Log in

View Full Version : Iowa court backs gay marriage


Dr Goofy Mofo
April 4th, 2009, 03:35 PM
I FUCKING WIN!!!!!!!!

The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously rejected a state law Friday that banned same-sex marriage, and opponents wasted little time in pushing for a state constitutional amendment that could send the issue to voters.

But nothing could dampen the spirits of the six same-sex couples who shouted and clapped at a news conference held by Lambda Legal after hearing the court's opinion. Lambda Legal bills itself as the nation's oldest and largest legal group working for the civil rights of gays.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/03/iowa.same.sex/index.html

rmw
April 4th, 2009, 05:30 PM
The tide is starting to turn. :D

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 4th, 2009, 05:52 PM
Indeed and in my redneck part of the universe.

Tsar Phalanxia
April 5th, 2009, 12:08 AM
Saw that in the newspaper this morning and thought "Goofy is going to be pleased" :D

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 5th, 2009, 12:10 AM
Indeed I am, the only thing that could make this better is if I was gay but I am not...

Yiuel
April 5th, 2009, 12:13 AM
This is indeed good news. But it is sad that this was decided by judgement, not by a proactive law like in Spain or Sweden (yeah yeah, in Sweden, due to be legal May 1st).

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 5th, 2009, 12:19 AM
Take your wins where you can get them

Tsar Phalanxia
April 5th, 2009, 12:19 AM
Weird story; the debate at Debate Club in college was Should civil partnerships be given the same status as Straight marriage?" But, the main guy arguing for the against side, spouting argumentys such as "It'll break down the family" and "Marriage is Sacred" is actually gay!

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 5th, 2009, 12:28 AM
It will increase the family and marriage is sacred but have you ever heard of separation of church and state. Owned. Oh and that is hilarious the one thing I love about debate is debating the opposite of what you believe.

Tsar Phalanxia
April 5th, 2009, 12:37 AM
He meant it as well. He was getting quite agitated when we blew his arguments away. :D

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 5th, 2009, 12:39 AM
wait a gay man againest gay rights? thats fucked up.

Tsar Phalanxia
April 5th, 2009, 12:50 AM
wait a gay man againest gay rights? thats fucked up.

Exactly, and it wasn't a queer theory argument either. :\

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 5th, 2009, 12:55 AM
In America the divorce rate is so high that the family thing is shit. Gay marriage would up the family unit.

rmw
April 5th, 2009, 12:59 AM
In America the divorce rate is so high that the family thing is shit. Gay marriage would up the family unit.

Yeah, considering that the divorce rate for first marriages is around 50%, and climbs for re-marriages, I'm failing to see how gay marriage will break down the "sacred" institution of marriage or destroy families. Seems straight couples are doing an "admirable" job at that themselves.

The Good Reverend Roger
April 5th, 2009, 01:14 AM
Weird story; the debate at Debate Club in college was Should civil partnerships be given the same status as Straight marriage?" But, the main guy arguing for the against side, spouting argumentys such as "It'll break down the family" and "Marriage is Sacred" is actually gay!

That's what debate clubs do.

You don't always end up arguing the side you actually believe.

sailor
April 5th, 2009, 01:49 AM
Indeed I am, the only thing that could make this better is if I was gay but I am not...

ah, c'mon.

get a proposal ready just in case.
i mean, who...if you had to choose. doesn't HAVE to be for love, you know...you could get married as a business prospect, for child rearing, or social status.

c'mon, tell us...you love someone.

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 5th, 2009, 01:58 AM
I have no one to love but my dog nemo. Can't be gay, no likey the dudes.

rmw
April 5th, 2009, 01:58 AM
It's rzm, isn't Goof? ;)

I'm of the opinion that if states are going to be in the marriage business, they need to recognize the separation of church and state. A state should not be able to tell someone they cannot marry because a religious institution has a moral objection to it.* If a church does not want to recognize gay marriage, fine. But they should not have the power to tell a government "You are not allowed to recognize that marriage, either."


*And I don't buy the slippery slope argument of "If you let gays marry, then people will want to marry their siblings or dogs."

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 5th, 2009, 02:00 AM
I'm of the opinion that if states are going to be in the marriage business, they need to recognize the separation of church and state. A state should not be able to tell someone they cannot marry because a religious institution has a moral objection to it.* If a church does not want to recognize gay marriage, fine. But they should not have the power to tell a government "You are not allowed to recognize that marriage, either."


*And I don't buy the slippery slope argument of "If you let gays marry, then people will want to marry their siblings or dogs."

