PDA

View Full Version : Iowa Court Says Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional



ralph wiggum
04-03-2009, 11:16 AM
The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday finding that the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making Iowa the third state where marriage will be legal.

In its decision, the court upheld a 2007 district court judge's ruling that the law violates the state constitution. It strikes the language from Iowa code limiting marriage to only between a man a woman.

"The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.

LINK (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=7245803)

AlmostThere
04-03-2009, 12:59 PM
:mad: If the Ca Supreme Court needed an out, they've got it now. "Iowa, the heartland of America says its OK. How can we not?" I'm surprised it took this long. :mad:

lacarnut
04-03-2009, 01:20 PM
Liberal Judges making new law. :mad: Morality in this country is going into the shit can.

Lanie
04-03-2009, 01:29 PM
The government in Iowa is choosing not to interfere with those who want to get married, including homosexuals. No government interference. How conservative of them.

linda22003
04-03-2009, 01:32 PM
Liberal Judges making new law. :mad: Morality in this country is going into the shit can.

The vote was unanimous, but two of the Justices were Republican appointments.

Gingersnap
04-03-2009, 01:35 PM
The government in Iowa is choosing not to interfere with those who want to get married, including homosexuals. No government interference. How conservative of them.

Getting out the marriage biz altogether - that's conservative.

Water Closet
04-03-2009, 01:40 PM
Getting out the marriage biz altogether - that's conservative.

Also quite impossible. As long as there are legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage, e.g., differences in tax regulations, medical visitation rights, etc., the government by definition is involved in marriage.

On edit: Simple solution. Don't get married!!! :D

Gingersnap
04-03-2009, 01:50 PM
Also quite impossible. As long as there are legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage, e.g., differences in tax regulations, medical visitation rights, etc., the government by definition is involved in marriage.

On edit: Simple solution. Don't get married!!! :D

Not at all impossible. Domestic partnerships offer all of the legal benefits of marriage without any of the messy revelations about personal sexual habits. ;)

lacarnut
04-03-2009, 02:00 PM
The vote was unanimous, but two of the Justices were Republican appointments.

BFD......Plus, we will see if the S.C. gets involved.

hazlnut
04-03-2009, 02:12 PM
:mad: If the Ca Supreme Court needed an out, they've got it now. "Iowa, the heartland of America says its OK. How can we not?" I'm surprised it took this long. :mad:

Based on the questions asked during oral arguments last month, most people are saying that the CA court will uphold prop 8 but not void the 18,000 marriages performed last summer and fall.

It looks like the Iowa ruling was along the lines of last year's ruling in CA that overturned prop 22.

Water Closet
04-03-2009, 03:30 PM
Not at all impossible. Domestic partnerships offer all of the legal benefits of marriage without any of the messy revelations about personal sexual habits. ;)

Not impossible in theory, but in practice we're still a long way away. Currently, only a handful of states offer legal domestic partnership status. Additionally, to date, domestic partnership is a state and local legal construct and has no affect upon the rights and responsibilities granted by the federal government.

Phillygirl
04-03-2009, 03:31 PM
Getting out the marriage biz altogether - that's conservative.

No it is not. It's libertarian. There is a difference. :p

AlmostThere
04-05-2009, 10:04 PM
Based on the questions asked during oral arguments last month, most people are saying that the CA court will uphold prop 8 but not void the 18,000 marriages performed last summer and fall.

It looks like the Iowa ruling was along the lines of last year's ruling in CA that overturned prop 22.
If those marriages already performed aren't voided, upholding Prop 8 would have hordes of people clamoring about Equal Protection guaranteed under the 14th amendment and they'd have a case. We're all guessing here but I don't think they'll uphold 8. I think they'd have to void the 18,000 and they aren't gonna do it.

Fergus
04-07-2009, 11:35 PM
Liberal Judges making new law. :mad: Morality in this country is going into the shit can.

And by morality you of course mean that human beings, being what they are, get to create a relationship with whomever they please? Right?

Of course a man and a man or a woman and a woman marrying have no effect on you?

Water Closet
04-07-2009, 11:45 PM
And by morality you of course mean that human beings, being what they are, get to create a relationship with whomever they please? Right?

Of course a man and a man or a woman and a woman marrying have no effect on you?

All dem fags that they want to get married gonna burn in hell, don't ya know?

