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

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Q&A s not a one-way street. I'm not going to keep answering questions just so my answrs can be questioned again. I don't understand gay marriage supporters any more than they understand gay marriage opposers. How does gay marriage benefit this country? Is it only about benefiting individuals or about benefiting the society? And how?

Because marriage is a fundamental right in this country, whether you want to recognize that truth or not.

If it was a right, you wouldn't need government to do it. It's regulated, not an absolute, not a fundamental.

So I take it that the Supreme Court stating that marriage is a fundamental right has no bearing on your POV of the matter?

I have to agree with the Supreme Court on everything? No. I don't agree with their chipping away at property rights and distinctions between citizens and illegals either. Activist courts are a major source of our society's creeping demise.

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

Q&A s not a one-way street. I'm not going to keep answering questions just so my answrs can be questioned again. I don't understand gay marriage supporters any more than they understand gay marriage opposers. How does gay marriage benefit this country? Is it only about benefiting individuals or about benefiting the society? And how?

Because marriage is a fundamental right in this country, whether you want to recognize that truth or not.

If it was a right, you wouldn't need government to do it. It's regulated, not an absolute, not a fundamental.

So I take it that the Supreme Court stating that marriage is a fundamental right has no bearing on your POV of the matter?

I have to agree with the Supreme Court on everything? No. I don't agree with their chipping away at property rights and distinctions between citizens and illegals either. Activist courts are a major source of our society's creeping demise.

Ok, but you stated that you can't understand why non-gay people would be concerned about gay marriage and I gave the reason. Are you satisfied? You may not agree with the Supreme Court on this matter, but at least you should be able to understand the logic behind why non-gay find it an important issue...because we agree with the Supreme Court - marriage is a fundamental right.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Q&A s not a one-way street. I'm not going to keep answering questions just so my answrs can be questioned again. I don't understand gay marriage supporters any more than they understand gay marriage opposers. How does gay marriage benefit this country? Is it only about benefiting individuals or about benefiting the society? And how?

Because marriage is a fundamental right in this country, whether you want to recognize that truth or not.

If it was a right, you wouldn't need government to do it. It's regulated, not an absolute, not a fundamental.

So I take it that the Supreme Court stating that marriage is a fundamental right has no bearing on your POV of the matter?

I have to agree with the Supreme Court on everything? No. I don't agree with their chipping away at property rights and distinctions between citizens and illegals either. Activist courts are a major source of our society's creeping demise.

Ok, but you stated that you can't understand why non-gay people would be concerned about gay marriage and I gave the reason. Are you satisfied? You may not agree with the Supreme Court on this matter, but at least you should be able to understand the logic behind why non-gay find it an important issue...because we agree with the Supreme Court - marriage is a fundamental right.

If marriage was a fundamental right, its parameters, and that of divorce, would not vary from state to state. It would not be a purview of the government. Common law marriage would be the norm. None of this is the case, so, whatever the Supreme Court may have said, it has not proven to have made much difference in places where gay marriage is not recognized. And, since it is mostly activist courts that are sanctioning it, the resistance of gay marriage opponents will not be resolved when their will is undermined. You cannot soften heart and minds by forcing unwanted change on people. That is nothing to brag about.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Barza Woman

[DeadPoolX 9]

Q&A s not a one-way street. I'm not going to keep answering questions just so my answrs can be questioned again. I don't understand gay marriage supporters any more than they understand gay marriage opposers. How does gay marriage benefit this country? Is it only about benefiting individuals or about benefiting the society? And how?

Because marriage is a fundamental right in this country, whether you want to recognize that truth or not.

If it was a right, you wouldn't need government to do it. It's regulated, not an absolute, not a fundamental.

So I take it that the Supreme Court stating that marriage is a fundamental right has no bearing on your POV of the matter?

I have to agree with the Supreme Court on everything? No. I don't agree with their chipping away at property rights and distinctions between citizens and illegals either. Activist courts are a major source of our society's creeping demise.

Ok, but you stated that you can't understand why non-gay people would be concerned about gay marriage and I gave the reason. Are you satisfied? You may not agree with the Supreme Court on this matter, but at least you should be able to understand the logic behind why non-gay find it an important issue...because we agree with the Supreme Court - marriage is a fundamental right.