Truth!!!!

sailor
April 5th, 2009, 02:12 AM
animal rights!!!!!!

win.

Will.
April 5th, 2009, 04:05 AM
My opinion, and just that

It is my belief that they can be gay, and get married, as long as they can find a minister, or priest, that can execute it and morally live their lives. So, like a Father Lawrence from R & J.

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 5th, 2009, 04:11 AM
I would do it marry them.

Will.
April 5th, 2009, 04:19 AM
I would, for double the rate. :icon_cool:

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 5th, 2009, 04:25 AM
Greedy man!

Will.
April 5th, 2009, 04:28 AM
always remember
http://www.bant-shirts.com/images/nonph/Jesus-money-290.gif

Tsar Phalanxia
April 5th, 2009, 01:44 PM
That's what debate clubs do.

You don't always end up arguing the side you actually believe.

No, he actually believed that. He was gay, yet believes that gay marriage is wrong, as it would break down the family.

Daruko
April 5th, 2009, 08:25 PM
No, he actually believed that. He was gay, yet believes that gay marriage is wrong, as it would break down the family.
How do yuo know?
I've had to debate issues for school on the dumb side before. It's pretty typical to just get assigned.

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 5th, 2009, 08:40 PM
I posted a rant about this on Criagslist omaha and I just got a fudie email! YAY!!!!

Yiuel
April 5th, 2009, 08:52 PM
I posted a rant about this on Criagslist omaha and I just got a fudie email! YAY!!!!

Care to show us the email?

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 5th, 2009, 09:02 PM
I think it is about time it happen. Many people have made good remarks. The fact is marriage is a religious thing and should not be ruled over by the government. They just want equal rights and I say give it to them. As for you bible remarks that has nothing to do with letting gays marry. "Judge not lest, ye be Judged", "Love thy neighbor" , To forgive is divine, Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Lets through these comments away forget everything Jesus stood for other then he is our path and judge and be asses to others because it's ok our faith will save us. I wish todays Christians were more Christ like. It does not lead to other stuff like marrying a cow you weirdos. Most married people get devoriced so it will only strengthen the family and Schools shouldn't even be teaching our kids that girl on boy is right. Schools are government sactioned and I want non of your bible up in it.

Ya but his is what it taks to wake people up like you. Who have serious grammer issues in your statement. Sin is sin . That is the bottom line. I Pitty you the day you stand before God. Without Jesus in your life. Eternity in hell for sure. It is time for america to wake up. Get off the obama kick that he will save us all . Then turn to Jesus

That is incredible that you accuse me of grammar when your first sentence alone is filled with grammar issues. I also pity the day you stand before Jesus because of such a judgmental person you are. It is God's right to judge, not yours. If you spent more time learning about the man Jesus and less time dwelling on 3:16 then you might see the world in a better light. Obama may not save us but at least he is trying, which is the least I could say for everyone not giving him a chance. You are judging him before you know what will happen. As I stated "Judge not, lest ye be Judged" and "Love thy neighbor" no matter the person he/she may be.

rmw
April 5th, 2009, 09:19 PM
Don't you just love hypocrites, Goof? I just shook at the Obama statement and laughed at the grammar-nazi statement.

Al Farabi
April 5th, 2009, 09:23 PM
Marriage is not really just a religious thing anymore. While it started out like that, it has totally become a civil thing. Non-religious people marry, after all, and married couples are taxed differently. I agree that gay people should be allowed to marry (I mean, why not? People get happier, I'm unaffected - sounds good to me), but removing marriage from the polis and dropping it back into the oikos would be very difficult. Easier and quicker (and all around a good plan) to just take the religion out of civil considerations.

rmw
April 5th, 2009, 09:25 PM
Marriage is not really just a religious thing anymore. While it started out like that, it has totally become a civil thing. Non-religious people marry, after all, and married couples are taxed differently. I agree that gay people should be allowed to marry (I mean, why not? People get happier, I'm unaffected - sounds good to me), but removing marriage from the polis and dropping it back into the oikos would be very difficult. Easier and quicker (and all around a good plan) to just take the religion out of civil considerations.

Agreed. I think a civil ceremony in front of a JoP or similar should be required, while a religious ceremony should just be ceremonial.

Al Farabi
April 5th, 2009, 09:29 PM
Agreed. I think a civil ceremony in front of a JoP or similar should be required, while a religious ceremony should just be ceremonial.