Pardon me whilst I scratch my balls. :D

FlaGator
04-08-2009, 05:22 AM
:mad: If the Ca Supreme Court needed an out, they've got it now. "Iowa, the heartland of America says its OK. How can we not?" I'm surprised it took this long. :mad:

Actually this is the same thing that happened in CA. CA Supreme Court ruled CA law was unconstitutional so CA voters passed and Amendment to alter their constititution.

FlaGator
04-08-2009, 05:32 AM
And by morality you of course mean that human beings, being what they are, get to create a relationship with whomever they please? Right?

Of course a man and a man or a woman and a woman marrying have no effect on you?

Here is one of the effects that it will have outside the group directly involved. I same-sex couple wants to get married in a church and the church refuses on the grounds that it runs contrary to their moral views. The couple then sues the church for violation of the anti-discrimination laws and the church is forced to perform the service. The church then decides that rather than comply they will no longer perform marriages. I am now unable to have my wedding in the church of my choosing.

Before you dismiss the slippery slope idea, this is already happening in Europe. Also, in America since the same-sex marriage argument has be made, groups of pedophiles, polygamists and bestiality supporters have started making the same arguments that the same sex-marriage crowd is making.

jediab
04-08-2009, 10:39 AM
Before you dismiss the slippery slope idea, this is already happening in Europe. Also, in America since the same-sex marriage argument has be made, groups of pedophiles, polygamists and bestiality supporters have started making the same arguments that the same sex-marriage crowd is making.

Which is what I knew would happen all along. You change the definition of marriage to suit the wants of someone, you can not refuse the wants of others to do the same.

Space Gravy
04-08-2009, 11:18 AM
The government in Iowa is choosing not to interfere with those who want to get married, including homosexuals. No government interference. How conservative of them.

They never should have been in the marriage business at all.

Water Closet
04-08-2009, 11:38 AM
Here is one of the effects that it will have outside the group directly involved. I same-sex couple wants to get married in a church and the church refuses on the grounds that it runs contrary to their moral views. The couple then sues the church for violation of the anti-discrimination laws and the church is forced to perform the service. The church then decides that rather than comply they will no longer perform marriages. I am now unable to have my wedding in the church of my choosing.

Before you dismiss the slippery slope idea, this is already happening in Europe. Also, in America since the same-sex marriage argument has be made, groups of pedophiles, polygamists and bestiality supporters have started making the same arguments that the same sex-marriage crowd is making.

Forcing churches to perform same sex marriages under anti-discrimination laws: Do you really think this could happen? As an analogy, discrimination based upon religion is also illegal, but, to my knowledge, Jewish groups, for example, cannot force Catholic churches to perform Jewish-specific ceremonies. Do you have any links to this happening?

Pedophilia, polygamy, and beastiality: I think what you are missing is "consent." Again, as an analogy, sex is not illegal between consenting adults, but it is illegal between an adult and a minor as the minor cannot legally give consent. Same sex marriage would be between consenting adults. But, in the case of pedophilia and/or beastiality, that consent would still not be present, so I'm not sure how the argument you're making progresses to these groups. As to polygamy, between consenting adults, who cares?

FlaGator
04-08-2009, 12:59 PM
Forcing churches to perform same sex marriages under anti-discrimination laws: Do you really think this could happen? As an analogy, discrimination based upon religion is also illegal, but, to my knowledge, Jewish groups, for example, cannot force Catholic churches to perform Jewish-specific ceremonies. Do you have any links to this happening?

Pedophilia, polygamy, and beastiality: I think what you are missing is "consent." Again, as an analogy, sex is not illegal between consenting adults, but it is illegal between an adult and a minor as the minor cannot legally give consent. Same sex marriage would be between consenting adults. But, in the case of pedophilia and/or beastiality, that consent would still not be present, so I'm not sure how the argument you're making progresses to these groups. As to polygamy, between consenting adults, who cares?

A quick search finds:


British Adoption Agencies to Accept Gay Applicants (http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=2987&MediaType=1&Category=24)


When England's Equality Act became law in April 2007 it outlawed discrimination against gay people, but 11 religious adoption agencies were given a 21-month exemption from the law. Beginning in 2009, it is no longer permissible for those agencies to reject gay applicants.

Religious, mostly Roman Catholic, adoption agencies decried the law, saying it went against their beliefs. One agency said it would close up shop. But five of the 11 agencies will now abide by the rule.

