Iowa: Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[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]

+1 Way to go Iowa.

22

[quote]forlife wrote:
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.)[/quote]

I’d like to see it all…but could you start by just giving little bits and pieces that address the inevitable responses that have started coming.

23

[quote]Makavali wrote:
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?

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]

That’s a non-answer. Why should two people get benefits for having sex with each other, as opposed to two people who never will. Where’s the equal protection?

24

This is without a doubt one of the worst things my state could do.

25

[quote]John S. wrote:
This is without a doubt one of the worst things my state could do.[/quote]

Why?

You don’t think government could do worse than this?

26

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
John S. wrote:
This is without a doubt one of the worst things my state could do.

Why?

You don’t think government could do worse than this?[/quote]

This issue was voted on by the public. Now you don’t live in Iowa but we have are elected officials telling us its not the public’s choice its theirs. That’s now how it is supposed to be.

27

[quote]John S. wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
John S. wrote:
This is without a doubt one of the worst things my state could do.

Why?

You don’t think government could do worse than this?

This issue was voted on by the public. Now you don’t live in Iowa but we have are elected officials telling us its not the public’s choice its theirs. That’s now how it is supposed to be. [/quote]

What does a personal, contractual matter have to do with either you, the electorate, or elected officials?

Do you also like to put your nose where it doesn’t belong in someone’s bedroom?

28

[quote]John S. wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
John S. wrote:
This is without a doubt one of the worst things my state could do.

Why?

You don’t think government could do worse than this?

This issue was voted on by the public. Now you don’t live in Iowa but we have are elected officials telling us its not the public’s choice its theirs. That’s now how it is supposed to be. [/quote]

and its clearly something unacceptable for the public to be voting on.

peoples private business is their business not yours. this should not be an issue.

if you want to live in a land that denies people a private life, that the public can freely invade with a simple majority, go move to russia or africa.

were a republic, get over it.

29

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
John S. wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
John S. wrote:
This is without a doubt one of the worst things my state could do.

Why?

You don’t think government could do worse than this?

This issue was voted on by the public. Now you don’t live in Iowa but we have are elected officials telling us its not the public’s choice its theirs. That’s now how it is supposed to be.

and its clearly something unacceptable for the public to be voting on.

peoples private business is their business not yours. this should not be an issue.

if you want to live in a land that denies people a private life, that the public can freely invade with a simple majority, go move to russia or africa.

were a republic, get over it.[/quote]

Your argument is so weak. We could use the same thing to justify bestiality. When you can prove that being gay is caused genetically then you have something to base there claim on but so far you can’t. People here are pissed and I have no doubt in my mind that in 2012 we will have our own version of prop 8.

30

[quote]John S. wrote:
Your argument is so weak. We could use the same thing to justify bestiality. When you can prove that being gay is caused genetically then you have something to base there claim on but so far you can’t. People here are pissed and I have no doubt in my mind that in 2012 we will have our own version of prop 8.[/quote]

Animals can’t give consent, therefore we assume that it is inherently harmful to the animal. As disgusted and two guys going at it is, there is no lack of consent unless one party is forced or underage or both.

31

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Animals can’t give consent, [/quote]

That doesn’t seem to stop you from consuming the delicious beasts.

32

[quote]lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Animals can’t give consent,

That doesn’t seem to stop you from consuming the delicious beasts.[/quote]

Eating and sex are kind of different, don’t you think?

33

[quote]Makavali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Animals can’t give consent,

That doesn’t seem to stop you from consuming the delicious beasts.

Eating and sex are kind of different, don’t you think?[/quote]

Sure. But both are biological functions, and I don’t see how you would dismiss my comment because they “are kind of different”.

Last I checked, the cow I have roasting in the oven didn’t give consent either. And you can’t possibly argue that one would rather be eaten than sexually abused.

34

[quote]John S. wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
John S. wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
John S. wrote:
This is without a doubt one of the worst things my state could do.

Why?

You don’t think government could do worse than this?

This issue was voted on by the public. Now you don’t live in Iowa but we have are elected officials telling us its not the public’s choice its theirs. That’s now how it is supposed to be.

and its clearly something unacceptable for the public to be voting on.

peoples private business is their business not yours. this should not be an issue.

if you want to live in a land that denies people a private life, that the public can freely invade with a simple majority, go move to russia or africa.

were a republic, get over it.

Your argument is so weak. We could use the same thing to justify bestiality. When you can prove that being gay is caused genetically then you have something to base there claim on but so far you can’t. People here are pissed and I have no doubt in my mind that in 2012 we will have our own version of prop 8.
[/quote]

This isn’t even about being gay. This is about the right of individuals to contract with each other. You have no say this this matter at all on issues such as the price payed for a particular service, for example, why do you think you have one when it comes to a marriage contract?

Personal contracts are clearly outside of the domain of the voting public.

35

[quote]John S. wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
John S. wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
John S. wrote:
This is without a doubt one of the worst things my state could do.

Why?

You don’t think government could do worse than this?

This issue was voted on by the public. Now you don’t live in Iowa but we have are elected officials telling us its not the public’s choice its theirs. That’s now how it is supposed to be.

and its clearly something unacceptable for the public to be voting on.

peoples private business is their business not yours. this should not be an issue.

if you want to live in a land that denies people a private life, that the public can freely invade with a simple majority, go move to russia or africa.

were a republic, get over it.

