Congratulations Iowa! (only 47 states to go).

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

However, as I mentioned before, this is more likely to be of a California situation where the people of Iowa quickly rise up to add just such a constitutional amendment.

The constitutional amendment process in Iowa is much different than the constitutional amendment process in California. (The State of California shouldn't even call their flimsy piece of paper a "constitution.") The State of Iowa requires a much more deliberative process. The proposed amendment must be approved by the state legislature during two successive legislative sessions before the proposed amendment may be offered to the voters. Thus, the opportunity for a majoritarian mob to oppress the gays isn't as swift as you may think.

Additionally, the opposition to gay marriage in Iowa isn't as overwhelming as you may think. The decision is being applauded as a victory for civil rights.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

If all inequalities can be rectified by addressing elements of civil unions, fab.

However, what's the point of making the two functionally identical but calling one a "civil union" and one a "marriage"? Why bother?

1 Reply

Texas will be 50th in this contest, though as our erstwhile gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman has said: "I support gay marriage because I believe they have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us."

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn wrote:

The point is that the majority of the members of our society do not wish to grant Gay couples the status of "marriage."

First, if the majority of the members of our society DO wish to grant Gay couples the status of "marriage" -- then you're fine with it? There has been continuing movement on this, with more and more people supporting it (about a third do now) and a disproportionate number of younger people supporting it. Both of those elements indicate that the majority of members of our society will support gay marriage before too long.

Second, at the time that the law barring marriage between whites and blacks was struck down, the majority of the members of our society did not wish to grant mixed-race couples the status of "marriage." That did not make miscegenation laws right.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

why it should be legally mandated that American society draws no distinction between homosexual and heterosexual "marriage."

Because all Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law. Because all Americans are entitled to constitutional protection against majoritarian oppression. Why don't you read the Iowa Supreme Court decision:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D213209243.PDF

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Cut through the political fog young Jedi...

Legal equality can be achieved through legislative efforts around the rights afforded to Civil Unions.

One small problem there Finn. If the legislature doesn't take it upon itself to solve the problem then the courts must. If the only way to achieve equality is by legislation if that legislation is never passed then equality will never be achieved. By failing to pass that legislation, the courts are forced to act under the equality guaranteed by the constitution.

Quote:

I know you have a tendency to skim based on bias, but I clearly expressed my support for such efforts.

"Marriage" is a social institution.

Yes, legal rights, and restraints have been attached to it, but such elements can, easily, be replicated in the context of Civil Unions.

Is your concern about "legal" equality or something else?

I think one could say "legal" equality is his concern but not yours Finn. How long do you propose people wait for legislation to create that equality? 10 years? 100 years? 1000?

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

My Gay friends have waited a long time for the end of discrimination against them.

BBB

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Such a law regarding race, would be very wrong and immoral to my way of thinking, but would not be a violation of a law which provided for equal protection of citizens, since it would not grant any privilege to one group but deny it to another group.

Of course it would! What about the group of citizens who wish to marry someone of a different race than themselves? Do they not count as a group? Not to you, apparently.

In order for something to be illegal, it has to be clearly shown what harm it causes to society or others. In both the cases of gay and trans-racial marriage, there is no definable harm to society whatsoever. All there is is bigotry.

No laws promoting equality can bar people from engaging in actions which cause no harm, based on no definable reason whatsoever. This is why you've seen courts turn over anti-marriage laws in many different states; the idea of Equal Protection just doesn't square with discrimination.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

All there is is bigotry.

Puts it all in one simple little nutshell. "That water fountain over there is for you" has never worked. Funny how some think it does.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Get educated on the ruling then come back. Don't waste people's time until then Brandon.

T
K
O

In other words, you are unable to refute any of my arguments.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Such a law regarding race, would be very wrong and immoral to my way of thinking, but would not be a violation of a law which provided for equal protection of citizens, since it would not grant any privilege to one group but deny it to another group.

Of course it would! What about the group of citizens who wish to marry someone of a different race than themselves? Do they not count as a group? Not to you, apparently.

In the case of your hypothetical race law, this group would not be denied any right which had been granted to others.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

In order for something to be illegal, it has to be clearly shown what harm it causes to society or others. In both the cases of gay and trans-racial marriage, there is no definable harm to society whatsoever. All there is is bigotry.

Sorry, "harm to society" doesn't equal illegal. Illegal means violating the wording in a law, and there is no wording in the Iowa State constitution which grants the right to gay marriage.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No laws promoting equality can bar people from engaging in actions which cause no harm, based on no definable reason whatsoever. This is why you've seen courts turn over anti-marriage laws in many different states; the idea of Equal Protection just doesn't square with discrimination.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon, actions are considered legal unless they are specifically made illegal. You do not need specific permission from the Constitution or other documents to do whatever you like; on the contrary, you need specific language to BAR something from taking place.

The right denied to people of trans-racial marriage and gay marriage, is to marry the person you love. Now I know that's meaningless to a cold-hearted bastard such as yourself; but it isn't meaningless to them or the rest of us.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Get educated on the ruling then come back. Don't waste people's time until then Brandon.

T
K
O

In other words, you are unable to refute any of my arguments.

No 9000. The point is that I don't need to waste my time arguing with someone who isn't educated on the ruling. You can say whatever you like here, but it's of no consequence unless it's based on reality.

Why should I waste my time having to correct all the details you have wrong about the history of this and the details you have wrong about the ruling?

Get educated, then come back.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon, actions are considered legal unless they are specifically made illegal. You do not need specific permission from the Constitution or other documents to do whatever you like; on the contrary, you need specific language to BAR something from taking place.

The right denied to people of trans-racial marriage and gay marriage, is to marry the person you love. Now I know that's meaningless to a cold-hearted bastard such as yourself; but it isn't meaningless to them or the rest of us.

Cycloptichorn

You don't find laws that make it legal to cut your hair into a mohawk. That must be illegal...

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

and there is no wording in the Iowa State constitution which grants the right to gay marriage.

According to the Iowa Supreme Court, it seems there is such wording in the constitution.

1 Reply

Iowa always surprises me.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
What is wrong with grandious social change?

Obviously, you are not a conservative.

Finn - don't mind the clown Brown-Munoz, he has no background in English (other than fo-ne-tic) and consequently thinks grandiose thoughts while blissfully spelling them in whatever his slow-churning gray matter recalls from bilingual grade-school. He's to be pitied, not contradicted.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

What substantive and incisive commentary!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What substantive and incisive commentary!

The miracle of brevity is evidently unknown to you, Cyclo, but that's YOUR problem, not mine. You're so clearly unequipped to operate in any quantitative field, where not only brevity, but also ELEGANCE (mathematically speaking) are prized, that I feel sorry for your bride, and tried to come up with an idea for an occupation for you: maybe you can join Brown-Munoz and write psycho-fiction in his version of Spanish, disowned by Spaniards themselves - not that YOU would know the difference Smile

3 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

...I feel sorry for your bride...

Too far.

Got something to contribute to the thread? Otherwise, **** off.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Congratulations Iowa! (only 47 states to go).

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know