Robert Pigott, the BBC's religious affairs correspondent, said the Catholic Church believed the rights of gay people were being placed above the rights of Christians.

In the United States, only Florida and Arkansas have laws that ban gay couples from adoption. Arkansas' Act 1, which makes it illegal for an unwed couple to foster or adopt a child in a state that bans gay marriage, was approved by voters on November 4, 2008. The ACLU recently filed a lawsuit aimed at repealing the law that affects both gay and straight couples. A Florida Supreme Court appeal of a lower court ruling favoring a gay man in the adoption of two boys he has raised since 2004 may ultimately decide the fate of Florida's thirty-one year old gay adoption ban.


Gay Couple Sues Christian Hotel Owners for Refusing Them Double Room (http://www.christianpost.com/Intl/Overseas/2009/03/gay-couple-sues-christian-hotel-owners-for-refusing-them-double-room-23/index.html)


LONDON – A Christian couple is being sued after they refused to let a homosexual couple stay together at their seaside hotel.

Martyn Hall and his civil partner, Steven Paddy, are suing Peter and Hazelmary Bull, claiming they experienced “direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation,” according to The Daily Mail.

The Bulls, both Christians, say that they have had a long-standing policy of refusing any unmarried couples the right to stay in a double room together in their hotel.

Bull, 62, noted that when her brother and his female partner stay at the hotel, they are also required to stay in separate rooms as they are not married.

The Bulls have had their “married only” policy since they acquired the hotel in 1986.


Gay marriage: a new bind for church groups (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0617/p01s03-usju.html)

Gay rights advocates say the courts have found workable compromises so far. But opponents warn that religious groups may have to retreat dramatically from the public square unless legislatures agree to create some religious exemptions.

"As gays come out of the closet, conservative religious people are put back in the sanctuary," says Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress in New York.

He expects legal battles ahead in religious schools, youth groups, and summer camps. Some recent cases have already alarmed lawyers for religious groups:

• In 2006, a Methodist group in New Jersey that rented out its boardwalk to the public for weddings lost tax exemptions after refusing to allow a same-sex commitment ceremony.

• In April, a New Mexico human rights commission charged a wedding photographer in Albuquerque thousands of dollars in legal fees after she refused, based on her Christian beliefs, a request to shoot a commitment ceremony.

• After the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts, the legislature refused to grant longtime adoption provider Catholic Charities a religious exemption to let it place children with heterosexual parents only.

Stern notes that Catholic Charities in Boston ultimately withdrew from providing adoption services to the public. Though it lost its exemption case, he feels exemptions are the best way to avoid the cloistering of religious-based groups.


This is documentst the beginning of the slippery slope. Now if your interested in laws suits for legalizing "inter-generational" marriage or beastiality, you will need to google that yourself. I can't really stomach the information that is available. The NAMBLA site is probably a good place to start if your interested.

wilbur
04-08-2009, 01:38 PM
This is documentst the beginning of the slippery slope. Now if your interested in laws suits for legalizing "inter-generational" marriage or beastiality, you will need to google that yourself. I can't really stomach the information that is available. The NAMBLA site is probably a good place to start if your interested.

The only good reason we have to restrict pedophiliac marriage is a permanent moratorium on altering the definition of marriage!! I sure can't think of any other good reasons... once you change the definition of marriage, why I could easily try to marry a red bull can if I wanted to... and then where would we be?

FlaGator
04-08-2009, 02:04 PM
The only good reason we have to restrict pedophiliac marriage is a permanent moratorium on altering the definition of marriage!! I sure can't think of any other good reasons... once you change the definition of marriage, why I could easily try to marry a red bull can if I wanted to... and then where would we be?

Dude, you're better than that. The point was that other groups are using the same course of action that those who support same-sex marriage use. Whether they are successful or not remains to be seen.

Can I take it then that you support mixed-species sex and NAMBLA's law suits to remove the age of consent for sexual encounters? Before you trash this concept, remember that 25 year ago people thought the same thing about same-sex marriages.

wilbur
04-08-2009, 05:55 PM
Dude, you're better than that. The point was that other groups are using the same course of action that those who support same-sex marriage use. Whether they are successful or not remains to be seen.

Can I take it then that you support mixed-species sex and NAMBLA's law suits to remove the age of consent for sexual encounters? Before you trash this concept, remember that 25 year ago people thought the same thing about same-sex marriages.

