The American heartland

[DanKroh]

"Gay people have the same rights as anyone else."

 

I remember reading something from the decision that says something to the effect that a homosexual person having the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is as distasteful to them as giving a heterosexual person the right to marry someone of the same sex.

 

Imagine if you were told that the only way you could enter into marriage was to do it with someone of the same sex. Don't think you'd see a lot of heterosexual people flocking to sign up.

 

Merlyn, excellent point about the anti-miscegenation laws.

[Nike]

We are trending closer to the European model in which the bridal party stops off at the local equivalent of the mayor's admin building, gets hitched, and continues on to thier venue of choice for a religious ceremony, should they desire one.

 

 

[Kahuna]

So, if I want to marry my sister it's an Equal Protection issue, because I can't marry the person I love?

 

BTW, Merlyn I said I didn't know anything about the Iowa Constitution, so if read the opinion it wouldn't make much difference.

 

[SR540Beaver]

I'm wading into this mud puddle and then I'm wading out. I know plent of gay folks, male and female. Some are very close friends and some are family. Far be it for me to tell someone who they can fall in love with. They will regardless of my approval or lack of approval. That being said, you can't just go and change fundamental definitions. You don't call a Baptist a Catholic just because they both believe in Christ. You don't call an apple an orange because they are both fruit. Since before written history, MARRIAGE is the joining of a man and a woman. THAT is what a marriage is. If you want to have a contract or a civil union between same sex couple that is recognized by the state for legal purposes, be my guest.......just don't call it marriage.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Kahuna writes:

So, if I want to marry my sister it's an Equal Protection issue, because I can't marry the person I love?

 

You can try and argue that if you like; I don't think any has yet.

 

BTW, Merlyn I said I didn't know anything about the Iowa Constitution, so if read the opinion it wouldn't make much difference.

 

So why'd you state "In the gay marriage cases, there is no Equal Protection issue"? That's flatly WRONG. Not a matter of opinion, WRONG. The court opinion stated it was an equal protection issue. You might disagree with their opinion or reasoning, but stating that the opinion didn't even HAVE an equal protection issue is wrong.

 

Yet you had no trouble just making crap up and stating it as if it was a fact.

 

Why are you posting in this forum? Typing practice? Seriously. If you want to argue, don't just make up crap and spit it out as if it was true.

 

SR540Beaver writes:

Since before written history, MARRIAGE is the joining of a man and a woman. THAT is what a marriage is.

 

Why are you ignoring polygamy? That's as old as marriage, too.

 

If you want to have a contract or a civil union between same sex couple that is recognized by the state for legal purposes, be my guest.......just don't call it marriage.

 

Why do you CARE what people call it? What's the bizarre hangup over WORDS?

 

The US legal system uses the term "marriage" for a civil contract, and has for its entire existence. If you want a special word for marriages you like, make up your own word.

[CalicoPenn]

Ahh, the old "changing fundamental definitions" defense.

 

So what do we do about "The Church" (and by this I mean the entity that we know of today as the Roman Catholic Church) that performed "marriages" between men in the 1200's, back when "The Church" couldn't own property in parts of Europe (particularly in the Anglo-Saxon areas of Europe) and "Church" property was considered the property of the individual that passed on to the Crown when the individual died without leaving an heir (blast that whole "Priest's can't marry and have kids" thing - though I suspect that "rule" is related to this somehow). To get around this rule, "The Church" created and celebrated a "Marriage" mass (and yes, they did call it a marriage) that would usually join an older "Priest" and a younger "Priest" together in the bonds of "Holy Matrimony" so that the property would remain under "The Churches" control. I suspect they didn't allow "Priests" to marry women who could give them a child who might then have a legitimate claim to "Church Property".

 

Many theologians studying this period believe this ceremony was the first marriage ceremony consecrated by "The Church" as "The Church" didn't give a whit about what the peasants were doing as long as they were giving them food and money - and that "The Church" ended up in the marriage game to solidify thier claims with the same sex marriages they were performing - a case, at least in "The Churches" case of the chicken coming before the egg, perhaps?

 

 

[Kahuna]

>>Why are you posting in this forum? Typing practice? Seriously. If you want to argue, don't just make up crap and spit it out as if it was true.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Who's angry? I think you're projecting.

 

I'm only pointing out that you simply made up crap instead of taking 30 seconds to read what you were supposedly commenting on. It's as if you said "well, at least it wasn't a unanimous opinion" when it WAS a unanimous opinion; it's worse than a worthless observation, it's wrong, and a few seconds of informing yourself was apparently too much effort on your part.

[packsaddle]

Vermont just overrode the governor's veto: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/04/07/us/AP-GayMarriage-Vermont.html?_r=1&hp

Times certainly are changing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040303026.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

 

[Hal_Crawford]

Vermont legislature legalizes gay marriage! So it's not just "activist judges" anymore.

[skeptic]

These are politicians, don't forget. The general populous is still in a majority against these things, though at a lesser level (suspect many have just given up in the face of the big guns out $$$ing their wishes); and there is the major reason why judges and legislatures do not reflect the wishes of the people whom they represent. The agenda pushers have far more dollars to throw at the people making decisions, and are far more zealous. Most regular people just are trying to survive, and do not have the energy or financial ability to continue the fight.

 

Shield up!!

[BadenP]

Calico, your statements about the Catholic Church of the 1200's are not only inaccurate but outright untrue, where on earth did you find that cr*p anyway. Read the book called The Age of Faith, it will help you understand what really was going on back then not a bunch of bunk that you are proliferating here.

 

In medieval Europe the Catholic Church was the center of each town, they provided education, medicine, and legal authority. The marriage ceremony comes from very early times and cultures and has been modified in every culture throughout time, the Church turned it into a sacrament, something sacred, because it was a central and important stage in a persons life.

 

The reason priests do not get married is because it was a custom set by the Bishops of each region. Prior to the Council of Trent Bishops did get married and when their widows starting suing the Church for support the Pope decreed the celibacy rule so that all property remained with the Church, and in turn the bishops required their priests to be celebate. Priests of that time took vows of poverty and could NOT own any personal property of their own anyway so your explaination of marriage is just plain bogus.

[Kahuna]

What I said above just applies to the definition of equal protection as it is stated, for example, in Black's Law Dictionary. So I assumed that, to the extent the Iowa Supreme Court differed from that, they were in error.

 

After your highly rational and logical response, I actually went and read the opinion (if you think it was a 30 second read, you obviously haven't even seen it) and sure enough the court writhed and contorted and came up with an equal protection issue to justify their decision. There was a lot rationalization in there as to how the public benefits from stabilizing gay relationships, which may be true but has nothing to do with equal protection. As I see it, they were wrong.

 

I still maintain what I said earlier: There is no equal protection issue as to gay marriage. Once again, I have no objection to gay marriage, but I don't think it's a constitutionally guaranteed right, even in Iowa. I still haven't read the Iowa Constitution, but the court referenced the pertinent sections in the opinion and I didn't see anything it that would differ from the U.S. Constitution as to equal protection.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I didn't say it would only take 30 seconds to read the entire opinion; it would only take 30 seconds of reading to see that the opinion cited equal protection.

[Kahuna]

Why are you posting in this forum? Typing practice? Seriously. If you want to argue, don't just make up crap and spit it out as if it was true.