Iowa: Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[forlife]

[quote]lucasa wrote:
First, I don’t really care about their names[/quote]

It’s more comforting to operate by nameless stereotypes rather than seeing people as living, breathing human beings right?

Supposing Ed suffered the heart attack, Roland would have to have either General or Health Care Power of Attorney.

I thought it was obvious that I was referring to Medical Power of Attorney. Despite having this specific authority, the hospital denied Ed the right to visit his partner following his heart attack until Roland’s father granted permission. It was blatant discrimination that could have been avoided if gay marriage was nationally recognized.

Are you still going to insist, based on your extensive experience, that this kind of discrimination never happens in the real world?

You show the medical professional caring for the ‘victim’ a Health Care POA, the onus is on them to honor it and suffer the legal repercussions of ignoring it.

That’s nice, but it doesn’t reflect current reality. Furthermore, it places a greater burden on gay couples, because straight couples have implicit and automatic permission simply by virtue of being married. That is not equal protection under the law.

He (maybe) and others seem to be under the impression that everyone who marginally disapproves of homosexuality are poor, uneducated, Christian, etc.

Not everyone, just a significant statistical trend.

Lastly, if you’d quit arguing like a complete neophyte and discussing topics with the eloquence and insight of Jar Jar Binks (But theyz is having powers of attorney!), I wouldn’t have to doubt your educational status.

Mommy, he’s calling me names again

[lucasa]

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

soooooo…because there is fraud others should be allowed to get married…this doesn’t follow at all.[/quote]

This is the argument the ISSC made. Marriage doesn’t exclude undesirables and protect families from them (fraudulent felons being some of the tamest undesirables). So you can’t exclude homosexuals from marriage on the basis of protecting families.

Can you elaborate? It seems this should be a very good reason for a person to support gay marriage: if they want to marry and migrate with their SO.

Marriage is not a social problem. Gay marriage is not a social problem. Fraud and illegal immigration are social problems. Fraudulent marriages supporting illegal immigration are an expensive social problem. I don’t know the solution to this problem, I know it is not more people with more marriages.

Also, opportunity cost being what it is, since DHS took over, the two immigrants I know (they aren’t the only ones) wanting to get married to citizens have had to wait over a year because of DHS’s inability to process their application. To play devil’s advocate; where’s the equal protection? Where’s the presumption of innocence? Where’s the right to due process? These people are being denied their ‘right to marry’.

So you are doubting this happens…this is somewhat valid, lets see how you respond to forlife’s recent post

I don’t doubt homosexuals get excluded from ERs and ORs (we heterosexuals do too). I doubt the malicious intent and the assertion that it is prolific enough to warrant legislation. If you look at hate-crime statistics, a white Jewish homosexual is just as likely to be a victim of a hate crime because they are white and more likely to be a victim because they are Jewish as they are for being openly gay. Agreed, hate crimes may not be representative of non-criminal behavior, but as an indicator of animosity or hate, they hardly show anything but equality for homosexuals.

[lucasa]

[quote]forlife wrote:

It was blatant discrimination that could have been avoided if gay marriage was nationally recognized.[/quote]

It was hardly blatant discrimination. As you/they paint it, it was a distinct deviation from legal and, I presume, hospital protocol. He (or she) supposedly knowingly/willingly violated power of attorney. I fail to see how another law would suddenly straighten him out.

I don’t care if they have the same name as my dad and his brother, it’s not any more or less comforting to know their names, just more facilitative to focusing on the issue. Had you saved your time about lunch with Ed and Roland and been more lucid about the POA…

Additionally, it’s just more convenient to believe some nameless doctor is a raging homophobe and the entire medical team was out to hold a gay man down isn’t it?

Furthermore, it places a greater burden on gay couples, because straight couples have implicit and automatic permission simply by virtue of being married. That is not equal protection under the law.

Not just on gay couples, but anyone else who would want or need special visitation and/or legal rights. Be it a refrigerator while it’s partner gets it’s robotic arm grafted on or something less complicated like a half-sibling or an business agent.

And implicit and automatic permissions that aren’t necessarily codified into law are what is typically defined as culture. Changing the laws to suit your culture is, most certainly an effort to change the culture as it stands, and doesn’t necessarily work. For example, I know a story about a guy in a hospital who’s POA was ignored…

[forlife]

[quote]lucasa wrote:
It was hardly blatant discrimination.[/quote]

Lol, what would you call it then? Yes, it was a “distinct deviation from legal protocol”. Does that make it any less discriminatory?

