Iowa strkes down ban on same-sex marriage

WaveCameCrashin

so shouldn't we let polygamist get married now? after all aren't they a minority ?

Cosmo

It was 'Activist Judges' that eventually made the decision on Civil Rights. If it were left to the 'good people' of the South in 1965... what do you think would have happened?
Sometimes... The People are wrong. Sometimes... the Masses are Asses.

keeponrockin

prfctlefts wrote:

so shouldn't we let polygamist get married now? after all aren't they a minority ?

No...

Marriage between a two people should be fine, regardless. In matters like property, next of kin, etc.. it makes sense for there to be legalized gay marriage.

Multiple partners makes it a whole different ball game.

Cinnamon Girl

prfctlefts wrote:

so shouldn't we let polygamist get married now? after all aren't they a minority ?

ummm maybe yes. I think any religion that is fair to all people to offer positions and opportunity is fair.

Cosmo

prfctlefts wrote:

so shouldn't we let polygamist get married now? after all aren't they a minority ?

...
Between 'Consenting Adults'? Why not.
The State steps into Polyamist marriages usually because the Groom CHOOSES a 12 year old Bride. That's where the State has a better outlook than the 'people' doing the marrying.

WaveCameCrashin

Cosmo wrote:

It was 'Activist Judges' that eventually made the decision on Civil Rights. If it were left to the 'good people' of the South in 1965... what do you think would have happened?
Sometimes... The People are wrong. Sometimes... the Masses are Asses.

sorry but I think there's a pretty big gap between the two.

WaveCameCrashin

keeponrockin wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

so shouldn't we let polygamist get married now? after all aren't they a minority ?

No...

Marriage between a two people should be fine, regardless. In matters like property, next of kin, etc.. it makes sense for there to be legalized gay marriage.

Multiple partners makes it a whole different ball game.

No it doesn't.... aren't they minority Don't they have rights?

Cosmo

prfctlefts wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

It was 'Activist Judges' that eventually made the decision on Civil Rights. If it were left to the 'good people' of the South in 1965... what do you think would have happened?
Sometimes... The People are wrong. Sometimes... the Masses are Asses.

sorry but I think there's a pretty big gap between the two.

...
The basic principles are the same. The people living in the South in the 50s and early 60s were perfectly fine with living in Segregation. it was of their opinion that the races shouldn't mix.
If left to a vote of the people of Mississippi, for example, what do you think the outcome for de-segregation would have been? it's not that they were Bad people... just living with outdated opinions.
The same thing comes into play today.

WaveCameCrashin

Cosmo wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

It was 'Activist Judges' that eventually made the decision on Civil Rights. If it were left to the 'good people' of the South in 1965... what do you think would have happened?
Sometimes... The People are wrong. Sometimes... the Masses are Asses.

sorry but I think there's a pretty big gap between the two.

...
The basic principles are the same. The people living in the South in the 50s and early 60s were perfectly fine with living in Segregation. it was of their opinion that the races shouldn't mix.
If left to a vote of the people of Mississippi, for example, what do you think the outcome for de-segregation would have been? it's not that they were Bad people... just living with outdated opinions.
The same thing comes into play today.

I have to disagree .. gays being able to get married and poeple being lynched?

inmytree

prfctlefts wrote:

IMO This issue isn't about the acceptance of gay marriage.It's about a bunch of liberal activist judges trying to impose their vision of America on the entire country. They are going around the people and people dont like it. The truth is that many people who oppose gay marriage do so because they believe that society is better served by putting traditional marriage in a special place. I believe that America is a strong place because of it's core values,freedom,individual responsibility,and institutions like TRADITIONAL marriage which foster common goals.
E PLURIBISUNAM,OUT OF MANY ONE
some activist judges would like to tear that philosophy down,but they have no right to decide how this country operates and what the law should be.The people decide that by voting. In the case of gay marriage in California they decided that marriage should be between a man and a woman and also most of these voters were african american that also voted for Obama, and that decision should be respected.

