Judge: Same-sex couples can wed in Iowa

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_h...uality_laws.svg

So if I read this chart correctly, the penalty for gay marriage in Saudi Arabia is death?

yup, and iran too, along with a few countries in africa.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Is gay marriage perfectly legal and common in other countries? Just curious...

Gay Marriage. Check out the box on the right of the page.

rather sparse in listings. mostly european countries.

More countries allow and recognize civil unions / domestic partnerships. The US won't even do that.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

What's unsubstantiated is gay marriage... Hello!!!

Equal protection under the law - is why the state of Virginia's long standing law that banned interracial marriage was struck down as unconstitutional, which incidentally was only 40 years ago. As long as our state and federal governments recognize marriage as a legal contract, then ultimately any interference of two gay people wanting that same legal recognition is unconstitutional. So either government changes it to only recognizing civil unions and remove the word marriage from any legal context or allow gays to marry. There's really no getting around the notion of equal protection under the law.

Am I understanding you that you don't have a problem with affording the same legal rights to gay couples that heterosexual couples have? Would allowing civil unions be acceptable to you?

Yes, I have a problem granting the same legal rights to gay couples. No, allowing civil unions of gay couples is as equally unacceptable.

Edited September 2, 2007 by Sheriff Uling

[mendeleev 68]

No one is writing that people can't be homosexual. Nobody is suggesting to limit the feelings or desires of Americans who are or want to be homosexual. We're just against homosexuals being able to legally marry in America. It's a pathway with ramifications that nobody has been willing to discuss or the conversation becomes dismissed by gay rights activist and/or supporters for their own selfish gains. This is Pandora’s Box! Don't open it!!!

I'm old enough to remember older relatives of mine making exactly this Pandora's Box argument -- against miscegenation. Perhaps the Sheriff thinks that liberals in this country were incorrect when we righted that injustice and overthrew longstanding, conservative laws against miscegenation? Or, maybe not, since -- I almost forgot -- the Sheriff is a miscengenate.

So, perhaps the Sheriff is glad that liberals can effective fight bigotry -- sometimes, selectively, as long as he benefits.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No one is writing that people can't be homosexual. Nobody is suggesting to limit the feelings or desires of Americans who are or want to be homosexual. We're just against homosexuals being able to legally marry in America. It's a pathway with ramifications that nobody has been willing to discuss or the conversation becomes dismissed by gay rights activist and/or supporters for their own selfish gains. This is Pandora’s Box! Don't open it!!!

I'm old enough to remember older relatives of mine making exactly this Pandora's Box argument -- against miscegenation. Perhaps the Sheriff thinks that liberals in this country were incorrect when we righted that injustice and overthrew longstanding, conservative laws against miscegenation? Or, maybe not, since -- I almost forgot -- the Sheriff is a miscengenate.

So, perhaps the Sheriff is glad that liberals can effective fight bigotry -- sometimes, selectively, as long as he benefits.

It certainly highlights how society evolves over time. Still its hard to imagine that there are people around these days who hold the belief that blacks being able to vote or marry whites was a fundamentally bad idea. Meanwhile there is no shortage of people who want to curtail and leave unrecognised the rights of homosexuals to practice a monogomous relationship with all the benefits pertaining to that.

[Cassie 8]

I am also against gay marriage. Flame away!

Edited September 2, 2007 by Cassie

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's depressing that it's so much easier to unite people against something than it is to unite them for something.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

It's depressing that it's so much easier to unite people against something than it is to unite them for something.

That's funny! I thought the point of your argument was to unite people. Hello!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's depressing that it's so much easier to unite people against something than it is to unite them for something.

That's funny! I thought the point of your argument was to unite people. Hello!!!

It is. Just seems to be easier for people to unite against something that has no bearing whatsoever on their day to day life while ignoring the concept of simple fairness.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

No one is writing that people can't be homosexual. Nobody is suggesting to limit the feelings or desires of Americans who are or want to be homosexual. We're just against homosexuals being able to legally marry in America. It's a pathway with ramifications that nobody has been willing to discuss or the conversation becomes dismissed by gay rights activist and/or supporters for their own selfish gains. This is Pandora’s Box! Don't open it!!!

I'm old enough to remember older relatives of mine making exactly this Pandora's Box argument -- against miscegenation. Perhaps the Sheriff thinks that liberals in this country were incorrect when we righted that injustice and overthrew longstanding, conservative laws against miscegenation? Or, maybe not, since -- I almost forgot -- the Sheriff is a miscengenate.

So, perhaps the Sheriff is glad that liberals can effective fight bigotry -- sometimes, selectively, as long as he benefits.

Apples and Oranges my friend... It appears that gay rights activist and supporters always try to play to plight of minorities stuggles for equal rights / fair playing field. This is not a race issue. It's a sexual orientation issue. Nice try!!!

Edited September 2, 2007 by Sheriff Uling

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No one is writing that people can't be homosexual. Nobody is suggesting to limit the feelings or desires of Americans who are or want to be homosexual. We're just against homosexuals being able to legally marry in America. It's a pathway with ramifications that nobody has been willing to discuss or the conversation becomes dismissed by gay rights activist and/or supporters for their own selfish gains. This is Pandora’s Box! Don't open it!!!

I'm old enough to remember older relatives of mine making exactly this Pandora's Box argument -- against miscegenation. Perhaps the Sheriff thinks that liberals in this country were incorrect when we righted that injustice and overthrew longstanding, conservative laws against miscegenation? Or, maybe not, since -- I almost forgot -- the Sheriff is a miscengenate.