The possibility of discrimination exists irrespective of what the law says. But the more generally accepted and understood the law is, the less likely that people will ignore the law in the first place. Legal marriage reduces the likelihood of discrimination; nobody said it eliminates it entirely.

Additionally, it’s just more convenient to believe some nameless doctor is a raging homophobe and the entire medical team was out to hold a gay man down isn’t it?

Stereotypes exist on both sides, I never suggested otherwise.

My point in mentioning their names was to humanize and legitimize the issue, given your sweeping statements that “This kind of discrimination never exists”.

Not just on gay couples, but anyone else who would want or need special visitation and/or legal rights.

At least you admit the burden is greater on gay couples than on straight couples by virtue of being denied marriage. The Supreme Court agrees with you on that point.

[dhickey]

[quote]forlife wrote:
lucasa wrote:
I thought it was obvious that I was referring to Medical Power of Attorney. Despite having this specific authority, the hospital denied Ed the right to visit his partner following his heart attack until Roland’s father granted permission. It was blatant discrimination that could have been avoided if gay marriage was nationally recognized.
[/quote]
And blacks may not have been discriminated against if we would have changed their skin color. Why not just address the issue at the root of the problem?

You can enter into a legally binding contract that mirrors the obligations of “traditional” marriage.

We should get rid of all enforced legal privelegdes of being married. If being married is just short hand for the legal responsibities it entails, why not just recognize a similarly binding arrangement seperate from marriage? Of course a third party should not legally obligated to recognize either as holding some special priviledge.

Where’s the problem?

I also have a problem with the story you told. How on earth does the hospital establish or verify who is “family”? Did they have the same last name? How about the same address?

[Sloth]

Marriage is discriminatory, period. Unless one is pushing the idea that married couples shouldn’t be recognized, or recieve any extra privileges, benefits, or rights than any other form of human relationship/interaction, one is embracing discrimination as legitimate. Not that there’s anything wrong with that (see what I did there?).

[Sloth]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
forlife wrote:
lucasa wrote:
I thought it was obvious that I was referring to Medical Power of Attorney. Despite having this specific authority, the hospital denied Ed the right to visit his partner following his heart attack until Roland’s father granted permission. It was blatant discrimination that could have been avoided if gay marriage was nationally recognized.

And blacks may not have been discriminated against if we would have changed their skin color. Why not just address the issue at the root of the problem?

You can enter into a legally binding contract that mirrors the obligations of “traditional” marriage.

We should get rid of all enforced legal privelegdes of being married. If being married is just short hand for the legal responsibities it entails, why not just recognize a similarly binding arrangement seperate from marriage? Of course a third party should not legally obligated to recognize either as holding some special priviledge.

Where’s the problem?

I also have a problem with the story you told. How on earth does the hospital establish or verify who is “family”? Did they have the same last name? How about the same address? [/quote]

Can Medical Power of Attorney’s (no experience with them) be ignored? I mean, yeah, they could I guess. But doesn’t that leave them open to civil action?

[forlife]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
You can enter into a legally binding contract that mirrors the obligations of “traditional” marriage. [/quote]

Ed and Roland had a legally binding contract, and still were discriminated against. As I said earlier, marriage is recognized and accepted more broadly than a custom contract between two people, and it helps reduce the probability that discrimination will occur in the first place.

[forlife]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Marriage is discriminatory, period.[/quote]

There’s nothing wrong with marriage being discriminatory, per se. The issue, from an equal protection perspective, is when two groups are similarly situated, and only one group is allowed to marry.

[lucasa]

[quote]forlife wrote:

My point in mentioning their names was to humanize and legitimize the issue, given your sweeping statements that “This kind of discrimination never exists”.[/quote]

Names on a chat board don’t make them any more human and hardly legitimize the issue.

I didn’t say never. I said, not blatant and/or strictly limited to sexual orientation, and insignificant in the grand scheme of hospitalizations/visitations. Like I said, if the doctor were negligent in care, and muttered the phrase “fuck off homo.” you might have a case. Instead, it’s a conjectural, anecdotal, second-hand story.

