Iowa court rules same-sex couples can marry

Its Evolution Baby

CorporateWhore wrote:

Gay people seem to think that if they could just get married, that would help solve some of the rampant problems their lifestyle entails. Let them get married - they'll just transfer rampant cheating and multiple partners under the guise of a marriage. Gays are always changing partners.

Oh, and thanks for introducing AIDS to America, gays. I appreciate that one.

Wow, that last part of your post is right out of the 80's train of thought.

We have learned so much about the spread of AIDS overtime that you have choosen to ignore.

http://hab.hrsa.gov/publications/stigma/introduction.htm

Deni

surferdude wrote:

Give me a break. I know it's Friday and you may be a few drinks into it but c'mon, there's no need for this type of foolishness.

CorporateWhore is a TROLL! Please ignore.

He/She/It is on my ignore list for that very reason.

hippiemom

Deni wrote:

Like I said, its just language and as a writer I think that words have meaning. Civil Union implies something more equal. It has no religious connotation. And I think that is important. It might be semantics, but in my personal opinion semantics are sometimes important. As long as the right can SAY marriage means this... then Civil Union should be what we call it. They can't say Civil Union means anything specific, which will lead to more equality in the long run.

And I still don't see how it would require two ceremonies. I mean unless you consider seeing a judge so he can sign the paper a ceremony, but I dont... cause there's no cake involved.

I appreciate and share your love of the language, but I also think that when two words are synonymous it becomes an artistic choice as to which you use. But as I said, if someone wants to go to all the trouble, they can knock themselves out, doesn't bother me a bit. Ok, if it winds up costing a lot of my tax dollars it will bother me a LITTLE bit, but I can't see it really being all that expensive, so what the hell.

I've been to civil marriage ceremonies, and while there certainly isn't all the hoopla that traditionally surrounds a religious ceremony, the judge/mayor/whoever still has to go through all the rigamarole to make sure everyone understands exactly what it is they're agreeing to. They usually take 10-15 minutes, as opposed to a Catholic wedding which can take weeks (or maybe it just felt like weeks to me ). 10-15 minutes isn't a huge deal, but it would feel like a nuisance to me if I'd already been through a full-blown wedding.

It seems to me like this would be more of a pain in the ass for the religious folks than anyone else, but if that's what they want, what the heck.

Uncle Leo

Deni wrote:

CorporateWhore is a TROLL! Please ignore.

He/She/It is on my ignore list for that very reason.

I can appreciate your putting "he/she", but not here. We all know he's a he.

Uncle Leo

surferdude wrote:

So let's hoep you never pull the seperation of church and state out in an arguement as a principal that you think should be adhered to. In this day and age of computers it is quite easy to find out where every law refers to marriage and then draft identical legislation replacing marriage with civil union.

I don't understand the thinking of "well it's a lot of work to do it correctly, so let's just forget what the constitution says about church and state to make all our lives easier". This is what people blast, and rightly so, George Bush for. For forgetting what the constitution says because it makes his life easier.

I really don't think it is that much work. I am fine with doing it. I just fail to see how marriage has to imply religion. Maybe it's the fact that I've grown up in a society that has pretty much secularized it--the benefits/responsibilities of marriage, filling out marital status on forms, etc. But it has never really implied religion to me. Yes, you can be married by a religious person in a religious ceremony. But whether you are or not is irrelevant. The only time a "marriage" has any religious overtone from the government is when government says "no gays."

norm

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/31/iowa.samesex.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

" By late morning, 20 had applied for marriage licenses when Recorder Julie Haggerty announced that she had been instructed to stop accepting the applications. Hanson later said the judge that he had formally stayed his ruling.

The judge's stay means the recorder's office is not permitted to accept any more marriage applications from gay couples until the Iowa Supreme Court rules on the county's appeal."

Uncle Leo

surferdude wrote:

I'm fine with you feeling this way but I would like to see some consistancy in that you don't feel that seperation of church and state is a principal to uphold. In this case it just seems like too much work so why bother. And it's not just the terminology that is causing the mongling of church and state it's the fact that this so called government sponsored legal document is presided over and signed by church officials making it legal.

I never said it was too much work. Again, I prefer that it be civil unions, but only in the sense that I prefer "In God we trust" not be on the money...I am not going to put my energy toward it. I don't feel it's the comingling of church and state. In fact it never really even occured to me that it was.

surferdude wrote:

I said all sides for a reason. The right is probably more guilty of this just not on this issue.

Yeah, but the reason I called it a slap at the left is that many on the right acknowledge they are not for separation.

surferdude wrote:

You have no idea how the religious folks will take to the idea of civil unions, just look what you've written and I think you'll see you bias prevents you from having a meaningful exchange of ideas with them. Even the biggest back assward religious person I know has a whole lot less problem with civil unions being open to all, even multiple partners. They seem a lot more open minded to that idea than you seem to be to actually moving to a speperation of church and state and having the legal deed be a civil union.

