Iowa Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage - Page 2

ISUKappa · #1 04-06-2009, 01:37 PM

The Iowa State Daily had a decent editorial about the issue: here.

Senusret I · #2 05-06-2009, 11:00 PM

ThetaDancer · #3 05-06-2009, 11:06 PM

Nice work, Maine!!!

Jimmy Choo · #4 05-07-2009, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

Nice work, Maine!!!

Agreed!

naraht · #5 05-07-2009, 06:44 PM

If New Hampshire passes, then that leaves Little Rhody all alone in New England...

Rhode Island is actually one of the few states left that really haven't changed *anything* legally in the last 10 years on the subject. About the only thing they've had is an Atty General stating that Gay marriages in Massachusetts would be recognized in Rhode Island.

KSigkid · #6 05-07-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naraht

If New Hampshire passes, then that leaves Little Rhody all alone in New England...

Rhode Island is actually one of the few states left that really haven't changed *anything* legally in the last 10 years on the subject. About the only thing they've had is an Atty General stating that Gay marriages in Massachusetts would be recognized in Rhode Island.

I just realized that, Rhode Island is the last one. In some ways it kind of makes sense...Rhode Island is one of the more conservative of the New England states (although probably not as conservative as Maine).

ETA: Of course, gay marriage isn't really a conservative/liberal issue, but it's still kind of interesting how it's all played out.

Jill1228 · #7 05-07-2009, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

Nice work, Maine!!!

WOOT! I love it!

a.e.B.O.T. · #8 05-07-2009, 09:38 PM

Well, i think it is awesome, but it is definitely not over. If enough signatures are gathered in maine, the legislature could be halted until a state-wide vote occurs to see if the people wish to veto the legislature... so it is not all dandy yet...

psychdesire · #9 05-07-2009, 09:42 PM

That is great. Tyra had an amazing show about Gay and Lesbian Rights in America. Definitely a start, I agree.

ThetaDancer · #10 05-26-2009, 03:45 PM

California disappointed me today.

MexicanMami0286 · #11 05-26-2009, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

California disappointed me today.

Same...

Kevin · #12 05-26-2009, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

California disappointed me today.

It would have been scary if it had gone the other way. Imagine a court saying that the Constitution was unconstitutional. How absurd would that be? Where do you think the bounds of judicial power should be?

ThetaDancer · #13 05-26-2009, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

It would have been scary if it had gone the other way. Imagine a court saying that the Constitution was unconstitutional. How absurd would that be? Where do you think the bounds of judicial power should be?

I do understand why the justices upheld Prop. 8. and I do understand that it was virtually their only choice. And no, I don't think that judges should be legislating from the bench. But at the end of the day, it still makes me pretty sick that bigotry is constitutional. Maybe disappointed wasn't the right word...because really, who could have expected otherwise...but it was still a sad reminder of the state of the situation.

a.e.B.O.T. · #14 05-26-2009, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

I do understand why the justices upheld Prop. 8. and I do understand that it was virtually their only choice. And no, I don't think that judges should be legislating from the bench. But at the end of the day, it still makes me pretty sick that bigotry is constitutional. Maybe disappointed wasn't the right word...because really, who could have expected otherwise...but it was still a sad reminder of the state of the situation.

my thoughts exactly...

Kevin · #15 05-26-2009, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

I do understand why the justices upheld Prop. 8. and I do understand that it was virtually their only choice. And no, I don't think that judges should be legislating from the bench. But at the end of the day, it still makes me pretty sick that bigotry is constitutional. Maybe disappointed wasn't the right word...because really, who could have expected otherwise...but it was still a sad reminder of the state of the situation.

One man's bigotry is another man's religious values. Interestingly, the wording of these sorts of propositions avoids the issue of classifications altogether by simply stating that the marriage contract is defined as being between a man (the husband) and the woman (the wife). There's arguably no classification here whatsoever because a gay person has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as does a straight person. That might seem like word play or whatever, but it's a fairly legitimate argument.

The majority spoke and they think marriage = between a man and a woman.

Even if you want to say it's a classification discriminating against homosexuals, then why is that not okay when it's okay to discriminate against people who want to be in polygamous unions or people who want to marry close relatives? Why is it okay that the rules and requirements for divorce vary greatly from state to state?

The bottom line is that states should and always have had the right to define these things for themselves without judges overriding the will of the people. Personally, I think Prop 8 and similar measures are slaps in the face to a lot of very good people. I could even be persuaded to accept polygamous unions if we could figure out some way to not give extra rewards (tax incentives, insurance incentives, etc.) for doing so.

What's happening here is people are confusing what they subjectively see as right vs. wrong with what the law is. Judges shouldn't be basing their decisions (as the lone dissenter would have) on what is right (in their opinion).