If marriage was a fundamental right, its parameters, and that of divorce, would not vary from state to state. It would not be a purview of the government. Common law marriage would be the norm. None of this is the case, so, whatever the Supreme Court may have said, it has not proven to have made much difference in places where gay marriage is not recognized. And, since it is mostly activist courts that are sanctioning it, the resistance of gay marriage opponents will not be resolved when their will is undermined. You cannot soften heart and minds by forcing unwanted change on people. That is nothing to brag about.

I can see what's being said here. I'm not for or against gay marriage -- I don't really care one way or the other. But if marriage was a fundamental right in the U.S. (as dictated by the Supreme Court), the laws concerning marriage would be federally run instead of state run. If the states are allowed to have different policies regarding marriage (straight or gay) then it's not a fundamental right.

Whether or not that's morally right depends on your point-of-view. However, I think it makes sense to say that marriage is not a fundamental right as far as the entire U.S. is concerned. So long as the states can say what goes with marriage, it is perfectly legal to disallow gay marriage.

[almaty 19]

Edited April 4, 2009 by almaty

[Peikko 1,575]

What on earth does this mean, allowing homosexuals to marry 'cheapens' someone else's heterosexual marriage. I have heard some codswallop surrounding this issue but really, 'cheapens' marriage...I expect some brought that one out when they were against non whites marrying into the exclusive 'white' club too. Cheapens marriage, what a stupid thing to say.

[PlatyPius 5]

Q&A s not a one-way street. I'm not going to keep answering questions just so my answrs can be questioned again. I don't understand gay marriage supporters any more than they understand gay marriage opposers. How does gay marriage benefit this country? Is it only about benefiting individuals or about benefiting the society? And how?

Because marriage is a fundamental right in this country, whether you want to recognize that truth or not.

If it was a right, you wouldn't need government to do it. It's regulated, not an absolute, not a fundamental.

So I take it that the Supreme Court stating that marriage is a fundamental right has no bearing on your POV of the matter?

I have to agree with the Supreme Court on everything? No. I don't agree with their chipping away at property rights and distinctions between citizens and illegals either. Activist courts are a major source of our society's creeping demise.

Ok, but you stated that you can't understand why non-gay people would be concerned about gay marriage and I gave the reason. Are you satisfied? You may not agree with the Supreme Court on this matter, but at least you should be able to understand the logic behind why non-gay find it an important issue...because we agree with the Supreme Court - marriage is a fundamental right.

If marriage was a fundamental right, its parameters, and that of divorce, would not vary from state to state. It would not be a purview of the government. Common law marriage would be the norm. None of this is the case, so, whatever the Supreme Court may have said, it has not proven to have made much difference in places where gay marriage is not recognized. And, since it is mostly activist courts that are sanctioning it, the resistance of gay marriage opponents will not be resolved when their will is undermined. You cannot soften heart and minds by forcing unwanted change on people. That is nothing to brag about.

Marriage laws vary, but not much. There are age restrictions, which make sense. There are some states that prohibit marriage between first cousins, which also has some merit. Other than that, what "laws" are there that would prohibit someone from marrying? Aside from the gay marriage thing, of course. It IS a fundamental right. The government cannot in any way PREVENT someone from marrying; they can only prevent it from being recognized officially. I am ordained. I could marry "bob and george" if I wanted to. They could consider themselves married. The government wouldn't, though. It isn't that gay couples feel that they need to be official to be together....they just want basic rights granted to hetero married couples. Primarily, married tax filing and next-of-kin recognition. Why should a guy who has lived with another guy for 10 years be denied access to his hospital room in an emergency? Why should a couple not be able to have family health insurance? These are the concerns of gay couples. Most of them aren't out to prove anything; they just want some basic rights.

Maybe, since the US is predominately Christian, we should only recognize Christian marriages. How would that go over with you? You would lose inheritance rights, next-of-kin rights for things like hospital visits, tax deductions, etc. Would that be a problem? Would you like having to refer to your husband as your "partner" because you aren't legally married any longer? If you don't worship the Xian god, you obviously worship Satan. Letting non-xians marry would cheapen marriage, and we don't want that.

You can deny it all you want, but it's the same damn thing.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I also find that those homosexual people are alot smarter than the average person.

so more doctors and engineers are gay?

ROFLMAO! I knew you were going to say that.

[Danno 1,228]

Sorry, I did not clarify what that was better.

