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

[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.

Why are you so dismissive of traditional definitions of marriage? Why are you so anxious to change what has been a social norm for centuries? Are there any unintended consequences to consider if this should change across the country?

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

I answer them just fine, but if it doesn't appear that I agree with you, then you can't see the answer.

[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.

Why are you so dismissive of traditional definitions of marriage? Why are you so anxious to change what has been a social norm for centuries? Are there any unintended consequences to consider if this should change across the country?

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

I answer them just fine, but if it doesn't appear that I agree with you, then you can't see the answer.

ooops! You did it again (See bold section)

Let me answer your questions with answers and you can continue to think you answered my questions.

1) I am not dismissive of "traditional definitions of marriage". I am sure that 2 centuries ago marriage was not specifically defined as between a man and a woman. It has been 'adjusted' to fit your irrational fear (as yet unanswered) of what society will be like if gays get married.

2) Social norms change over time. Otherwise my wife would still walk 5 paces behind me and speak only when spoken too.

3) Are there any unintended consequences? Well that is kind of what I have been trying to get out of you. You are the one you seems afraid that society will fall into the depths of damnation if they are allowed to be 'married'.

Now, let me ask you some questions and I would like clear concise answers. If you cannot then don't bother.

1) What is the difference, in your mind, between a marriage and a union?

Lets start with one at a time and see if you can answer without a question.

Edited April 4, 2009 by fozzie

[NickD 203]

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

That would be interesting, using marriage as a vehicle to bring a same sex person here.

Our state marriage certificate states it's not valid until that marriage is consummated, with a gay couple, I don't even want to think about how that will be accomplished.

But I can see where judges would want more marriages, regardless of sex, more marriages mean more divorces, and judges are attorneys that means more money for them. When my beloved ex divorced me that day after my accident, never saw so many rats crawl out of the woodwork putting their hands in my pockets trying to rob me blind, but legally, mind you.

[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

That would be interesting, using marriage as a vehicle to bring a same sex person here.

Our state marriage certificate states it's not valid until that marriage is consummated, with a gay couple, I don't even want to think about how that will be accomplished.

But I can see where judges would want more marriages, regardless of sex, more marriages mean more divorces, and judges are attorneys that means more money for them. When my beloved ex divorced me that day after my accident, never saw so many rats crawl out of the woodwork putting their hands in my pockets trying to rob me blind, but legally, mind you.

What's really happening is that liberals want more liberal voters, be they gays or illegals, anything that will keep their destructive policies on a roll and give them more power.

[aisha kandisha 0]

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.

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

This thread has been brought to you by Bernie Goldberg and his slobbering love affair with an imagined liberal conspiracy.

[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.

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?

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

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.

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.

[mr and mrs 187]

What's really happening is that liberals want more liberal voters, be they gays or illegals, anything that will keep their destructive policies on a roll and give them more power.

this is rubbish. and shows that you support partisan politics instead of thinking for yourself. (your party tells you how to think, your bible tells you how to think)

destructive policies? care to expand? (that's a question, fyi).

[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.

Why are you so dismissive of traditional definitions of marriage? Why are you so anxious to change what has been a social norm for centuries? Are there any unintended consequences to consider if this should change across the country?

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

I answer them just fine, but if it doesn't appear that I agree with you, then you can't see the answer.

ooops! You did it again (See bold section)

Let me answer your questions with answers and you can continue to think you answered my questions.

If you're just going to insult me because I have yet failed to come over to your point of view, we can discontinue any further exchange.

1) I am not dismissive of "traditional definitions of marriage". I am sure that 2 centuries ago marriage was not specifically defined as between a man and a woman. It has been 'adjusted' to fit your irrational fear (as yet unanswered) of what society will be like if gays get married.

Two centuries ago where? In the US, gay marriage has not been part of the marriage tradition. I am speaking of the traditions of the US, are you?

2) Social norms change over time. Otherwise my wife would still walk 5 paces behind me and speak only when spoken too.

But you would still be a man with a wife, not a man with a husband. Traditional marriage is not just any social norm. It is a fundamental element of family life, a building block of the social fabric. Social norms may change, but not all change is positive and constructive.

3) Are there any unintended consequences? Well that is kind of what I have been trying to get out of you. You are the one you seems afraid that society will fall into the depths of damnation if they are allowed to be 'married'.

I asked you that first. Please answer.

Now, let me ask you some questions and I would like clear concise answers. If you cannot then don't bother.

1) What is the difference, in your mind, between a marriage and a union?

Lets start with one at a time and see if you can answer without a question.

Tis is clearly an emotional issue for you. Let's think more in terms of balance within an exchange of ideas so that the demands are not so one sided. You can start by giving me your response to the question, then I will give you mine. I don't like a set up where an answer is demanded of me so that it can be picked apart without a reciprocal response. If you are unwilling to give as well as get, I won't bother.

[fozzie 41]

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.

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.

Spot on. I was trying to get at that slowly over the next exchanges. Its a word - Marriage. No one has claim on it more so than anyone else. Religious semantics as a way to say you are NOT equal in our eyes. If civil unions and marriages are the same (lets not forget that when a couple gets "Married" at city hall and not a church they are still married, religion plays no part) then the only reason for being anti-gay marriage is religious. Government should stay out of religion (I think there is someting in the constitution about that but then I am liberal and therefore want to corrupt that sacred religious document)

[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.

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.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

What's really happening is that liberals want more liberal voters, be they gays or illegals, anything that will keep their destructive policies on a roll and give them more power.

this is rubbish. and shows that you support partisan politics instead of thinking for yourself. (your party tells you how to think, your bible tells you how to think)

destructive policies? care to expand? (that's a question, fyi).

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.

[fozzie 41]

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).