The things that stop meaningful exchanges are also telling someone "you're wrong" or, even worse "you're stupid". You are closer to the latter. Maybe I don't know what religious people would think about it. Maybe they would be all for it. I know many are anti-civil union, but that many are for it as well. But, clearly you don't know how a lot of us feel either--as there is no presence on this thread (and I highly doubt much if any in general) of pro-gay marriage people fighting for the merging of Church and State.

We all have bias. In this case, I think yours is more preventative than mine since you cannot grasp the idea that hippiemom and I are not promoting religion and state in our stance. (I realize I have done the same thing here, no reason to point out the irony).

Uncle Leo

CorporateWhore wrote:

Gay people seem to think that if they could just get married, that would help solve some of the rampant problems their lifestyle entails. Let them get married - they'll just transfer rampant cheating and multiple partners under the guise of a marriage. Gays are always changing partners.

Oh, and thanks for introducing AIDS to America, gays. I appreciate that one.

If this was from anyone else, I would think it was just over the top schtick.

Deni

Uncle Leo wrote:

I can appreciate your putting "he/she", but not here. We all know he's a he.

I didn't know. I thought CW was a girl anyway. lol

Vedd Hedd

CorporateWhore wrote:

Gay people seem to think that if they could just get married, that would help solve some of the rampant problems their lifestyle entails. Let them get married - they'll just transfer rampant cheating and multiple partners under the guise of a marriage. Gays are always changing partners.

Oh, and thanks for introducing AIDS to America, gays. I appreciate that one.

Youre right dude!!!!

Its a good thing married people dont cheat and spread STD's. And its a damn good thing that married men and women only get married because they are in love....never because they are trying to hide a rampant lifestyle.

kenny olav

It really is uplifting to see long delayed justice finally take place. I felt the same way when gay marriage became legal here in Massachusetts. I wish it would happen for a lot of other issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAyZ7jmKOWg&mode=user&search=

Vedd Hedd

Kenny Olav wrote:

It really is uplifting to see long delayed justice finally take place. I felt the same way when gay marriage became legal here in Massachusetts. I wish it would happen for a lot of other issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAyZ7jmKOWg&mode=user&search=

I agree. I hope this sets a precedent.

Uncle Leo

Deni wrote:

I didn't know. I thought CW was a girl anyway. lol

Historically, many of us who have been here a while know he is a banned person of a former screename.

Uncle Leo

Vedd Hedd wrote:

Youre right dude!!!!

Its a good thing married people dont cheat and spread STD's. And its a damn good thing that married men and women only get married because they are in love....never because they are trying to hide a rampant lifestyle.

This looks sarcastic to me! If you are implying that heterosexual people can also be permiscuous and that a high number of divorces occur due to cheating, then you are just plain crazy. I think you are a witch!

Deni

Uncle Leo wrote:

Historically, many of us who have been here a while know he is a banned person of a former screename.

Really. Well. I didn't know. It wouldn't be miller something something would it?

Deni

Uncle Leo wrote:

This looks sarcastic to me! If you are implying that heterosexual people can also be permiscuous and that a high number of divorces occur due to cheating, then you are just plain crazy. I think you are a witch!

Hey! I AM a witch!

hippiemom

Deni wrote:

Really. Well. I didn't know. It wouldn't be miller something something would it?

No, although their politics are similar. Barroom Hero = Corporate Whore.

I like to combine the two, because I think Barroom Whore has a nice ring to it

Vedd Hedd

Uncle Leo wrote:

This looks sarcastic to me! If you are implying that heterosexual people can also be permiscuous and that a high number of divorces occur due to cheating, then you are just plain crazy. I think you are a witch!

No way!!:D Not herero couples!!!

They are all faithfull!

Juberoo

cutback wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/31/iowa.samesex.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

" By late morning, 20 had applied for marriage licenses when Recorder Julie Haggerty announced that she had been instructed to stop accepting the applications. Hanson later said the judge that he had formally stayed his ruling.

The judge's stay means the recorder's office is not permitted to accept any more marriage applications from gay couples until the Iowa Supreme Court rules on the county's appeal."

LOL that was funny.....

OK you can get married.

NOT!

Juberoo

Corporate Whore you are not helping to make a stand against gay marriage with comments like "gays brought AIDS". That is rediculous.

While the male homosexual community has consistently held the highest census for the disease, it came from contamination in humans via monkeys in the Congo. SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) is scientifically believed to be the origin of HIV. It is thought to have crossed species via butchering techniques or eating of raw monkey flesh, specifically the brain.