At least you admit the burden is greater on gay couples than on straight couples by virtue of being denied marriage. The Supreme Court agrees with you on that point.

Reread what I said, the burden (if/when it is) is greater as the result of culture, not insufficiency of law. Legally, as a means of gaining access to the bedside of your sick SO, marriage is, at best, no less cumbersome (or, at least, should be) than POA. And once again, not just on gay couples, but on straight unwed couples, kissing cousins, half-siblings, all kinds of different ‘couples’.

[lucasa]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Can Medical Power of Attorney’s (no experience with them) be ignored? I mean, yeah, they could I guess. But doesn’t that leave them open to civil action?[/quote]

It’s gray area policy. The POA usually says, if incapacitated, the designated individual will make appropriate medical decisions. However, ‘incapacitated’ and ‘appropriate’ are deliberately vague and often slanted in the medical individual’s favor. Yes, it does open them up to liability, that’s what malpractice insurance is for and why it’s so expensive.

During the birth of our second child, I was excluded repeatedly by the anesthesiologist for brief periods of time as there was a problem (effectively zero pain relief) with the epidural. I was understanding of the need for sterility and my superfluousness, especially wrt the spinal tube. I subsequently boned up on the issue.

It would’ve been much more convenient just to presume he was doing something wrong and trying to hide it or discriminating against me.

[dhickey]

[quote]forlife wrote:
dhickey wrote:
You can enter into a legally binding contract that mirrors the obligations of “traditional” marriage.

Ed and Roland had a legally binding contract, and still were discriminated against. As I said earlier, marriage is recognized and accepted more broadly than a custom contract between two people, and it helps reduce the probability that discrimination will occur in the first place.[/quote]

Then address the discrimination. You seem to be avoiding this point. I am beginning to think you just want gay marriage forced on those who do not approve for the sake of forcing it on them. So you add gays to the list of acceptable marriages, then what? What about others that are excluded? Minors? Cousins? Polygimist? It’s just arbitrary and should have no legal status or priviledge in and of itself.

You want to get married, go get married. Have anyone who will marry you, marry you to as many people of any gender you wish. It shouldn’t matter if it has legal protections. Those protections can be attained by themselves.

The point that has been made over and over again, that you seem content to ignor, is that there shouldn’t be any legally protected priviledges associated with being “married” or not.

If a church want to exclude gays, blacks, the irish, or blondes, so what. Any organization that does not receive public funding has every right to discriminate based on any atribute they see fit. If it is a public institution or the receive public funding, married persons shouldn’t receive special privilegdes, much like whites shouldn’t. This is the issue, not you being able to say “na na na boo boo” to those that don’t recognize two gay men as being married.

[Sloth]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Marriage is discriminatory, period.

There’s nothing wrong with marriage being discriminatory, per se. The issue, from an equal protection perspective, is when two groups are similarly situated, and only one group is allowed to marry.[/quote]

Similarly situated. Seems like something pulled out of the thin air to try and limit what’s being done. And “similarly situated” won’t last long, either.

For instance, one could argue that similarly situated involves some kind of arrangement where the opposite sexes could be expected to copulate. No matter the number involved, there would be at least one member from each of the reprodcutive sexes as part of the arrangement. Man, women. Woman, men. Or, Men and women. Now, perhaps you’d argue that as long as the number involved doesn’t change (only two people), the sexes involved doesn’t matter. But, who judges which situation(s) have to be similar?

And it doesn’t address that this is still discriminatory. Why do they HAVE to be similarly situated at all? Why do those fitting into certain similar situations (defined by what, I don’t know) recieve a different status and different treatment in the legal/tax realm?

[borrek]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Marriage is discriminatory, period.

There’s nothing wrong with marriage being discriminatory, per se. The issue, from an equal protection perspective, is when two groups are similarly situated, and only one group is allowed to marry.

Similarly situated. Seems like something pulled out of the thin air to try and limit what’s being done. And “similarly situated” won’t last long, either.
[/quote]

Surely you’re joking? Similarly situated is not intended to limit anything, it is intended to prevent the rights of groups from being limited. Similarly situated has been a part of the US legal vocabulary for hundreds of years, so it’s not quite “out of thin air”

For instance, one could argue that similarly situated involves some kind of arrangement where the opposite sexes could be expected to copulate.