I'm not really sure what to make of that last paragraph.. Even farther back, people said the same things about interracial marriages.

I propose a little interesting experiment for you and other slippery slopers.

First, make a bulleted list of all the reasons you can think of to deny pedophiles the right to marry pre-pubescent children. After thats done, we'll move on to step two....

FlaGator
04-08-2009, 06:36 PM
I'm not really sure what to make of that last paragraph.. Even farther back, people said the same things about interracial marriages.

I propose a little interesting experiment for you and other slippery slopers.

First, make a bulleted list of all the reasons you can think of to deny pedophiles the right to marry pre-pubescent children. After thats done, we'll move on to step two....

I don't see why I should waste my time. Anything to prove my point I find you'll deny so what's the point?

Why don't you list all the rights that I have that homosexuals don't when it comes marriage.

wilbur
04-08-2009, 07:35 PM
I don't see why I should waste my time. Anything to prove my point I find you'll deny so what's the point?

Why don't you list all the rights that I have that homosexuals don't when it comes marriage.


joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more.... (about 1,400 more federal marriage benefits)


Now queue the "b-b-but homosexuals can marry if they want!" canard... just as blacks in many states COULD marry before 1967 (as long as the other partner was black)... equal under the law huh?



But really, why shouldn't pedophiles be allowed to marry children? There must be some reasons.

Molon Labe
04-08-2009, 08:25 PM
[LIST]
Now queue the "b-b-but homosexuals can marry if they want!" canard... just as blacks in many states COULD marry before 1967 (as long as the other partner was black)... equal under the law huh?

But really, why shouldn't pedophiles be allowed to marry children? There must be some reasons.

You know...all of this could have been avoided had it not been for one thing.... That marriage ever became a government issue instead of a religious one.
Marriage, until this century, had always been a religious institution. It should have remained that way.

It's really simple but will never happen in my lifetime, because we like our paternalism, and we've destroyed our Christian institutions.

Solution...

1. Return marriage back to a religious instiution. Let each church and it’s members decide if they approve of gay marriage. I'm going to doubt that most of the true Christian God fearing one's will have anything to do with it. No "couple" should be allowed to sue a church that won't marry someone on religious grounds. It's up to the Church.

2. Regarding the benefits you listed of marriage, if we treated everyone as individuals and kept the state out of it and allowed individuals to enter into whatever legal contracts (marriage or otherwise) they desired, then they could obtain all rights that they deserve. It shouldn't be under the guise of marriage to get "benefits".

I don't agree with gay marriage....but as a Christian I also know that if two gay people say they are "married", it doesn't make it anymore so in God's eyes.

Water Closet
04-08-2009, 08:47 PM
I don't see why I should waste my time. Anything to prove my point I find you'll deny so what's the point?

Why don't you list all the rights that I have that homosexuals don't when it comes marriage.

Fish, monkey meet barrel, gun. I really can't believe you said that.

FlaGator
04-08-2009, 08:52 PM
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more.... (about 1,400 more federal marriage benefits)


Now queue the "b-b-but homosexuals can marry if they want!" canard... just as blacks in many states COULD marry before 1967 (as long as the other partner was black)... equal under the law huh?



But really, why shouldn't pedophiles be allowed to marry children? There must be some reasons.

Nice try, but none of those things are rights. Try again please.

FlaGator
04-08-2009, 08:53 PM
Fish, monkey meet barrel, gun. I really can't believe you said that.

I honestly don't understand what you just said.

Water Closet
04-08-2009, 08:58 PM
Nice try, but none of those things are rights. Try again please.

I honestly don't know what you mean by that. These are LEGAL RIGHTS that "married couples" have that homosexuals in a long-term relationship relationship do NOT and, more importanltly, CANNOT HAVE. What distinction exactly are you making?

PoliCon
04-08-2009, 09:11 PM
I'm not really sure what to make of that last paragraph.. Even farther back, people said the same things about interracial marriages.


Difference between gay marriage and interracial marriage is that one is a matter of a behavior the other is a matter of the accidents of appearance - NOT EXACTLY comparable. You're comparing Apples and snails.

Molon Labe
04-08-2009, 09:12 PM
I honestly don't know what you mean by that. These are LEGAL RIGHTS that "married couples" have that homosexuals in a long-term relationship relationship do NOT and, more importanltly, CANNOT HAVE. What distinction exactly are you making?