Actually, marriage is (legally) pretty similar to this. As far as the law is concerned, it's just a contractual agreement, and whatever ceremony you do is your own business. You can get married with just signatures if you like. The issue here is that, because of religiously motivated lawmaking, its difficult (impossible in lots of places) to get a contract that will cover you if you are gay.

Funnily enough, this whole debate is actually about contract law.

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 5th, 2009, 09:33 PM
Dr goofy. Nice name. You are in for such a long life of pain and sadnesss.You must be filled with guilt. Always pionting the finger at every one else.Just because of the fact that you are sooooooooooooo convicted about your lifestyle. Id hate to be you You have ALOT of growing up to do. Oh by the way jesus judged on multiple different times. Go ahead get as mad as you want at me . Dont really care. Keep pointing your little fingers. The bottom line where will you spend eternity. This is the real question. Dr goofy. You have to come to the place that you are gonna either reject jesus or live for him , your decision. Good day

rmw
April 5th, 2009, 09:35 PM
Actually, marriage is (legally) pretty similar to this. As far as the law is concerned, it's just a contractual agreement, and whatever ceremony you do is your own business. You can get married with just signatures if you like. The issue here is that, because of religiously motivated lawmaking, its difficult (impossible in lots of places) to get a contract that will cover you if you are gay.

Funnily enough, this whole debate is actually about contract law.

Hmm...I guess I'm thinking the US should perform marriages as it's done in other countries (for example, Romania). The couple is required to have a civil ceremony, and later have the religious ceremony. But, Al, I think we both agree that the problem lies in the blurring of the line that separates church and state. When a state bows to the demands of one group who have moral/ethical qualms with gay marriage, that (IMO) strikes a big blow to that separation. As I've said before, the state should not be allowed to deny a gay couple the right to marry because a group of church leaders and their followers take issue with it. Now, if said gay couple were to ask, for example, a Catholic clergyman to marry them in a religious ceremony, and they were denied, the clergyman would have the right to turn them down, since said ceremony would not be legally binding. (Granted, I would bitch about how the Catholic church [and others] need to wake up to the fact that it's the 21st century, but that's another rant altogether.)

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 5th, 2009, 09:45 PM
My response:

Oh I am not mad at all, it takes a lot to get me mad. My life is filled with joy because my god does not condemn people to hell for pointless things on rather they believe or accept him. A good Buddhist man goes to hell why the murder who asked for forgiveness goes to heaven, I feel is wrong, cruel, and unjust. To condemn a man to eternity of suffering for lack of believe is silly. Maybe a couple days that feel like years but eternity is a bit cruel and to much. How could a god full of compassion and who is all knowing allow that? Jesus may have judged but according to you he was God and again you are not. I have chosen my path to be the most kind and generous person I can be and if that does not get me into heaven then I would rather suffer eternity then be a cruel and unjust person who does not allow other people to live their life they way they see fit. I am not the one who needs to grow up, I feel it is you who need to open your mind.

sudikics
April 5th, 2009, 10:16 PM
TBH, I almost said "April Fools". >_>

Yiuel
April 5th, 2009, 10:37 PM
My response:

Oh I am not mad at all, it takes a lot to get me mad. My life is filled with joy because my god does not condemn people to hell for pointless things on rather they believe or accept him. A good Buddhist man goes to hell why the murder who asked for forgiveness goes to heaven, I feel is wrong, cruel, and unjust. To condemn a man to eternity of suffering for lack of believe is silly. Maybe a couple days that feel like years but eternity is a bit cruel and to much. How could a god full of compassion and who is all knowing allow that? Jesus may have judged but according to you he was God and again you are not. I have chosen my path to be the most kind and generous person I can be and if that does not get me into heaven then I would rather suffer eternity then be a cruel and unjust person who does not allow other people to live their life they way they see fit. I am not the one who needs to grow up, I feel it is you who need to open your mind.

This is full of praiseworthy quotes. You made me smile :)

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 5th, 2009, 10:39 PM
Glad to be of service to you Yiuel.

Tsar Phalanxia
April 5th, 2009, 11:41 PM
How do yuo know?
I've had to debate issues for school on the dumb side before. It's pretty typical to just get assigned.

Nope. He is gay, but he's also really (c)Conservative outside the debate anyway. He really is against gay marriage because it will break down the family. :icon_lol:

Oh, and at Goofy: Fucking Pwned. :D

Tsar Phalanxia
April 7th, 2009, 05:48 PM
Link is related
http://digg.com/d1o9pA

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 7th, 2009, 07:56 PM
Holy shit Iowa started a revolution. The other 2 states tried we succeeded.