One could argue that. One would sound kind of stupid for missing the point so badly.

If you are being serious, and not just flippantly sensational, I’ll point out that no person in the US has ever been legally expected to copulate.

No matter the number involved, there would be at least one member from each of the reprodcutive sexes as part of the arrangement. Man, women. Woman, men. Or, Men and women. Now, perhaps you’d argue that as long as the number involved doesn’t change (only two people), the sexes involved doesn’t matter. But, who judges which situation(s) have to be similar?

Within the scope of the matter in this thread - “Iowa: Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional” - the judges of the Iowa Supreme Court got to judge which situations have to be similar.

Committed monogamous relationship - check
Able to create offspring in socially accepted ways - check

[quote]And it doesn’t address that this is still discriminatory. Why do they HAVE to be similarly situated at all?
[/quote]

We all know that all laws discriminate by nature, but we also all know that there is a difference between fair discrimination and unfair discrimination. It is fair to treat different groups differently under the law. Just because a law discriminates fairly is certainly no cause to unfairly discriminate at will. Saying “Marriage is discriminatory. Period.” is no excuse to start discriminating all willy nilly.

Why do those fitting into certain similar situations (defined by what, I don’t know) recieve a different status and different treatment in the legal/tax realm?

Haha that is exactly what we’ve been asking you! If the groups are similarly situated, then they should be treated similar.

[Sloth]

[quote]borrek wrote:

Surely you’re joking? Similarly situated is not intended to limit anything, it is intended to prevent the rights of groups from being limited. Similarly situated has been a part of the US legal vocabulary for hundreds of years, so it’s not quite “out of thin air”[/quote]

Of course it acts to limit…[u]Similarly[/u] situated. When I say out of thin air, I’m not speaking to it’s age. Arbitrary, would probably be clearer. What is a similar situation? The number involved? Or, that opposite sexes are involved? The homos have the numbers right, the polygamists have at least one member from the opposite sex (the reproductive unit is still present). Nor, do I think this expanded, but still limited definition, will stand. More than one person living together is a similar situation in itself. With 7 women and 1 man present in a marriage, the chance of reproduction is there. That’s similar, too.

[quote]For instance, one could argue that similarly situated involves some kind of arrangement where the opposite sexes could be expected to copulate.

One could argue that. One would sound kind of stupid for missing the point so badly.

If you are being serious, and not just flippantly sensational, I’ll point out that no person in the US has ever been legally expected to copulate.
[/quote]

Then why call it marriage? Why not extend the full benefits and privileges to roomates, or any other conceivable living arrangement consenting adults come up with? (Though, you do support this too, no?)

[quote]No matter the number involved, there would be at least one member from each of the reprodcutive sexes as part of the arrangement. Man, women. Woman, men. Or, Men and women. Now, perhaps you’d argue that as long as the number involved doesn’t change (only two people), the sexes involved doesn’t matter. But, who judges which situation(s) have to be similar?

Within the scope of the matter in this thread - “Iowa: Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional” - the judges of the Iowa Supreme Court got to judge which situations have to be similar.

Committed monogamous relationship - check[/quote]

Don’t look now, but that’s a limiting definition…

[quote]Able to create offspring in socially accepted ways - check
[/quote]

Uh, what?

[quote]And it doesn’t address that this is still discriminatory. Why do they HAVE to be similarly situated at all?

We all know that all laws discriminate by nature, but we also all know that there is a difference between fair discrimination and unfair discrimination. It is fair to treat different groups differently under the law.[/quote]

And what arrangement of consenting adults should be discriminated against? My question for you is, why do you think any marriage should recieve recognition and set aside privliges?

Just because a law discriminates fairly is certainly no cause to unfairly discriminate at will. Saying “Marriage is discriminatory. Period.” is no excuse to start discriminating all willy nilly.

Nothing willy nilly about my stance. It’s based on the reality of proprogating our citizenry within intact homes, featuring both bio parents.

[quote]
Why do those fitting into certain similar situations (defined by what, I don’t know) recieve a different status and different treatment in the legal/tax realm?

Haha that is exactly what we’ve been asking you! If the groups are similarly situated, then they should be treated similar. [/quote]

I’m asking why should they be treated any different from those NOT in “similar” situations. Why should the state recognize ANY form of voluntary relationship for set aside, pre-packaged, and state granted benefits? Why would they receive any different treatment than two best friends? Why?