Where exactly do rights come from?

Water Closet
04-08-2009, 09:22 PM
Where exactly do rights come from?

I don't know. From the great Ju-Ju Man in the sky? However, the question is irrelevant in the context to which I was replying...


I don't see why I should waste my time. Anything to prove my point I find you'll deny so what's the point?

Why don't you list all the rights that I have that homosexuals don't when it comes marriage.

I assumed that FlaGator was referring to legal rights, not rights derived from some moral or supernatural construct. Wilbur listed but a few of the legal rights that married couples have that homosexual couples who cannot marry do not have. I'm not sure how your question is relevant in the context of the conversation.

FlaGator
04-08-2009, 09:24 PM
I honestly don't know what you mean by that. These are LEGAL RIGHTS that "married couples" have that homosexuals in a long-term relationship relationship do NOT and, more importanltly, CANNOT HAVE. What distinction exactly are you making?

They may be legally regulated benefits of a marriage between a man and a women but they are not rights. Marriage itself is not a right. Marriage in this era is a legally regulated social contract between a man and a woman that guarantees each a pre-agreed to standing in respect to sharing property, income, child rearing responsibilities and decision making on the others behave in instances where the other person is not capable of making a decision.

Molon Labe
04-08-2009, 09:33 PM
I don't know. From the great Ju-Ju Man in the sky? However, the question is irrelevant in the context to which I was replying...


I assumed that FlaGator was referring to legal rights, not rights derived from some moral or supernatural construct. Wilbur listed but a few of the legal rights that married couples have that homosexual couples who cannot marry do not have. I'm not sure how your question is relevant in the context of the conversation.

Well for someone who talks so much about them I was hoping you could shed some light on it.
Since you don't even know even a basic premise about rights, let me help you with your beliefs.


Additionally, to date, domestic partnership is a state and local legal construct and has no affect upon the rights and responsibilities granted by the federal government.

But since you think the federal government bestows all our rights on us, your either a statist, or just plain ignorant. Which one is it?

Water Closet
04-08-2009, 09:57 PM
Well for someone who talks so much about them I was hoping you could shed some light on it.
Since you don't even know even a basic premise about rights, let me help you with your beliefs.



But since you think the federal government bestows all our rights on us, your either a statist, or just plain ignorant. Which one is it?

Huh? Are you just stupid or are you purposely being obtuse. My statement itself, which you quote, delineates that there are rights bestowed by state and local government as well as rights bestowed by the federal government. While that is the reality under which we live, we could discuss if that's a just and right situation, but that's an entirely different discussion. Again, you seem to want to focus the conversation upon some abstruse topic regarding the natural orgin of rights, while its focus is actually on the very practical, very real rights granted by local, state, and federal governments to the insitution of "marriage" under the legal definition of marriage recognized in the law.

PoliCon
04-08-2009, 10:12 PM
They may be legally regulated benefits of a marriage between a man and a women but they are not rights. Marriage itself is not a right. Marriage in this era is a legally regulated social contract between a man and a woman that guarantees each a pre-agreed to standing in respect to sharing property, income, child rearing responsibilities and decision making on the others behave in instances where the other person is not capable of making a decision.

I noticed that toilet bowl dodged you . . . . sad because you're right on the money.

wilbur
04-08-2009, 10:24 PM
Some major wriggling going on here..

Natural rights and legal rights all fall under the category of "rights"... whatever definition everyone else is working from here, it might behoove them to be more specific... otherwise it just looks like one is being intentionally vague to wriggle out of any tight spot where one might find themselves cornered.

AFIAK the supreme court has never ruled one way or the other on the status of marriage as a natural or legal right.... but it certainly seems common sense to me to consider the unique legal benefits - many which can't be given or received under any other type of legal contract (in this sense marriage is special) - of marriage as 'legal rights'.

So yes... the bulleted list I provided is a list of 'rights', legal rights, that homosexuals are denied based upon gender.

It can be said that everyone really has the natural right to shack up with whomever they please (as long as all are adults)... man woman, man man, woman woman... but the legal rights of marriage are what this whole debate is about. So lets stop moving the goal posts here.

Water Closet
04-08-2009, 10:29 PM
I noticed that toilet bowl dodged you . . . . sad because you're right on the money.