what's a Liberal Activist Judge...?

decides2dream

inmytree wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

IMO This issue isn't about the acceptance of gay marriage.It's about a bunch of liberal activist judges trying to impose their vision of America on the entire country. They are going around the people and people dont like it. The truth is that many people who oppose gay marriage do so because they believe that society is better served by putting traditional marriage in a special place. I believe that America is a strong place because of it's core values,freedom,individual responsibility,and institutions like TRADITIONAL marriage which foster common goals.
E PLURIBISUNAM,OUT OF MANY ONE
some activist judges would like to tear that philosophy down,but they have no right to decide how this country operates and what the law should be.The people decide that by voting. In the case of gay marriage in California they decided that marriage should be between a man and a woman and also most of these voters were african american that also voted for Obama, and that decision should be respected.

what's a Liberal Activist Judge...?

and what do they - whoever they are - have to do with this topic? this is the LAW, making sure the state consitution is followed.....and according to the iowa state constitution it's been deemed unlawful to not allow same-sex couples the right to a legal marriage. makes total sense, and really should be done across the board, every state in the union. i really wish many would seperate their religion from our government as the 2 have no business co-mingling. follow your own religious beliefs, and let others follow their own beliefs...and allow the law to remain blind to race, creed, gender, etc.






btw - i don't see how any of this can be deemed as making people accept gay marriage. not at all. no one is forcing you to marry someone of your gender, nor to even welcome them in your home. simply that they, as individuals, have the same rights to legal marriage as you, a heterosexual does. makes total sense. you don't have to *accept* anything, just allow others the same rights as you are afforded.

blackredyellow

I love how the right (more so people who want gay marriage outlawed) complain about "liberal activist judges", but on other issues complain about people not following the constitution. The court followed the constitution and unanimously agreed that the gay marriage ban violates it.

If you don't agree with gay marriage, then don't marry a gay guy... and go to a church that won't marry them. Simple as that.

And the sanctity of marriage argument doesn't even pass the laugh test. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect my marriage in the least bit... neither do the 50% (or whatever the stat is) of marriages that end in divorce. Marriage is special... my wife and I's marriage is special to us, but as far as I am concerned I couldn't care less about anyone else's marriage. If people marry for love, money, sex, a green card, an arraigned marriage, or whatever, it has absolutely no affect on my marriage... if the marriage last 70 years or 15 minutes, it has absolutely no affect on my marriage... if it's two guys, or two women get married, it has absolutely no affect on my marriage.

mca47

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

i think GAY MARRIAGE is just fucking ridiculous..........

just my opinion.....

I think gay marriage is just as ridiculous as heterosexual marriage.

Both seem dumb to me...

decides2dream

mca47 wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

i think GAY MARRIAGE is just fucking ridiculous..........

just my opinion.....

I think gay marriage is just as ridiculous as heterosexual marriage.

Both seem dumb to me...

while i don't share the same opinion on marriage, at least you're consistent.



seriously...i think marriage has many benefits, and i think hetero or homosexual, those benefits and rights of legal union should be afforded all. the only 'ridiculous' thing is having a legal right of union afforded to only some of the adult and mutually consenting population and not all. iowa, yet one more small step in the right direction.

soulsinging

prfctlefts wrote:

IMO This issue isn't about the acceptance of gay marriage.It's about a bunch of liberal activist judges trying to impose their vision of America on the entire country. They are going around the people and people dont like it. The truth is that many people who oppose gay marriage do so because they believe that society is better served by putting traditional marriage in a special place. I believe that America is a strong place because of it's core values,freedom,individual responsibility,and institutions like TRADITIONAL marriage which foster common goals.
E PLURIBISUNAM,OUT OF MANY ONE
some activist judges would like to tear that philosophy down,but they have no right to decide how this country operates and what the law should be.The people decide that by voting. In the case of gay marriage in California they decided that marriage should be between a man and a woman and also most of these voters were african american that also voted for Obama, and that decision should be respected.