[borrek]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:

Surely you’re joking? Similarly situated is not intended to limit anything, it is intended to prevent the rights of groups from being limited. Similarly situated has been a part of the US legal vocabulary for hundreds of years, so it’s not quite “out of thin air”

Of course it acts to limit…[u]Similarly[/u] situated. When I say out of thin air, I’m not speaking to it’s age. Arbitrary, would probably be clearer. What is a similar situation? The number involved? Or, that opposite sexes are involved? The homos have the numbers right, the polygamists have at least one member from the opposite sex (the reproductive unit is still present).
[/quote]

Marriage rights already exist for hetero couples, and under law it must be extended as a right for all groups similarly situated. There is nothing limiting about that. It is more inclusive.

If you are being serious, and not just flippantly sensational, I’ll point out that no person in the US has ever been legally expected to copulate.

Then why call it marriage? Why not extend the full benefits and privileges to roomates, or any other conceivable living arrangement consenting adults come up with? Though, you do support this too, no?

There are plenty of male/female roommates out there. Are they rushing to get married for tax breaks? No, because marriage is a serious thing. Speaking of civics only, the person you marry gets to say what happens to you when you’re on life support, or where your stuff goes when you die, or what happens to your children etc etc. If two roommates want to share that bond, then go for it. There are just as many responsibilities as perks.

But, yes, if consenting adults want to get married, then who am I to say no?

Committed monogamous relationship - check

Don’t look now, but that’s a limiting definition…

yeah, so? We’re talking about how same-sex couples are similarly situated to opposite-sex couples. In this context, it doesn’t matter one bit if that is a limiting definition. They still both meet the criteria.

Able to create offspring in socially accepted ways - check

Uh, what?

Adoption, surrogates, and artificial insemination are all very socially acceptable ways to bring children into a family. Two men can’t procreate, but then again, the same is true for millions of hetero couples.

We all know that all laws discriminate by nature, but we also all know that there is a difference between fair discrimination and unfair discrimination. It is fair to treat different groups differently under the law.

And what groups of consenting adults in what kind of arrangement, numbers, having sex or no sex, should be discriminated against?

Adding one group to the marriage roster does not discriminate against any other group.

Just because a law discriminates fairly is certainly no cause to unfairly discriminate at will. Saying “Marriage is discriminatory. Period.” is no excuse to start discriminating all willy nilly.

Nothing willy nilly about my stance. It’s based on the reality of proprogating our citizenry within intact homes, featuring both bio parents.

If you really want to promote both biological parents being in the home, then you need to outlaw divorce, and outlaw giving children up for adoption. I guarantee you that there are way more opposite-sex marriages with only one biological parent in a home than same-sex households with only one bio parent present. I guarantee you that there are way more adopted children in homes of opposite-sex couples where neither biological parent is present.

I’m asking why should they be treated any different from those NOT in “similar” situations.

This is pretty straightforward.

Why should the state recognize ANY form of voluntary relationship for set aside, pre-packaged, and state granted benefits? Why would they receive any different treatment than two best friends? Why?[/quote]

This rhetoric is getting tired. Do you at least recognize the irony in attacking forlife and myself for using infertile couples as an argument against procreation based marriage, yet you then keep coming back to the buddy-marriage herring?

[Sloth]

[quote]borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:

Marriage rights already exist for hetero couples, and under law it must be extended as a right for all groups similarly situated. There is nothing limiting about that. It is more inclusive.
[/quote]

But you’re arbitrarily limiting it to the number of people. How is that any more grounded than claiming an arrangment consisting of the opposite sexes is the common thread? The similarity? In otherwords, why wouldn’t the prospective polygamist union have a better case? They can point to the fact that there is at least one man and one woman (the opposite sexes), a similar theme found in marriage all across our nation.

Then why call it marriage? Why not extend the full benefits and privileges to roomates, or any other conceivable living arrangement consenting adults come up with? Though, you do support this too, no?

There are plenty of male/female roommates out there. Are they rushing to get married for tax breaks? No, because marriage is a serious thing. Speaking of civics only, the person you marry gets to say what happens to you when you’re on life support, or where your stuff goes when you die, or what happens to your children etc etc. If two roommates want to share that bond, then go for it. There are just as many responsibilities as perks.

