"Gay Marriage" in America. Now What? Iowa?
Seems like gay marriage fighters go anywhere they will be heard. Now is the case in Iowa. Iowa Supreme Court heard arguments today in a challenge to the state's same-sex marriage ban. If the Iowa court rules in favor of the half dozen gay couples who filed the lawsuit, it would be the fourth state behind Massachusetts, California and Connecticut to uphold the right for same-sex couples to legally marry (Whole story HERE).
A ruling that would uphold Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act would amount to a major setback for the gay rights movement, and a victory for social conservatives who argue that same-sex marriage threatens traditional families.
Comments
I don't have any problem with gay marriage. Sanction same-sex unions and encourage a monogamous lifestyle. Social conservatives criticize gays for having multiple partners and then oppose them getting married. If the concept of "marriage" is so bothersome, change the legal terminology so that everything is a civil union legally, and leave marriage to be defined by the church. Defense of Marriage Acts are supported by bigots.
No one said anything about sanctioning everything. Your attempt at exposing absurdity by being absurd, simply makes you look absurd.
I am not some big gay activist, but having been bigoted toward gays in the past myself, and having overcome it, I recognize bigotry that rises from ignorance and fear when I see it, even when it is thinly veiled behind more noble-sounding arguments.
It's just unfortunate that the term "marriage" was ever used in secular law, being as wrapped up in religious meaning as it is. If that were not the case, we would not even need to have this discussion now.
All of that, to avoid simply allowing gays to marry? Brilliant! Does that really seem like the moral solution? Do you realize that your comment doesn't even address the issue?
I really hope that the social conservatives choose to use you as their spokesperson. That would be priceless!
It's clear that you have no intertest in discussing the actual issue, probably because you have no argument. You just want to act rudely and engage in name calling.
I'm not gay, but just interested in abolishing hatred and bigotry. Rather than starting another country, I think we'll just continue to change this one for the better, much to your chagrin I'm sure.
How's that grab YOU? ;>)
My, my, getting so personal, Joe.
What does that old saying mean to you in this context? Are you going to become gay if gays are allowed to marry the person they love? Is your own marriage somehow going to become a same-sex union if gays are allowed to marry?
Your idea that it is a sin is a misguided religious idea. Although I'm sure you grew up with that idea instilled into your brain, and I'm sure there is no chance of changing your mind at this point, if you consider yourself a Christian, consider that Jesus never said anything against homosexuals. Jesus was all about love, to be shown to everyone. Not the kind of hatred and judgement you direct at gays or at me, or at any number of others, I would guess.
Rather than worrying so much about whether or not others are committing sins, and judging others, why don't you spend some energy in self-reflection and on what it really means to be a Christian?
Any two people who wish to enter into a committed relationship should be able to do so equally. Such a thing is in no way going to lead to 2 men and a woman getting married, or a man and beast getting married. It's just a ridiculous hysterical concept.
The religous argument that you and Joe bring to this issue illustrates exactly why religious ideas should not be codified in secular law. You are free to consider it immoral, but discrimination based on misguided religious ideas should not be supported in law.
The suggestion that we will have to allow any other kind of union is a strawman arguement. We don't "have" to do any such thing.
But so what if we did? Marriage is between you, your mate, and God. The state throws in some legal recognition, but quite frankly has nothing to do with the union itself. How does anyone else's marriage possibly have anything to do with yours?
And how "sactified" can the institution be, from the standpoint of the government, if it allows one to get married at a drive-through in Vegas after a drunken night, and divorced in the same fashion?
The only sanctified union is one in a church and has nothing to do with the government...just those involved in that union. Whether the government chooses to recognize other unions will have no bearing whatsoever on the sanctity of marriage...unless those in that marriage allow it to. In which case, they never should have been together in the first place if the union is that weak.
The government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether and leave marriage to the church, and end this stupid debate once and for all.
Oh yes! Thank you for saying it so well Aielman.
Jim and Joe, you guys have been totally outclassed by Aielman, and it has been firmly shown what underlies your flimsy arguments, such as as they are.
Jim, rather than imagining yourself as some sort of "cultural war hero", why don't you do something truly heroic and work to grow beyond your own ego, your very narrow personal beliefs, and endeavor to find ways to bring people together rather than dividing them? I realize that is a tall order and not likely to happen overnight, but it is a germ of an idea for your own personal growth and development. If you could do such a thing, you could then truly strive to be a hero, like Gandhi, Buddha, Jesus, and others. But paradoxically, to truly be a hero, you can't strive to be one.
I would suggest checking out Eckart Tolle's book "A New Earth", or a Landmark Seminar, http://www.landmarkeducation.com, or preferably both.
Just because we have a disagreement, does not place you on some moral high ground, you moron. And I DO obey the law!
You pinhead rednecks are all the same also, you are terminally stupid!
<<A "subgroup" is denied something based on societal wishes. >>
Yes, and the people of California by way of democratic process do not want gay marriage and the same is likely for all states!
LOL That's funny. Had to laugh.
When it comes to the issue of equal rights, it doesn't matter what the majority of people say. That's why we have courts to protect the rights of minorities.
Is the ability to get married a right or a priviledge?
Herb,
I don't start the culture wars. I just report on them. AND I am entitled to my opinions. If you don't like them, sorry.
BTW: The hero is indeed within!
Aielman IS AGAINST "gay marriage". Got it. Thanks, A.
Oh, for the sake of Pete. He echoed my exact position. Marriage should be defined and sanctified by the church. All that the State should care about is a legal contract between 2 people, ANY 2 people.
Or did that go over your head as well? ;>)
While it's true that California, Florida and several other states have decided to amend their state constitutions to prohibit gay unions, I doubt seriously it will be all states. Massachusetts has already voted to legalize it, for one.
It's a privilege. There's nothing in the constitution that even hints that the federal government should recognize marriage in any way, let alone assign any sorts of benefits or penalties to those in such a union.
Incorrect. Aielman is against ANY government recognized marriage. Period. The government has no business being associated with anything that closely tied to the church. Marriage is solely in the purview of the church, and should remain as such.
The government really has no business granting priviliges to people just for cohibitating, but if it feels that the benefits of such cohabitation are for the good of society, then that privilege should be extended to anyone of legal age and ability to consent to a contract. It also should not be in any way tied to any religion, nor should any but the clerk of the court, or other designated civil or government service worker, be able to grant legal status to such a contract.
Neither the church, nor the drive through Elvis chapel in Vegas have any business overseeing a legally recognized union.
And by the same token, the government should in no way be able to influence whom a church deems eligable for marriage because said marriage should not be recognized by anyone but in the eyes of God.
To say that I'm against gay marriage is to completely mischaracterize what I said.
Wow! You just keep surprising me. Where does your talent end?
So, by setting "marriage" aside and leaving it to the church to define, sanction, etc., we are left with a simple legal contract, a civil union, between 2 people as far as the law is concerned.
Is there still a problem with this? Even if the contract exists between ANY 2 people?