This shows the spread of states which have enacted changes in their state Constitution to specifically define Marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Every one of the changes were because the people voted for it, not because a few Judges decided.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Danno

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

Q&A s not a one-way street. I'm not going to keep answering questions just so my answrs can be questioned again. I don't understand gay marriage supporters any more than they understand gay marriage opposers. How does gay marriage benefit this country? Is it only about benefiting individuals or about benefiting the society? And how?

Because marriage is a fundamental right in this country, whether you want to recognize that truth or not.

If it was a right, you wouldn't need government to do it. It's regulated, not an absolute, not a fundamental.

So I take it that the Supreme Court stating that marriage is a fundamental right has no bearing on your POV of the matter?

I have to agree with the Supreme Court on everything? No. I don't agree with their chipping away at property rights and distinctions between citizens and illegals either. Activist courts are a major source of our society's creeping demise.

Ok, but you stated that you can't understand why non-gay people would be concerned about gay marriage and I gave the reason. Are you satisfied? You may not agree with the Supreme Court on this matter, but at least you should be able to understand the logic behind why non-gay find it an important issue...because we agree with the Supreme Court - marriage is a fundamental right.

If marriage was a fundamental right, its parameters, and that of divorce, would not vary from state to state. It would not be a purview of the government. Common law marriage would be the norm. None of this is the case, so, whatever the Supreme Court may have said, it has not proven to have made much difference in places where gay marriage is not recognized. And, since it is mostly activist courts that are sanctioning it, the resistance of gay marriage opponents will not be resolved when their will is undermined. You cannot soften heart and minds by forcing unwanted change on people. That is nothing to brag about.

Interracial marriage laws also varied from state to state until the Supreme Court finally ruled that any law prohibiting a non-white to marry a white as unconstitutional.

I already gave you the Supreme Courts declaration that marriage is a fundamental right, but you continue to maintain that it is not, which is your entitled opinion, but your premise is based on faulty logic - that because the highest court hasn't ruled on the constitutionality of state laws or state constitutional amendments, then you conclude that marriage is not a fundamental right. It is a right - the court already has stated so. And I imagine that even when the Supreme Court finally rules any prohibition against gay marriages as unconstitutional, you'll still not accept it.

What's humorous is to see you do your best Bernie Goldberg impersonation and declare that any lower court that has ruled on this matter as being 'liberal' is cute and amusing...albeit irrelevant.

[Danno 1,228]

Q&A s not a one-way street. I'm not going to keep answering questions just so my answrs can be questioned again. I don't understand gay marriage supporters any more than they understand gay marriage opposers. How does gay marriage benefit this country? Is it only about benefiting individuals or about benefiting the society? And how?

Because marriage is a fundamental right in this country, whether you want to recognize that truth or not.

If it was a right, you wouldn't need government to do it. It's regulated, not an absolute, not a fundamental.

So I take it that the Supreme Court stating that marriage is a fundamental right has no bearing on your POV of the matter?

I have to agree with the Supreme Court on everything? No. I don't agree with their chipping away at property rights and distinctions between citizens and illegals either. Activist courts are a major source of our society's creeping demise.

Ok, but you stated that you can't understand why non-gay people would be concerned about gay marriage and I gave the reason. Are you satisfied? You may not agree with the Supreme Court on this matter, but at least you should be able to understand the logic behind why non-gay find it an important issue...because we agree with the Supreme Court - marriage is a fundamental right.

If marriage was a fundamental right, its parameters, and that of divorce, would not vary from state to state. It would not be a purview of the government. Common law marriage would be the norm. None of this is the case, so, whatever the Supreme Court may have said, it has not proven to have made much difference in places where gay marriage is not recognized. And, since it is mostly activist courts that are sanctioning it, the resistance of gay marriage opponents will not be resolved when their will is undermined. You cannot soften heart and minds by forcing unwanted change on people. That is nothing to brag about.

Interracial marriage laws also varied from state to state until the Supreme Court finally ruled that any law prohibiting a non-white to marry a white as unconstitutional.

I already gave you the Supreme Courts declaration that marriage is a fundamental right, but you continue to maintain that it is not, which is your entitled opinion, but your premise is based on faulty logic - that because the highest court hasn't ruled on the constitutionality of state laws or state constitutional amendments, then you conclude that marriage is not a fundamental right. It is a right - the court already has stated so. And I imagine that even when the Supreme Court finally rules any prohibition against gay marriages as unconstitutional, you'll still not accept it.