I did not answer my good friend, FlaGator, as we have reached a separate peace; however, I will answer an idiot like you. Whether you define the items listed by Wilbur (a very partial list, btw) as "rights" or as "benefits," they are "thingies" granted by the government to one group and not to another group, based solely upon sexual preference. This, by any judgement excepting that of ball-scratching hicks, is unjust and needs correction.

This is slowly coming to pass, as in today's news that the legislature, not those evil liberal judges (the majority of which, btw, were appointed by Republican presidents), in Vermont has passed veto-proof legislation legalizing gay marriage. With gay marriage now legal in four states, and with bills in at least four other legislatures, the trend is apparent. Welcome to Hell.

SaintLouieWoman
04-08-2009, 10:38 PM
I did not answer my good friend, FlaGator, as we have reached a separate peace; however, I will answer an idiot like you. Whether you define the items listed by Wilbur (a very partial list, btw) as "rights" or as "benefits," they are "thingies" granted by the government to one group and not to another group, based solely upon sexual preference. This, by any judgement excepting that of ball-scratching hicks, is unjust and needs correction.

This is slowly coming to pass, as in today's news that the legislature, not those evil liberal judges (the majority of which, btw, were appointed by Republican presidents), in Vermont has passed veto-proof legislation legalizing gay marriage. With gay marriage now legal in four states, and with bills in at least four other legislatures, the trend is apparent. Welcome to Hell.

Whether posting as CW or WC, things never change, always the insults. :rolleyes:

wilbur
04-08-2009, 10:41 PM
Whether posting as CW or WC, things never change, always the insults. :rolleyes:

You ever looked at Policon's posts? Any insult that goes his way is simply karma.

Water Closet
04-08-2009, 10:45 PM
You ever looked at Policon's posts?

Of course not. SLW never looked at JCC's or lacarnut's posts when they called Linda #s a "feminazi whore." Nor did she look at bicat's posts when he called Cold Warrior's girlfriend a "whore." She is, however, very selectively diligent in looking at posts of those with whom she disagrees.

PoliCon
04-08-2009, 10:45 PM
they are "thingies" granted by the government You don't get it - the government doesn't grant shit. WE grant the government the power they have. The sooner you come to understand that the sooner you can be called an American and not a stupid leftist.


to one group and not to another group, Bullshit. Every American has the self same rights when it comes to marriage - be they Gay or Straight - male or female. You and I and Rosie the fat whore O'Donnell all have the same access to marriage:

1 - both parties must be amenable to the prospect of marriage.

2 - the parties cannot be close relatives.

3 - both parties must be HUMAN.

4 - the parties must be of the opposite sex.

I know the left wants to spin marriage as about being able to join with the one you love - which is such a nice emotional thought - but anyone with a brain who thinks knows that while love makes a marriage much more tolerable and pleasant - it is not a requirement for marriage. Furthermore - Straights do not have special rights in marriage that are not afforded to gays. Two straight men can't get married any more than two gay men. A straight man cannot marry a close relative any more than a gay man. A "straight" man cannot marry his horse or his blow up doll any more than a gay man can.

So any claim that one group has right that the other does not is bullshit.

PoliCon
04-08-2009, 10:47 PM
Whether posting as CW or WC, things never change, always the insults. :rolleyes:

It doesn't bother me. It's what one can expect from someone who chooses an ID that means toilet bowl. :rolleyes:

Water Closet
04-08-2009, 10:52 PM
It doesn't bother me. It's what one can expect from someone who chooses an ID that means toilet bowl. :rolleyes:

Does it?? I thought it was taken from Dr. Who's Tardis Machine! You must be one of them internationalists that knows a lot about those terms in dem furein countries. Can you teach me thingies about them?

SaintLouieWoman
04-08-2009, 10:55 PM
Of course not. SLW never looked at JCC's or lacarnut's posts when they called Linda #s a "feminazi whore." Nor did she look at bicat's posts when he called Cold Warrior's girlfriend a "whore." She is, however, very selectively diligent in looking at posts of those with whom she disagrees.

I happened to see these posts. I think I'm entitled to comment. I have made a point of ignoring your recent posts, Toilet Bowl or Cold Warrior, whichever name you prefer And this is really old history that you're still whining about.

And for the record, I like Linda #'s and didn't see the "feminazi whore" comments or would have pm'd the individuals involved. Unlike some people, I have a life and don't spend 24/7 on any board.