So, perhaps the Sheriff is glad that liberals can effective fight bigotry -- sometimes, selectively, as long as he benefits.

Apples and Oranges my friend... It appears that gay rights activist and supporters always try to play to plight of minorities stuggles for equal rights / fair playing field. This is not a race issue. It's a sexual orientation issue. Nice try!!!

Correction. Recognizing the rights of ethnic and sexual minorities is a social issue... Social issues generally involve 'society', specifically changes to society. Has society changed for the better or worse since the civil rights movement? In your opinion....?

Hello!!!

Edited September 2, 2007 by Number 6

[Sheriff Uling 3]

It's depressing that it's so much easier to unite people against something than it is to unite them for something.

That's funny! I thought the point of your argument was to unite people. Hello!!!

It is. Just seems to be easier for people to unite against something that has no bearing whatsoever on their day to day life while ignoring the concept of simple fairness.

This is a circular conversation. It's more about morality than fairness. Life is not always fair or always moral. For now, you loose. To date, Americans, by in large, disapprove of such unions. We're some left wing ultra conservative backstabbing flip-flopping folks. However, we don't flip-flop with gay marriage. You have the right to support and defend under the umbrella of the law that which is dear to your heart. I applaud you (meaning everyone) for that because that is the essence of democracy under a truly free nation. You and everyone else is going to have a serious uphill climb trying to de-thrown us on this one.

I've gotta hit the gym...

Cheers!!!

Sheriff Uling

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

No one is writing that people can't be homosexual. Nobody is suggesting to limit the feelings or desires of Americans who are or want to be homosexual. We're just against homosexuals being able to legally marry in America. It's a pathway with ramifications that nobody has been willing to discuss or the conversation becomes dismissed by gay rights activist and/or supporters for their own selfish gains. This is Pandora’s Box! Don't open it!!!

I'm old enough to remember older relatives of mine making exactly this Pandora's Box argument -- against miscegenation. Perhaps the Sheriff thinks that liberals in this country were incorrect when we righted that injustice and overthrew longstanding, conservative laws against miscegenation? Or, maybe not, since -- I almost forgot -- the Sheriff is a miscengenate.

So, perhaps the Sheriff is glad that liberals can effective fight bigotry -- sometimes, selectively, as long as he benefits.

Apples and Oranges my friend... It appears that gay rights activist and supporters always try to play to plight of minorities stuggles for equal rights / fair playing field. This is not a race issue. It's a sexual orientation issue. Nice try!!!

Gay people have no more choice in who they are sexually attracted to then you being attracted to women. Do you recognize that fact or not? Discrimination against someone for what they were born as is wrong...period.

We can argue over whether gays should be allowed to marry because of religious beliefs, but to argue against equal protection under the law (civil unions) for some (exclusion) is arguing in favor of discrimination. Paint it whatever color you want, discrimination is discrimination which is the fundamental argument behind all inequalites (racial, gender, etc.).

The Supreme Court will eventually decide on the issue of gay marriage and even with the most conservative set of justices would arrive at the truth that any state or federal law which prohibited them from enjoying the same legal rights as heterosexual couples is unconstitutional. I'm hopeful when that happens because it will effectively put any argument in favor of discrimination to rest...or at least make that argument futile.

[mendeleev 68]

More specifically, the Sheriff appears unable to recognize a CIVIL RIGHTS issue facing him -- when it doesn't make his life personally more agreeable but challenges his (private) beliefs.

Marriage in the United States of America is a civil institution and confers a lot of civil rights. If our spouses -- heaven forbid -- get hit by a car, we have a legal right to be by the bedside. But my son, who cannot marry his sweet heart, experiences this as a privilege depending on just what ambulance the hospital takes his beloved to. Is this a proper disposition of rights by the State? It think not, and apparently the Sheriff disagrees.

If my wife and I (who are too old to have biological children) decide to adopt, and subsequently split up and she gets custody, I can reasonably be required to pay child support. My son, in the same predicament, is 100% on his own.

My wife will be able to collect my social security if I die before her, which is likely since women outlive men. My son will have no such civil benefit.

In the USA, marriage is a civil, not primarily a religious institution. But, to me, it is incredible that those who benefit from substantial advances in civil rights in the past 60 years are so fast to deny it to those that they consider different.

The Sheriff, and those like him, are, plain and simple, bigots whose views, were the nation to regain the enlighenment we achieved 50 years ago, would be shunned.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's depressing that it's so much easier to unite people against something than it is to unite them for something.

That's funny! I thought the point of your argument was to unite people. Hello!!!

It is. Just seems to be easier for people to unite against something that has no bearing whatsoever on their day to day life while ignoring the concept of simple fairness.

This is a circular conversation. It's more about morality than fairness. Life is not always fair or always moral. For now, you loose. To date, Americans, by in large, disapprove of such unions. We're some left wing ultra conservative backstabbing flip-flopping folks. However, we don't flip-flop with gay marriage. You have the right to support and defend under the umbrella of the law that which is dear to your heart. I applaud you (meaning everyone) for that because that is the essence of democracy under a truly free nation. You and everyone else is going to have a serious uphill climb trying to de-thrown us on this one.

I've gotta hit the gym...

Cheers!!!

Sheriff Uling

Going by the OP article - I'd say things are inching toward change. The fact that this keeps cropping up in various states suggests to me at least that the issue isn't going away. Inconvenient as that might be.