What's humorous is to see you do your best Bernie Goldberg impersonation and declare that any lower court that has ruled on this matter as being 'liberal' is cute and amusing...albeit irrelevant.

If marriage is a right, then why can't a brother and sister marry, or three men?

Who is Bernie Goldberg?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Q&A s not a one-way street. I'm not going to keep answering questions just so my answrs can be questioned again. I don't understand gay marriage supporters any more than they understand gay marriage opposers. How does gay marriage benefit this country? Is it only about benefiting individuals or about benefiting the society? And how?

Because marriage is a fundamental right in this country, whether you want to recognize that truth or not.

If it was a right, you wouldn't need government to do it. It's regulated, not an absolute, not a fundamental.

So I take it that the Supreme Court stating that marriage is a fundamental right has no bearing on your POV of the matter?

I have to agree with the Supreme Court on everything? No. I don't agree with their chipping away at property rights and distinctions between citizens and illegals either. Activist courts are a major source of our society's creeping demise.

Ok, but you stated that you can't understand why non-gay people would be concerned about gay marriage and I gave the reason. Are you satisfied? You may not agree with the Supreme Court on this matter, but at least you should be able to understand the logic behind why non-gay find it an important issue...because we agree with the Supreme Court - marriage is a fundamental right.

If marriage was a fundamental right, its parameters, and that of divorce, would not vary from state to state. It would not be a purview of the government. Common law marriage would be the norm. None of this is the case, so, whatever the Supreme Court may have said, it has not proven to have made much difference in places where gay marriage is not recognized. And, since it is mostly activist courts that are sanctioning it, the resistance of gay marriage opponents will not be resolved when their will is undermined. You cannot soften heart and minds by forcing unwanted change on people. That is nothing to brag about.

Marriage laws vary, but not much. There are age restrictions, which make sense. There are some states that prohibit marriage between first cousins, which also has some merit. Other than that, what "laws" are there that would prohibit someone from marrying? Aside from the gay marriage thing, of course. It IS a fundamental right. The government cannot in any way PREVENT someone from marrying; they can only prevent it from being recognized officially. I am ordained. I could marry "bob and george" if I wanted to. They could consider themselves married. The government wouldn't, though. It isn't that gay couples feel that they need to be official to be together....they just want basic rights granted to hetero married couples. Primarily, married tax filing and next-of-kin recognition. Why should a guy who has lived with another guy for 10 years be denied access to his hospital room in an emergency? Why should a couple not be able to have family health insurance? These are the concerns of gay couples. Most of them aren't out to prove anything; they just want some basic rights.

Maybe, since the US is predominately Christian, we should only recognize Christian marriages. How would that go over with you? You would lose inheritance rights, next-of-kin rights for things like hospital visits, tax deductions, etc. Would that be a problem? Would you like having to refer to your husband as your "partner" because you aren't legally married any longer? If you don't worship the Xian god, you obviously worship Satan. Letting non-xians marry would cheapen marriage, and we don't want that.

You can deny it all you want, but it's the same damn thing.

Referring to the bolden part: If you dont need the government to be married, then gays have not a thing to worry about when their marriages aren't officially recognized. If they want the "rights" that go with marriage - and that is where the rights truely exist, not with getting married itself - then they can do that thru civil unions and legal arrangements, the same way unmarried hetros can.

I was married to a Christian man for close to 30 years. We were told that Islam and Muslims didn't recognize my marriage as lawful, and that being married to a non-Muslim man cheapened me in God's eyes. I understand that kind of thinking is widespread among Muslims, but it didn't bother us one bit, nor did it slow us down. We did just fine being "unrecognized", even when living and working in Muslim countries. So, your attempt to project your view gays as victims of a narrow-minded society falls flat with me. Been there, done that. Still not a victim.

I do deny it, coz I don't accept your analogy as valid. Gays being marriage changes the definition of marriage as being between members of the opposite sex.

Who is Bernie Goldberg?

Steven's dream man. He wrote "A Slobbering Love Affair". You know how Steven has a thing for authors.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Barza Woman

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Q&A s not a one-way street. I'm not going to keep answering questions just so my answrs can be questioned again. I don't understand gay marriage supporters any more than they understand gay marriage opposers. How does gay marriage benefit this country? Is it only about benefiting individuals or about benefiting the society? And how?

Because marriage is a fundamental right in this country, whether you want to recognize that truth or not.