Water Closet
04-08-2009, 10:58 PM
I happened to see these posts. I think I'm entitled to comment. I have made a point of ignoring your recent posts, Toilet Bowl or Cold Warrior, whichever name you prefer And this is really old history that you're still whining about.

And for the record, I like Linda #'s and didn't see the "feminazi whore" comments or would have pm'd the individuals involved. Unlike some people, I have a life and don't spend 24/7 on any board.

In point of fact, in the VERY THREAD in which those comments were made regarding Linda#'s, only a few posts downstream, you praised lacarnut and JCC as "true gentlemen."

Water Closet
04-08-2009, 11:36 PM
Unlike some people, I have a life and don't spend 24/7 on any board.

Well, let's do some numbers here. As of this post, you have 32,807 posts on this board. At 5 minutes per post, a very conservative estimate in that it does not take into account reading various posts without responding, you have spent 32807 x 5 = 164,035 minutes on this board. Divided by 60, that means you have spent 2,734 hours, equivalent to 114, 24 hour days, or 342, 8 hour days. Meaning that out of the 7 years you have been on this board, you have spent one full working year (actually, if one includes weekends and holidays, around 1.5 working years) on it alone. That does not account for any other boards to which you may have membership.

But, yeah, you have a life and the rest of us, me in particular, spend all our time on message boards. :rolleyes:

FlaGator
04-08-2009, 11:47 PM
Some major wriggling going on here..

Natural rights and legal rights all fall under the category of "rights"... whatever definition everyone else is working from here, it might behoove them to be more specific... otherwise it just looks like one is being intentionally vague to wriggle out of any tight spot where one might find themselves cornered.

AFIAK the supreme court has never ruled one way or the other on the status of marriage as a natural or legal right.... but it certainly seems common sense to me to consider the unique legal benefits - many which can't be given or received under any other type of legal contract (in this sense marriage is special) - of marriage as 'legal rights'.

So yes... the bulleted list I provided is a list of 'rights', legal rights, that homosexuals are denied based upon gender.

It can be said that everyone really has the natural right to shack up with whomever they please (as long as all are adults)... man woman, man man, woman woman... but the legal rights of marriage are what this whole debate is about. So lets stop moving the goal posts here.

Those are not rights, but hey I am feeling magnanimous tonight so we'll call them rights to make you happy. Being as much of an expert at moving the goal posts as you are I am surprised that you think that is what I am doing, but then again like your comments concerning Thomas Jefferson in a previous thread, you would be wrong. The goal posts are where they have always been planted. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is the homosexual crowd and their appeasers who wish to move the goal posts.

FlaGator
04-08-2009, 11:50 PM
I will flex my mod muscles a little here and suggest that we keep the messages centered on the topic at hand or the thread will be locked. That the personal stuff to the 'dome.

PoliCon
04-08-2009, 11:53 PM
I will flex my mod muscles a little here and suggest that we keep the messages centered on the topic at hand or the thread will be locked. That the personal stuff to the 'dome.

some people would rather bicker than discuss - apparently the see the weakness of their arguments . . . . :cool:

FlaGator
04-08-2009, 11:56 PM
some people would rather bicker than discuss - apparently the see the weakness of their arguments . . . . :cool:

And the discussion had remained civil for much longer than usual...

wilbur
04-09-2009, 12:59 AM
Those are not rights, but hey I am feeling magnanimous tonight so we'll call them rights to make you happy. Being as much of an expert at moving the goal posts as you are I am surprised that you think that is what I am doing, but then again like your comments concerning Thomas Jefferson in a previous thread, you would be wrong. The goal posts are where they have always been planted. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is the homosexual crowd and their appeasers who wish to move the goal posts.

Seeing as how the whole debate is centered around differing views about what marriage should be, it does no good to simply restate what marriage currently is and pretend that its an argument (ie. marriage is between a man and a woman).

You either need to support why the status quo needs to stay the way it is, or why the proposed changes are wrong.

SarasotaRepub
04-09-2009, 07:28 AM
I will flex my mod muscles a little here and suggest that we keep the messages centered on the topic at hand or the thread will be locked. That the personal stuff to the 'dome.

Good point by FlaGator. And Cold Warrior, I've only let you back on for the pleasure of seeing how long it would take before you reverted back to your same annoying self.