But, yes, if consenting adults want to get married, then who am I to say no?

So for you, state recognition of marriage is simply about not saying no in giving access to set aside benefits. While you wouldn’t do it, you would support roommates being able to “marry” if they deemed the benefit greater than the risk. Now, if you’re willing to pretty much let consenting adults, involved in whatever size and mix of a relationship claim STATE recognized marriage and it’s terms, why have it? That’s what I’ve been trying to figure out from you. Why isn’t your position the same as Lift’s? Why do you even want marriage in the public sphere? What is the underlying point?

yeah, so? We’re talking about how same-sex couples are similarly situated to opposite-sex couples. In this context, it doesn’t matter one bit if that is a limiting definition. They still both meet the criteria.

And when you look at two roommates, you see two people. When you look at a prospective polygamous arrangement, you see at least one member of each sex. There too is a similarity.

[quote]Adoption, surrogates, and artificial insemination are all very socially acceptable ways to bring children into a family. Two men can’t procreate, but then again, the same is true for millions of hetero couples.
[/quote]

Well, that’s pretty disimilar. What you’re saying is that a homosexual marriage can’t reproduce it’s OWN offspring. The difference is that two men can NEVER procreate. Not on an individual basis, and not through sheers numbers giving it the old college try.

You don’t have to micromanage the fertility of heterocouples. Sheer numbers will take care of the desired result.

Adding one group to the marriage roster does not discriminate against any other group.

Of course it does. If no discrimination took place, they too would’ve been added to the “roster.”

[quote]If you really want to promote both biological parents being in the home, then you need to outlaw divorce, and outlaw giving children up for adoption. I guarantee you that there are way more opposite-sex marriages with only one biological parent in a home than same-sex households with only one bio parent present. I guarantee you that there are way more adopted children in homes of opposite-sex couples where neither biological parent is present.
[/quote]

1. Adoption allows for the voluntarily removal of children from circustances that could be extremely harmful. That in noway contradicts trying to promote an arrangement that on it’s own can produce it’s own offspring and raise them with bio parents present.

2. Oh trust me, a divorce would be extremely hard to recieve if I had my way. It would always require proof of some abuse, adultery, or reasonable expection of harm.

3. Sheer numbers guarantee there will always be more hetero single parent or step-parent situations. But, homosexual couples will never have both bio parents present. Ever. I guess bi-sexual 3 to 4 party arrangements are capable…

This rhetoric is getting tired. Do you at least recognize the irony in attacking forlife and myself for using infertile couples as an argument against procreation based marriage, yet you then keep coming back to the buddy-marriage herring?

What irony? You don’t have to micromanage hetero couples. Numbers alone leads to offspring. If anything, trying to micromanage hetero coupling would most likely lead to unintended cosequences. Men and women not getting checkups for fear of having “infertile” stamped on some future marriage license application. And, fewer men and women married, the fewer models. Fewer models for society, means it’s less of a norm. So not only do sheer numbers mean men and women in committed relationships will be birthing our future citizenry, I believe your argument would lead the opposite of what is desired.

[Sloth]

And, you never did answer my question. I’m trying very hard to understand why you even support state recognized and regulated (benefits and risks) marriages? If you truly are cool with extending state recognized marriage and it’s benefits to any and all arrangements, regardless of intimacy, the sexes involved, and the number of people invovled, why bother?

Why aren’t you on here supporting Lift’s position? Which, unless I’ve misunderstood him, is that the state shouldn’t discriminate in relationships. No marriages recognized, reward, or enforced by the state. If marriage exists, it only does sothrough private institutions. Whatever benefits might be gained, would be achieved the same way two single people would set up medical, property, etc., arrangements. Lawyers and contracts.

Right now, your position seems to be that state recognized marriage is an avenue for claiming benefits that would otherwise go unclaimed. Benefits that seemingly only exist to give to those who marry, if they judge those benefits greater than the risks.

[cycobushmaster]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
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.

[/quote]

thanks, yo!

[dhickey]

[quote]borrek wrote:
Marriage rights already exist for hetero couples, and under law it must be extended as a right for all groups similarly situated. There is nothing limiting about that. It is more inclusive.
[/quote]
What are marriage rights?