If it was a right, you wouldn't need government to do it. It's regulated, not an absolute, not a fundamental.

So I take it that the Supreme Court stating that marriage is a fundamental right has no bearing on your POV of the matter?

I have to agree with the Supreme Court on everything? No. I don't agree with their chipping away at property rights and distinctions between citizens and illegals either. Activist courts are a major source of our society's creeping demise.

Ok, but you stated that you can't understand why non-gay people would be concerned about gay marriage and I gave the reason. Are you satisfied? You may not agree with the Supreme Court on this matter, but at least you should be able to understand the logic behind why non-gay find it an important issue...because we agree with the Supreme Court - marriage is a fundamental right.

If marriage was a fundamental right, its parameters, and that of divorce, would not vary from state to state. It would not be a purview of the government. Common law marriage would be the norm. None of this is the case, so, whatever the Supreme Court may have said, it has not proven to have made much difference in places where gay marriage is not recognized. And, since it is mostly activist courts that are sanctioning it, the resistance of gay marriage opponents will not be resolved when their will is undermined. You cannot soften heart and minds by forcing unwanted change on people. That is nothing to brag about.

Interracial marriage laws also varied from state to state until the Supreme Court finally ruled that any law prohibiting a non-white to marry a white as unconstitutional.

I already gave you the Supreme Courts declaration that marriage is a fundamental right, but you continue to maintain that it is not, which is your entitled opinion, but your premise is based on faulty logic - that because the highest court hasn't ruled on the constitutionality of state laws or state constitutional amendments, then you conclude that marriage is not a fundamental right. It is a right - the court already has stated so. And I imagine that even when the Supreme Court finally rules any prohibition against gay marriages as unconstitutional, you'll still not accept it.

What's humorous is to see you do your best Bernie Goldberg impersonation and declare that any lower court that has ruled on this matter as being 'liberal' is cute and amusing...albeit irrelevant.

I'm not bound to accept the view of the Supremes as my own. The Supremes also gave us Plessy v. Ferguson. The fact remains that if marriage is a right, you wouldn't need government to be married, but you do, so it isn't. Even after the Loving case, states still had anti-miscegnation laws on the books until 2000. If you want to get into court cases and how marriage laws evolved, I can do that. Legal and historical research is what I do most days.

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

I'm not bound to accept the view of the Supremes as my own. The Supremes also gave us Plessy v. Ferguson. The fact remains that if marriage is a right, you wouldn't need government to be married, but you do, so it isn't. Even after the Loving case, states still had anti-miscegnation laws on the books until 2000. If you want to get into court cases and how marriage laws evolved, I can do that. Legal and historical research is what I do most days.

Back up here - your original gripe was that you couldn't understand why non-gays would take issue with gay rights and I explained to you the logic. No matter how hard you try to paint this as some kind of liberal movement vs. a national awaking to the injustice of laws that discriminate based on someone's sexual orientation, the truth is in plain sight. In the tradition of the struggle for women's right to vote, for desegregation and to end laws against inter-racial marriages, we Americans fight fiercly for the very freedom and liberties our country was founded on. It's just too bad that can't see beyond your own subjectivity to see that this struggle for gay marriage is following a long tradition of justice for all.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm not bound to accept the view of the Supremes as my own. The Supremes also gave us Plessy v. Ferguson. The fact remains that if marriage is a right, you wouldn't need government to be married, but you do, so it isn't. Even after the Loving case, states still had anti-miscegnation laws on the books until 2000. If you want to get into court cases and how marriage laws evolved, I can do that. Legal and historical research is what I do most days.

Back up here - your original gripe was that you couldn't understand why non-gays would take issue with gay rights and I explained to you the logic. No matter how hard you try to paint this as some kind of liberal movement vs. a national awaking to the injustice of laws that discriminate based on someone's sexual orientation, the truth is in plain sight. In the tradition of the struggle for women's right to vote, for desegregation and to end laws against inter-racial marriages, we Americans fight fiercly for the very freedom and liberties our country was founded on. It's just too bad that can't see beyond your own subjectivity to see that this struggle for gay marriage is following a long tradition of justice for all.

It's a terrible injustice to grant rights on the basis of whom you like to **. In no way is this analygous to the strugge of women or racial minorites. As a woman and a racial minority, I strongly object to that comparison as manipulative and self-serving.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Barza Woman