Your argument is so weak. We could use the same thing to justify bestiality. When you can prove that being gay is caused genetically then you have something to base there claim on but so far you can’t. People here are pissed and I have no doubt in my mind that in 2012 we will have our own version of prop 8.
[/quote]

swing and a miss.

bestiality is not between two consenting adults. apples and fucking oranges.

homosexuality being nature or nurturing is completely irrelevant to the issue of two consenting adults forming a contract.

if people are so pissed, then next time maybe they should vote for people who follow their own opinions. But whats probably happened is most Iowans, like other citizens around, dont vote in local elections or carelessly vote for who ever has the biggest billboard or best name, hence voting in judges who they dont agree with.

regardless of new prop 8s in other states, human condition has already shown that these issues pass with time, eventually your grandchildrens’ children will look back on your opinions in disgust, and society will not have broken down, your ilk tried that argument when voting was extended to women, and african americans, and it proved to be false.

36

[quote]lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Animals can’t give consent,

That doesn’t seem to stop you from consuming the delicious beasts.

Eating and sex are kind of different, don’t you think?

Sure. But both are biological functions, and I don’t see how you would dismiss my comment because they “are kind of different”.

Last I checked, the cow I have roasting in the oven didn’t give consent either. And you can’t possibly argue that one would rather be eaten than sexually abused.[/quote]

Well shoot. If you wanna go at it with a farm animal, you just on ahead. I’ll stick with human pussy.

37

“Matters of public health and states? interest are paramount. States should quickly enact health laws making homosexuality illegal and sending those who insist on practicing it into sexual addiction recovery programs until they get well. The alternative is to end up with yet another victim group needing ongoing federal and state bailouts this country cannot afford.”

http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david185.htm

Gays are 8 times as promiscuouos as heteros. AIDs is spreading like wildfire in enclaves where it is a popular lifestyle.

38

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

This isn’t even about being gay. This is about the right of individuals to contract with each other. You have no say this this matter at all on issues such as the price payed for a particular service, for example, why do you think you have one when it comes to a marriage contract?

Personal contracts are clearly outside of the domain of the voting public.[/quote]

First, yes it is about being gay, otherwise, homosexuals wouldn’t be leading the charge and the ‘a man and a woman’ part of the definitions in various states wouldn’t be the target.

Second, while individuals may have a right to contract with one another, the other individuals in the neighborhood around them have every right to approve or disapprove of that contract. Their right to act accordingly is balanced with those making the contract. Especially since the majority of individuals profit from the society that surrounds them. If my community taxes me to set up a food stamp program, I sure as hell better get to say that idiots shouldn’t be buying cigarettes with them. If, on your way to work, you’re going to drive on the roads that my taxes built, you better believe I get to say, “Don’t go too fast.” and mean it. If you’re going to get a state and federal tax break for living with someone, you better believe I (and especially all the persons not in a relationship whom you’re discriminating against) get to put a mother-fucking vote in on the issue.

39

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“Matters of public health and states? interest are paramount. States should quickly enact health laws making homosexuality illegal and sending those who insist on practicing it into sexual addiction recovery programs until they get well. The alternative is to end up with yet another victim group needing ongoing federal and state bailouts this country cannot afford.”

http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david185.htm

Gays are 8 times as promiscuouos as heteros. AIDs is spreading like wildfire in enclaves where it is a popular lifestyle.

[/quote]
Nonsense! gays are not 8x as promiscuous as heteros – they are 8x as lucky.

Don’t you think “promiscuity” would go down if gays were allowed to enter into contract with each other.

Why is sex with many different partners so bad…we would not hold the same opinion of people who played tennis or bowled with may different partners. I just don’t get it.

40

[quote]lucasa wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

This isn’t even about being gay. This is about the right of individuals to contract with each other. You have no say this this matter at all on issues such as the price payed for a particular service, for example, why do you think you have one when it comes to a marriage contract?

Personal contracts are clearly outside of the domain of the voting public.

First, yes it is about being gay, otherwise, homosexuals wouldn’t be leading the charge and the ‘a man and a woman’ part of the definitions in various states wouldn’t be the target.

Second, while individuals may have a right to contract with one another, the other individuals in the neighborhood around them have every right to approve or disapprove of that contract. Their right to act accordingly is balanced with those making the contract. Especially since the majority of individuals profit from the society that surrounds them. If my community taxes me to set up a food stamp program, I sure as hell better get to say that idiots shouldn’t be buying cigarettes with them. If, on your way to work, you’re going to drive on the roads that my taxes built, you better believe I get to say, “Don’t go too fast.” and mean it. If you’re going to get a state and federal tax break for living with someone, you better believe I (and especially all the persons not in a relationship whom you’re discriminating against) get to put a mother-fucking vote in on the issue.[/quote]

That’s a problem with the system in question, not the problem of the individual contracts. If you have the right to affect how people can contract with anyone else then they have the right to also tell you who you can or cannot contract with for any reason whether you regard it as fair or not. Contracts are the business of people entering into them and not any business of anyone else.

This has nothing to do with being gay, rather whether individuals have sovereignty over their own lives.

BTW, I fully support your right to be homophobic and hate gays but I don’t support your right to influence the nature of the contracts they can or cannot make.