US Midwest State Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

Post Reply New Topic

HAHA! Take THAT, religious (homophobe) morons!

Something else to note: Iowans are very practical - all across the board. I'm not surprised that Iowa is ahead of California in this.

Californians on both sides tend to grandstand towards one extreme or the other. They (we) have a hard time letting their convictions go for practicality sake. (I'm a CA expat - so I've seen CA from different angles now).

Despite the hippie image, California has just as many, if not more of the social and religious conservatives. So, California may be the first to try something - but then they'll be the first to outlaw it. (On both sides - Dems and GOPers)

From what I understand, Iowa didn't "legalize" gay marriage, their supreme court just turned over their state ban on it. This does not mean that Iowa is suddenly a bastion of progressiveness, in fact I'm sure that the usual suspects are already drafting a legal counter-attack, most likely an amendment to the state constitution, since they can't appeal a supreme court decision. It is rather ironic that gay marriage is now legal in Iowa and illegal in California, though we'll have to wait and see how long that situation lasts.

That's great.

My cousin will love to hear this.

I'm surprised about California.

It's this exact same disrespectful and ridiculing attitude that prevented me from joining your side the last time I considered it.

Guess that makes 2 for 2...

Please, Ancalgon, lay out for me a reasoned argument that homosexuals marrying will somehow be more destabilizing to the institution of marriage per se than, for instance, celebrity six-month marriages, without reference to religion or "morals" (used generally as code for the same thing).

I would be truly interested in hearing such an argument - in thirty-five years of asking around, I haven't found one yet...

I'm not sure that the argument can be made that it would be more destabilizing. That doesn't imply that there is no argument about destabilization, though. It could be argued that 6 month marriages are worse, but that they should be banned also.

Your condition about avoiding religion and morals is really silly. Religion is closely intertwined with marriage, and without morality, there is no subject to debate in the first place.

I don't have a definite position on the issue, my original objection was to the phrasing of the poll questions which were too biased, so don't take my sample positions as what I really think. I'm leaning towards the idea that the government should get out of the marriage business per se, and change what it does into civil unions. Then allow civil unions for straight and gay pairs, as well as multiple partners for the polygamists. Religious groups could then officiate over marriage, and each religious group's rules about marriage would apply for that religious group.

Actually, this is more progressive than most "lifts on bans". They lifted the ban and recognized same sex unions (and all the legal rights) in one fell swoop.

Now Maine and Vermont. So hedge funds, money center banks, and government regulators can claim it as a reason to not answer the Grand Jury.

The boys of Enron wish they had that one.

The right to not be forced to testify is the only difference between marriage and a business partnership.

Homosexual Polygamy would spread that right over all, gaming the system in the name of fairness.

It beats pleading the Fifth Amendment.

Like Kinky Friedman said about gay marriage during his campaign for governor of Texas:

"They have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us."

Seriously though, gay marriage does constitute a threat to our deeply established and universal tradition of serial monogamy.

About time for America to show more progress.

How is it a threat? I do want to hear your view please as this is not a retorical question, I also mean no insult to you by this question.

Are there people preventing or planning to prevent hetrosexual marriage if gay marriage became available? It would be strange if there were.

There is nothing in homosexuality that prevents them from engaging in serial monogamy as well, or in gay marriage that would prevent straight people from continuing to do it either.

I wish there were.

Oh well...That was supposed to be a joke, based on the people who keep saying that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage and the family.

Because I'm not sure traditional marriage and the family could be said to exist any more. I hardly know anybody who's still on their first marriage, and a father is now just some guy who sends checks.

I'm not sure anybody's tried abolishing long term bonding in humans before, at least not on a national and international scale. It's the most radical social experiment in history and I don't think it's a very good idea.

Gay marriage is a peripheral issue to this. Gay people are gonna be gay no matter what.

There is the possibility that Iowans, besides being relentlessly practical and mercenary, are not all ignorant Philistines. I don't think we need to jump to explain away the fact that they have managed to do something that will put a lot of other states to shame.

I don't get why this whole same sex couple thing is an issue at all ... anywhere.

In my experience, most things that are a problem have a workaround solution.

Marriage is in fact a type of contract.

Why doesn't a same sex couple that have a firm commitment to each other simply write up a contract under the laws of their particular state or nation and leave it at that. They can still have the religious ceremony and show off party, reception or whatever in parallel.

Beats me why it has to be an issue.

Most places, no-one really cares any more. ^^^ I strongly agree with CanyonWind's remarks.