Yiuel
April 8th, 2009, 12:30 AM
Link is related
http://digg.com/d1o9pA

Vermont shall be praised!

Yes it shall.

And, it's my neighbour :)

zexx0r
April 8th, 2009, 05:05 AM
Lol, I sure didn't expect this from Iowa.
I'm sure it won't work out :)

Tsar Phalanxia
April 8th, 2009, 11:24 AM
If Iowa can do it, so can the rest of the world.

zexx0r
April 8th, 2009, 04:16 PM
word lol

rmw
April 9th, 2009, 01:01 AM
It is legal now in 4 states. Only 46 to go.

Edit: Out of curiosity, where is it legal in other parts of the world?

Yiuel
April 9th, 2009, 01:31 AM
Netherlands
Belgium
Spain
Norway
Sweden (in May)
South Africa
Canada

yay!

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 9th, 2009, 05:17 AM
IDK I have talked to a lot who oppose it and a lot who think it should stay. If Iowa pulls out the young vote I think it will stay. Even if I know towns where there are only 2000 people and 20 churches.

winwun
April 10th, 2009, 12:10 PM
OK, so now Iowa has found a use for all the surplus corncobs . . .

Oh, I know, all I owe, I owe Iowa . . .

djura
April 10th, 2009, 05:18 PM
so I take it you dig guys then...?

tagnostic
April 11th, 2009, 02:55 AM
they would just love us
:icon_razz:

Daruko
April 13th, 2009, 03:39 AM
so I take it you dig guys then...?
he's a bonerfide homophobe.

CupcakeCupcake
April 15th, 2009, 02:47 AM
What's funny about the gay marriage issue, and this really cracks me up, is the whole "marriage is a sacred religious union".
Anyone remember how to get married?
ehem-
1) go to courthouse
2) pay fee for marriage license
3) sign it
4) wait the waiting period (typically 3 days)
5) hold "ceremony" at place of your choosing or at the courthouse
6) priest or NOTARY signs license, sends it to courthouse, document is stamped
POOF you're married.

It is nothing more than a contractual agreement with the state. The STATE. You don't ever have to step foot in a church. You don't even have to mention god.
It IS a separation of church and state. They HAVE separated the religious marriage from the church. Marriage is nothing more than a contractual agreement with. the. state. (extra emphasis to really drill it in there)
The issue is nothing more than an issue of discrimination. Period.
It's a scream!
Makes me wanna go down to my governor's office and take a shit on his desk.

Al Farabi
April 15th, 2009, 06:17 AM
What's funny about the gay marriage issue, and this really cracks me up, is the whole "marriage is a sacred religious union".
Anyone remember how to get married?
ehem-
1) go to courthouse
2) pay fee for marriage license
3) sign it
4) wait the waiting period (typically 3 days)
5) hold "ceremony" at place of your choosing or at the courthouse
6) priest or NOTARY signs license, sends it to courthouse, document is stamped
POOF you're married.

It is nothing more than a contractual agreement with the state. The STATE. You don't ever have to step foot in a church. You don't even have to mention god.
It IS a separation of church and state. They HAVE separated the religious marriage from the church. Marriage is nothing more than a contractual agreement with. the. state. (extra emphasis to really drill it in there)
The issue is nothing more than an issue of discrimination. Period.
It's a scream!


I agree! The fact that it is even an issue is ludicrous.

Makes me wanna go down to my governor's office and take a shit on his desk.

lulz

woody23
April 15th, 2009, 04:39 PM
What's funny about the gay marriage issue, and this really cracks me up, is the whole "marriage is a sacred religious union".
Anyone remember how to get married?
ehem-
1) go to courthouse
2) pay fee for marriage license
3) sign it
4) wait the waiting period (typically 3 days)
5) hold "ceremony" at place of your choosing or at the courthouse
6) priest or NOTARY signs license, sends it to courthouse, document is stamped
POOF you're married.

It is nothing more than a contractual agreement with the state. The STATE. You don't ever have to step foot in a church. You don't even have to mention god.
It IS a separation of church and state. They HAVE separated the religious marriage from the church. Marriage is nothing more than a contractual agreement with. the. state. (extra emphasis to really drill it in there)
The issue is nothing more than an issue of discrimination. Period.
It's a scream!
Makes me wanna go down to my governor's office and take a shit on his desk.


