http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010
“The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” the justices said in a summary of their decision.
The court rules that gay marriage would be legal in three weeks, starting April 24.
Woo-hoo! time to get your fag on before the electorate amends the constitution.
I wonder how long that will take.I thought the reasoning in the court ruling was interesting, and addresses a lot of the misconceptions about gays that have been pushed on this board over the past few years.
If anyone is interested, let me know and I’ll post the decision in its entirety. The Supreme Court addressed most of the typical arguments (gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, doesn’t provide an optimal environment for raising children, doesn’t promote procreation, etc.)
Good for Iowa. Very impressive. Makes me reconsider the bashing of rural areas.
And I know it’s coming, so I’ll put this out there from the NY Times as a way of immediately combatting the argument that is sure to arise.
[i]
?The concept of equal protection, is deeply rooted in our national and state history, but that history reveals this concept is often expressed far more easily than it is practiced,? the court wrote.
Iowa has enforced its constitution in a series of landmark court decisions, including those that struck down slavery (in 1839) and segregation (cases in 1868 and 1873), and upheld women?s rights by becoming the first state in the nation to allow a woman to practice law, in 1869.
[/i]
Let me say it now- because the public is against it does not mean that it is 1) constitutional and 2) right.
Iowa got ir right with slavery, segregation, women’s rights, and now gay marriage.
Slainte Iowa.
Hopefully they’ll get it right with polygamy, too. Those with a multiple life partner orientation, be it gay, hetero, or bi (which would satisfy their desire for both sexes), have a right to equal protection.
Now, the Polyphobes will tell us why heteros and homos in monogamous sexual relationships are special. However, that’s just closeted polygamist nonsense.
Shouldn’t equal protection also apply to two people who won’t be having sex with each other, but with other people? Basically, do they lose their rights since they’re not screwing each other?
^Government shouldn’t even have to become involved is this issue:
people have the right to associate with whomever they want however they want.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hopefully they’ll get it right with polygamy, too. [/quote]
That’s more likely to happen in Utah than Iowa.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
^Government shouldn’t even have to become involved is this issue:
people have the right to associate with whomever they want however they want.[/quote]
I agree, I don’t see how people try to take away people’s self determination to defend and institution.
When did your (in general) perception of an institution and the way you feel about what is sacred become more important that free choice? It’s really a victimless crime.
“We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective”
fucking right.
so much governement money has been wasted on this issue.I would rather see the christians protest rock music again.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
^Government shouldn’t even have to become involved is this issue:
people have the right to associate with whomever they want however they want.[/quote]
Agreed. Maybe some common-law ‘marriage’ advantages to promote/stabilize communities and maybe some ‘preferred parent’ status (legally independent of common law ‘marriage’) to ensure kids aren’t being raised by rapists, drunkards, etc. and to distribute the burden of having children. But please not more marriage and definitely not more marriage because you’re gay, straight, well-hung, big breasted, taller than six feet, a non-smoker, or otherwise not a rapist, drunkard, etc.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
so much governement money has been wasted on this issue.I would rather see the christians protest rock music again.[/quote]
Rock is dead. There are new beasts to slay.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
When did your (in general) perception of an institution and the way you feel about what is sacred become more important that free choice? It’s really a victimless crime.[/quote]
Completely false.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hopefully they’ll get it right with polygamy, too. Those with a multiple life partner orientation, be it gay, hetero, or bi (which would satisfy their desire for both sexes), have a right to equal protection.
Now, the Polyphobes will tell us why heteros and homos in monogamous sexual relationships are special. However, that’s just closeted polygamist nonsense. [/quote]
I hop they make Polygamy legal. When it comes down to it, I think it should be an agreement between adults who have sex with each other, or at least intended to.
I’m not saying I don’t think polygamy should be legal because I get the arguments for it.
However I recently read a book called the Read Queen on evolutionary biology and when it discussed polygamy and analyzed how it has been manifested in history it showed that polygamy was awesome for the rich and powerful men who were able to attract and support multiple wives In the case of the meso-americans thousands while the common man struggled to get one. Women were consistently choosing to be the fourth wife of a rich man than the first of a poor one. There was more to the argument but that’s what i remember without looking back in the book.
that’s not a legal argument against it but an interesting implication of it when it was instituted in some historical societies. I’ll have to look back to entirely flesh out the authors findings but that was one of the implications he documented.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Hopefully they’ll get it right with polygamy, too. Those with a multiple life partner orientation, be it gay, hetero, or bi (which would satisfy their desire for both sexes), have a right to equal protection.
Now, the Polyphobes will tell us why heteros and homos in monogamous sexual relationships are special. However, that’s just closeted polygamist nonsense.
I hop they make Polygamy legal. When it comes down to it, I think it should be an agreement between adults who have sex with each other, or at least intended to.[/quote]
Why should they have to sex with EACH OTHER? Why can’t two or more committed hetero bachelors marry for benefits? Each life partner could go out and satisfy his or her’s sexual needs elsewhere with a member(s) of the opposite sex. No equal protection since they’re not penetrating each other? Because, hetero-same sex-non sexual relationshiphobes disagree from the closets they themselves are hiding in?
[quote]OneMoreRep wrote:
I’m not saying I don’t think polygamy should be legal because I get the arguments for it.
However I recently read a book called the Read Queen on evolutionary biology and when it discussed polygamy and analyzed how it has been manifested in history it showed that polygamy was awesome for the rich and powerful men who were able to attract and support multiple wives In the case of the meso-americans thousands while the common man struggled to get one. Women were consistently choosing to be the fourth wife of a rich man than the first of a poor one. There was more to the argument but that’s what i remember without looking back in the book. [/quote]
So take a woman’s “right to choose” for the sake of some poor man who can barely take care of her and their future offspring? Be pro-choice, support polygamy.
romo’s
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Hopefully they’ll get it right with polygamy, too. Those with a multiple life partner orientation, be it gay, hetero, or bi (which would satisfy their desire for both sexes), have a right to equal protection.
Now, the Polyphobes will tell us why heteros and homos in monogamous sexual relationships are special. However, that’s just closeted polygamist nonsense.
I hop they make Polygamy legal. When it comes down to it, I think it should be an agreement between adults who have sex with each other, or at least intended to.
Why should they have to sex with EACH OTHER? Why can’t two or more committed hetero bachelors marry for benefits? Each life partner could go out and satisfy his or her’s sexual needs elsewhere with a member(s) of the opposite sex. No equal protection since they’re not penetrating each other? Because, hetero-same sex-non sexual relationshiphobes disagree from the closets they themselves are hiding in?
[/quote]
Because in the end, it is about sex. Don’t start with the commitment and sex isn’t everything BS, all relationships will fall apart without sex.
[quote]OneMoreRep wrote:
I’m not saying I don’t think polygamy should be legal because I get the arguments for it.
However I recently read a book called the Read Queen on evolutionary biology and when it discussed polygamy and analyzed how it has been manifested in history it showed that polygamy was awesome for the rich and powerful men who were able to attract and support multiple wives In the case of the meso-americans thousands while the common man struggled to get one. Women were consistently choosing to be the fourth wife of a rich man than the first of a poor one. There was more to the argument but that’s what i remember without looking back in the book. [/quote]
Commie!