids in the traditional sense of the word then no gay couples can't do that. However there other ways such as adoption.

Yeah, and do they need to be married to do that? No.

What difference does that make though?

You can have sex and have kids as a heterosexual without being married.

Why do we need to scrutinise a persons reasons for wanting to do it?

If you or I did that to a straight couple we'd rightly be told to piss off and mind our own business.

Why the need to act as judge and jury over why someone's desire to get married, just because they're gay?

You can have sex and have kids as a heterosexual without being married- And for many, you will not be seen as legimate by your church or your family, in fact you might be shunned. You are no more or less shunned by anyone for being a gay couple- married or just shacking up.

I'm scrutinizing these peoples reasons because they seek to shake up a very old tradition and upset a lot of people. I think before you do that, your motives should be scrutinized thoroughly.

You can get married as a heterosexual but still have your family shun you because they don't like your SO.

I'm not sure what purpose is served by saying on the one hand that heterosexual couples marry because of X, Y and Z, and on the other that these same reasons are somehow illegitimate when applied to homosexual couples.

It keeps the debate going.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Marriage had to have been invented by a woman. No guy would ever come up with the idea of

living together as one and when it doesn't work out, giving up half his #######.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But its circular logic isn't it?

What reason *is* good enough for gay couples to be allowed to marry if none of the arguments that apply to anyone else are applicable?

[Chica Yeyé 41]

You can get married as a heterosexual but still have your family shun you because they don't like your SO.

I'm not sure what purpose is served by saying on the one hand that heterosexual couples marry because of X, Y and Z, and on the other that these same reasons are somehow illegitimate when applied to homosexual couples.

It keeps the debate going.

Actually, it should end it. Unless double standards are still the law of the land. Wait, they are.

[dalegg 143]

But its circular logic isn't it?

What reason *is* good enough for gay couples to be allowed to marry if none of the arguments that apply to anyone else are applicable?

I think the reason that would be good enough is that the entire institution of marriage being based on a union of a man and woman before God is a sham.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But its circular logic isn't it?

What reason *is* good enough for gay couples to be allowed to marry if none of the arguments that apply to anyone else are applicable?

I think the reason that would be good enough is that the entire institution of marriage being based on a union of a man and woman before God is a sham.

Well it is. Marriage ceased to be a religious institution when people were allowed to marry in registry offices via civil ceremonies and when public officials other than priests were allowed to conduct marriage ceremonies.

There's no argument about those "civil" marriages being somehow "lesser" than the traditional variety, nor is there any argument over what those are called.

Ergo religion has no ownership over marriage - barring who can get married on their premises.

As it should be.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

But its circular logic isn't it?

What reason *is* good enough for gay couples to be allowed to marry if none of the arguments that apply to anyone else are applicable?

I think the reason that would be good enough is that the entire institution of marriage being based on a union of a man and woman before God is a sham.

which God? I mean, so we are all on the same page.

[dalegg 143]

But its circular logic isn't it?

What reason *is* good enough for gay couples to be allowed to marry if none of the arguments that apply to anyone else are applicable?

I think the reason that would be good enough is that the entire institution of marriage being based on a union of a man and woman before God is a sham.

which God? I mean, so we are all on the same page.

Pick one.