Contrary to what some here think, I'm not out to ban people left and right. As the Major said in another thread, you really have to work at getting banned here. And even after you get banned, we generally are pretty liberal in letting shitheads back for another go at it, in some cases, multiple times.

CW, you get one warning in this new persona. That's it. I'm not putting up with your shit here again. I actually liked you when you first joined CU and then you just developed a mean streak. Don't bother answering this. If you attract my attention again you're gone.

FlaGator
04-09-2009, 07:46 AM
Seeing as how the whole debate is centered around differing views about what marriage should be, it does no good to simply restate what marriage currently is and pretend that its an argument (ie. marriage is between a man and a woman).

You either need to support why the status quo needs to stay the way it is, or why the proposed changes are wrong.

I would hope that you would know by now that I really don't have issues with same-sex marriages as long as it isn't forced upon the religions that find it immoral. I'm just playing devils advocate right now see how people respond to the different arguments. Your points are well taken and I sympathize with the plight of homosexuals, however they believe that everything they desire should happen immediately and just because something is made legal it doesn't mean that people will accept it. In fact, at least as I see it, attempting for force acceptance on those who are not ready for it may cause some negative backlash at a future date. Homosexuality is morally wrong in my opinion, but people in the secular world have a right to behave as immorally as they like provided it has no consequences for others. Unfortunately, where morality is involved, there usually are dire consequences of the unforeseen variety.

Molon Labe
04-09-2009, 09:02 AM
Huh? Are you just stupid or are you purposely being obtuse. My statement itself, which you quote, delineates that there are rights bestowed by state and local government as well as rights bestowed by the federal government. While that is the reality under which we live, we could discuss if that's a just and right situation, but that's an entirely different discussion. Again, you seem to want to focus the conversation upon some abstruse topic regarding the natural orgin of rights, while its focus is actually on the very practical, very real rights granted by local, state, and federal governments to the insitution of "marriage" under the legal definition of marriage recognized in the law.

Ok...You said Government bestows rights. That has everything to do with how someone approaches the subject. I don't think it's being obtuse.
A government cannot "bestow" any rights on people unless you believe that is where rights come from. That's positivism liberty. That goes against every principle of this country was founded on.

I am of the belief that the nation was founded on negative liberty. The visions of Locke, and Adam Smith.
Our founders were of that opinion too I might add. Contrary to popular belief this nation was not founded on the principles of Hegel or Rousseau.

The government is set up by the people to protect those rights that go beyond man. You can call it religion or whatever you want, but most deists and even athiests who believe in the founders view of liberty.

My point is if you get the government out of the business of telling people what individauls may do or not do, then this is left to religious institutions as it was for thousands of years before 20th century man found it "progressive" to say otherwise.

Water Closet
04-09-2009, 09:15 AM
Ok...You said Government bestows rights. That has everything to do with how someone approaches the subject. I don't think it's being obtuse.
A government cannot "bestow" any rights on people unless you believe that is where rights come from. That's positivism liberty. That goes against every principle of this country was founded on.

I am of the belief that the nation was founded on negative liberty. The visions of Locke, and Adam Smith.
Our founders were of that opinion too I might add. Contrary to popular belief this nation was not founded on the principles of Hegel or Rousseau.

The government is set up by the people to protect those rights that go beyond man. You can call it religion or whatever you want, but most deists and even athiests who believe in the founders view of liberty.

My point is if you get the government out of the business of telling people what individauls may do or not do, then this is left to religious institutions as it was for thousands of years before 20th century man found it "progressive" to say otherwise.

You are addressing the philosophical underpinnings, while I am attempting to address the reality. I happen to agree with you regarding government. I would like to see the government get out of the business of marriage, of drugs, of prostitution, of listening to my calls to Lahore, of a whole lot of things. But, in practice, there's very little chance of that; just the opposite, in fact.

The way things are the government currently allows or bestows certain benefits, rights, whatever you'd like to call them, to married couples that it does not to couples who are not married. Wilbur listed only a few of these. Therefore, to say that homosexual couples who cannot, in most states either marry or enter into a domestic partnership, even, have the same "rights" as married, opposite sex couples is incorrect.

PoliCon
04-09-2009, 11:45 AM
Good point by FlaGator. And Cold Warrior, I've only let you back on for the pleasure of seeing how long it would take before you reverted back to your same annoying self. I thought toilet bowl seemed familiar . . . .