What is traditional marriage? Please define it for me. Because according to the Bible (the source "traditional marriage" people tend to use) it includes having multiple wives and taking on a few whores if your wife isn't putting out or giving kids. Ever heard of Abraham? Or we could go to medieval marriage, which didn't really exist for most people as they were too poor. Or we could go to our forefathers in Rennaisance and Victorian England, when marriage had nothing to do with love or affection and was solely a business contract. Is that what you're hoping for?

Oh, right. What you mean by "traditional marriage" is that thing popularized by tv shows in the 50's, where married couples slept in separate beds and all. I hate to be the guy pissing on your parade, but unfortunately, that kind of marriage never existed outside of tv world and Norman Rockwell paintings. Welcome to reality.

soulsinging

prfctlefts wrote:

so shouldn't we let polygamist get married now? after all aren't they a minority ?

Yes we should. Polygamy is a traditional marriage. Its tradition goes back way further than your "one man, one woman" marriage. So if we're talking about "traditional" marriages, you've got to include polygamy. It's the oldest tradition.

soulsinging

prfctlefts wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

It was 'Activist Judges' that eventually made the decision on Civil Rights. If it were left to the 'good people' of the South in 1965... what do you think would have happened?
Sometimes... The People are wrong. Sometimes... the Masses are Asses.

sorry but I think there's a pretty big gap between the two.

Oh? What is it? What's the gap?

soulsinging

prfctlefts wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
The basic principles are the same. The people living in the South in the 50s and early 60s were perfectly fine with living in Segregation. it was of their opinion that the races shouldn't mix.
If left to a vote of the people of Mississippi, for example, what do you think the outcome for de-segregation would have been? it's not that they were Bad people... just living with outdated opinions.
The same thing comes into play today.

I have to disagree .. gays being able to get married and poeple being lynched?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

There were laws against lynching blacks. But the people of the south set up a nice little "separate but equal" system. Lucky for all of us, a few "activist" judges realized you can't be separate and equal. You're talking about doing the same thing now.

Kel Varnsen

Cinnamon Girl wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

so shouldn't we let polygamist get married now? after all aren't they a minority ?

ummm maybe yes. I think any religion that is fair to all people to offer positions and opportunity is fair.

Yea I don't really have a problem with it, as long as all parties are consenting adults (ie a guy can't marry a second wife unless his first wife agrees to it).

WaveCameCrashin

soulsinging wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

IMO This issue isn't about the acceptance of gay marriage.It's about a bunch of liberal activist judges trying to impose their vision of America on the entire country. They are going around the people and people dont like it. The truth is that many people who oppose gay marriage do so because they believe that society is better served by putting traditional marriage in a special place. I believe that America is a strong place because of it's core values,freedom,individual responsibility,and institutions like TRADITIONAL marriage which foster common goals.
E PLURIBISUNAM,OUT OF MANY ONE
some activist judges would like to tear that philosophy down,but they have no right to decide how this country operates and what the law should be.The people decide that by voting. In the case of gay marriage in California they decided that marriage should be between a man and a woman and also most of these voters were african american that also voted for Obama, and that decision should be respected.

What is traditional marriage? Please define it for me. Because according to the Bible (the source "traditional marriage" people tend to use) it includes having multiple wives and taking on a few whores if your wife isn't putting out or giving kids. Ever heard of Abraham? Or we could go to medieval marriage, which didn't really exist for most people as they were too poor. Or we could go to our forefathers in Rennaisance and Victorian England, when marriage had nothing to do with love or affection and was solely a business contract. Is that what you're hoping for?

Oh, right. What you mean by "traditional marriage" is that thing popularized by tv shows in the 50's, where married couples slept in separate beds and all. I hate to be the guy pissing on your parade, but unfortunately, that kind of marriage never existed outside of tv world and Norman Rockwell paintings. Welcome to reality.

why do you have to be so condescending ?
1 man+1 woman=traditional marriage .