It gets even more funny if you look up the history of the union of marriage. It used to be an agreemen verbally between two people witnessed by the community. Had nothing to do with State or Religion. Then religion saw a good market and picked it up, and since they controlled most of the government at the time threw that in with it. It's one of my least favorite arguments. Besides, when you mention 'God' in the making of laws, you automatically lose in my book.

rmw
April 17th, 2009, 02:37 AM
...It is nothing more than a contractual agreement with the state. The STATE. You don't ever have to step foot in a church. You don't even have to mention god.
It IS a separation of church and state. They HAVE separated the religious marriage from the church. Marriage is nothing more than a contractual agreement with. the. state. (extra emphasis to really drill it in there)
The issue is nothing more than an issue of discrimination. Period.
It's a scream!
Makes me wanna go down to my governor's office and take a shit on his desk.

Unfortunately, a number of influential people--be it by money or constituency--have gotten into their heads that marriage is more than a mere contractual agreement with the state, and as such, you have discrimination based upon religious beliefs, coupled with an ever-blurring line separating church and state.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 02:53 AM
I am still confused as to how the state even got involved. It is an agreement between two people.

zexx0r
April 17th, 2009, 03:46 AM
I am still confused as to how the state even got involved. It is an agreement between two people.

Ah, well everyone has to be involved in everything :)
Why would the government care about abortion?
It's up to the couple to decide :)

terrorX
April 17th, 2009, 04:30 AM
Ah, well everyone has to be involved in everything :)
Why would the government care about abortion?
It's up to the couple to decide :)

just as i thought, you are a swishy

woody23
April 17th, 2009, 03:44 PM
I am still confused as to how the state even got involved. It is an agreement between two people.

The state got involved because religion wanted to, and at the time, they were basically the same thing. There were no real benefits to being married at the state level, but you had to pay a fine (notice I chose the word fine, rather than fee) or get persmission from the king, lord etc.

It's quite silly if you ask me.

In today's world it's obvious that there needs to be a contract, sadly, due to legalities and property etc and so forth.

I am most baffled by why religion seems to have their fist in it.

rzm61
April 17th, 2009, 03:45 PM
The state got involved because religion wanted to, and at the time, they were basically the same thing.

Sounds like everyone forgot separation of church and state.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 03:51 PM
The state got involved because religion wanted to, and at the time, they were basically the same thing. There were no real benefits to being married at the state level, but you had to pay a fine (notice I chose the word fine, rather than fee) or get persmission from the king, lord etc.

It's quite silly if you ask me.

In today's world it's obvious that there needs to be a contract, sadly, due to legalities and property etc and so forth.

I am most baffled by why religion seems to have their fist in it.


See to me the contract issue has no validity. How many cases of common law marriage have ended up in court for property and custody settlements. Civil unions remove any permission or fines/fees for getting 'married'. As an ordained minister I would happily perform a ceremony for couples wothout any sort of license.

woody23
April 17th, 2009, 04:24 PM
Sounds like everyone forgot separation of church and state.


We are talking, Church of England times or before. I don't recall the exact date. It was a time when Church and State were...married.

rzm61
April 17th, 2009, 04:26 PM
We are talking, Church of England times or before. I don't recall the exact date. It was a time when Church and State were...married.

Ah, right on.
However what's the Church of England got to do with Iowa's court backing gay marriage?

rmw
April 17th, 2009, 04:38 PM
Ah, right on.
However what's the Church of England got to do with Iowa's court backing gay marriage?

Religion has played a historic role in marriage. But what should its role in marriage be now? I think its role should be more symbolic than "legal." I've said before, a Catholic priest does not have to marry a homosexual couple, but that priest's views should not influence what the state's (secular) role in marriage is.

rzm61
April 17th, 2009, 04:44 PM
I think its role should be more symbolic than "legal."


Agreed.

woody23
April 17th, 2009, 04:46 PM
Agreed.

I mentioned the church of england in response to an earlier post about 'church and state not being involved in marriage' to show how it used to be that way. It used to be a verbal commitment alone and, as such, during those times, there were many same-sex marriages. Then religion took over, made it a 'sin' and now we are fighting the same equality battle over and over again.

GodofGoogle
April 17th, 2009, 05:05 PM
Well to me at least it's simple. If two (or more) people wish to commit to each other then I file it under NOMB. Last time I checked my Bucket-o-business is just too full of my own business to worry about someone elses. It is easy to remove the state or church from your union by simply creating your union and getting on with life. There is no law against this.

woody23
April 17th, 2009, 05:06 PM
While I agree, there are tax/hospital/insurance and many other benefits that come with marriage. It's not just a question of the union, but the benefits and rights that come with legal unions that should be extended to all parties.