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

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Only **'s support same sex marriage.

you may be onto something there (no pun intended)

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=128140

What if a gay illegal marries a gay citizen; would they be eligible for a waiver?

Maybe not, but they could get in state tuition in Maryland

and an aide position with barney frank

MA was the first state to legalize same sex marriage, and Barney eats his corn the long way.

but what does he do with the cob?

Do you really want to know?

[natty bumppo 297]

Only **'s support same sex marriage.

one needs to get married to have sex with the same person?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Only **'s support same sex marriage.

you may be onto something there (no pun intended)

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=128140

What if a gay illegal marries a gay citizen; would they be eligible for a waiver?

Maybe not, but they could get in state tuition in Maryland

and an aide position with barney frank

MA was the first state to legalize same sex marriage, and Barney eats his corn the long way.

but what does he do with the cob?

He dips it in chili with beans.

[fozzie 41]

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.

You think that because you still believe that being homosexual is a lifestyle choice. Its not. They are born that way so yes it is the same as racial discrimination (unless race is a choice too. Michael Jackson has grayed the issue somewhat).

Why put words in my mouth? I believe they were born that way, at least most are. That still doesn't change my views.

Most homophobes don't believe it. Strange that you do but still don't see that if its not a "choice" then their struggle is the same as those of all minority groups. Explain why gay rights are not as important as those of women or african americans!!

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I think it's ok for women to be gay.

[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.

You think that because you still believe that being homosexual is a lifestyle choice. Its not. They are born that way so yes it is the same as racial discrimination (unless race is a choice too. Michael Jackson has grayed the issue somewhat).

Why put words in my mouth? I believe they were born that way, at least most are. That still doesn't change my views.

Most homophobes don't believe it. Strange that you do but still don't see that if its not a "choice" then their struggle is the same as those of all minority groups. Explain why gay rights are not as important as those of women or african americans!!

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.

[fozzie 41]

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?

Edited April 4, 2009 by fozzie

[Sofiyya 1,687]

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?

Edited April 4, 2009 by Barza Woman

[mr and mrs 187]

hallelujah!!! good for you iowa!! one more step forward for equality (under the law).

i hope we are moving towards becoming a NATION that recognizes and supports gay marriage. i live in vermont and yesterday the state legislature passed a bill allowing gay marriage (we already have civil unions, but thats not quite good enough!). the republican governor has said he will veto the bill, so supporters are hoping to get enough votes to VOID any gubernatorial veto. im worried that it might not happen but its a meaningful statement that it passed by a wide margin (95-52).

the time for equal rights for gays and lesbians has come! speak up for justice and for your fellow citizens who do not have the same rights that all of us vj'ers have in regards to bringing their partners to the united states. that is shameful. 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.

ps sweden also just made gay marriage legal this week. the fifth european country to do so.

pps can you tell this is something i care a lot about? sorry to ramble a bit, but this is a HUGE deal to me. : )

[fozzie 41]

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.

Edited April 4, 2009 by fozzie

[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.

And, why would you limit the contract to only two individuals?

Edited April 4, 2009 by Barza Woman

[mr and mrs 187]

and for those of you who think that gays and lesbians already have enough rights (thats what i read from your comments, barza), what does that mean? enough rights? its equal rights.

and again, its LAUGHABLE that you dont see the obvious unfairness of the way things are at the moment in regards to FALLING IN LOVE WITH FOREIGN CITIZEN and then bringing them to live in the us, which is why we are all here. this is not a possibility for gays and lesbians and that is wrong. pure and simple.

if you or your partner benefit from USCIS policies that allow you to be together, have some compassion and think of other people who do not have this option. why do you deserve it more than them?

godless? i am most certainly godless. loudly and proudly. : D

[fozzie 41]

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.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

and for those of you who think that gays and lesbians already have enough rights (thats what i read from your comments, barza), what does that mean? enough rights? its equal rights.

and again, its LAUGHABLE that you dont see the obvious unfairness of the way things are at the moment in regards to FALLING IN LOVE WITH FOREIGN CITIZEN and then bringing them to live in the us, which is why we are all here. this is not a possibility for gays and lesbians and that is wrong. pure and simple.

if you or your partner benefit from USCIS policies that allow you to be together, have some compassion and think of other people who do not have this option. why do you deserve it more than them?

godless? i am most certainly godless. loudly and proudly. : D

Life is not fair and compassion isn't limitless. I accept that there are limits in most things. I also don't think social policy such be about what is good or bad for me, but what is good or bad for the whole of society. I'm not so narcissistic to measure social good by what immediately affects me. Gays already have equal rights. They have the right to marry. They just have to marry a member of the opposite sex.

[mr and mrs 187]

youre a politician. you dont answer the questions asked of you. ah, well...