Dear Newk, then how would you explain the fact that I, raised CATHOLIC, by HETEROSEXUAL PARENTS, and having gone through a FAILED HETEROSEXUAL marriage, would find my soul mate, a WOMAN, who I have been in love with and faithful to now for 18 years?? What interference was there in my childhood?? Possibly the fact that three of my siblings were molested by members of the OPPOSITE SEX????? Yes Evan , your facts are so skewed as to be ridiculous.Are these falsehoods what the churches that are supposed to be teaching the nation's children of love and tolerance are spewing??? Why don't you look up some historical FACTS about how many people were wiped out by the Crusades when Christian Churches tried to forcibly convert people of other faiths? How many people were tortured and killed during the Inquisitions, under the name of God?? How many innocent people were tortured and killed, burned at the stake as witches throughout the centuries?? And Chris, I think we hate that in others most what we hate in ourselves, a little case of "the Lady doth protest too much". You spout hate and violence in the name of God : Who is your God, SATAN???? Isn't that the entity who promotes hate and violence and intolerence?? I am so sick of people thinking that they know what God is thinking. They only read what he was thinking some 2000 years ago. What? God can't change his mind?? Mention NOTHING of the fact that certain Kings and rulers throughout history have rewritten the Bible to suit their own political agendas. If you tell a person a story, then that person tells someone else, and that someone else passes it along, you wind up with three VERY different stories, so how accurate are these 2000 year old stories??? And our Founding Fathers RAN from a country where they were not allowed to worship as they chose, but at that time the King of England was merely a puppet of the church. Separation of Church and State cuts both ways. You are allowed to worship in any way that does not violate anothers civil liberties, and yet 30 or so states, under the hideous disguise of doing " God's work" have stomped all over the equal rights guaranteed us by the US Constitution of at least ten percent of the population. This is why, as a Gulf War veteran of the USAF, and a native Mainer, I took down my American flag, when the bible thumpers of this great state voted away my legal rights , based on their seriously hypocritical religious views. When ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL as declared in our Declaration of Independence, and afforded the same NOT special rights, then I will once again fly Old Glory from that post on the side of my house that I share with my " wife " of over 14 years, who is also my lover of over 18 years. And to the idiot who said that the life expectancy of lesbians is 45, I'll mention that to all of my lesbian friends ( most of whom are in their 50's and 60's). I'm sure they'll get a good laugh out of it.
David Fierstine - 14 years ago
"Our Liberties We Prize, Our Rights We Will Maintain." God Bless the US State of Iowa. The home of my birth, the home of my ancestors for at least three generations. We came to Iowa when it was still just a territory. "We can be as cold as the month of December but we'll give you the shirt off our backs." Those that cannot believe Iowa allows same-sex marriage does not know Iowan history. Iowa was a major route on the underground railroad, bringing slaves to freedom. My great-great uncle was shot and killed in Western Iowa for helping slaves to freedom from Missouri. Protecting folks rights/freedom is not a new concept for Iowans. God Bless Iowa, my home sweet home.
d - 15 years ago
gay people adopting children so they can turn normal children into gay children sick man how sick
derek - 15 years ago
our children are learning that its ok to be gay,im not ok with that.a decision made by an adult reflects apon the children that look their way.i will overt my childs sight as long as i can,and when i cant i will explain the sick and twisted views of so many liberals that push their ideals or lack their of off on those who dont have the platform to defend their right not to allow these forms of opression apon their children,i am strong enough to deflect your opressive ideals and soon my child will be impervius to your perverse attempt to tarnish possitive free thinking
derek wallace - 15 years ago
y
HEismyJUDGE - 15 years ago
I agree with foolishness. What is next? If homosexual marriage is a right, then why isn't polygamy a right? Why can a 14 yr old be thrown in jail for making out with a 13 year old when it is consentual by both (we're not talking sexual intercourse, just making out)? Yes, this is against the law. Why do we limit marriage to 18, or 16 with a parent's consent? How about someone whose preference is sex with an animal? Should Iowa should legalize that too. Equal rights to all!!! Right??? You can't argue that it is not natural if you are arguing man and man or woman and woman is natural. It is a sexual preference...a sexual orientation! Right??
I am not saying gays should be the target of harrassment. I am not saying they should be denied jobs. By all means, if they are the most qualified, go for it! Just like a 60 yr old should be hired over a 25 yr old if they are the most qualified.
Ultimately, it will be the gay person who will pay the price when they meet their maker. And I don't think God is going to say, hey, your lifestyle was just fine with me, that's how I made you.
And ultimately all the Christians will have questions to answer if we just sit back and don't stand up for God's Word. We may not win every battle, but the final victory will be ours if we are standing on HIS WORD.
To any politicians out there reading these comments, if God is your ruler, your judge, then you CAN NOT separate religion and politics. In the end, YOU will be judged for each of your actions just as every human being on this earth. God will not say it was OK because it was the political arena rather than the religious arena. When the nations of God turned away from God, they were defeated. When they were faithful to God, even when greatly outnumbered, they were victorious. Our state and nation need to head this historical wisdom.
Defender of Justice - 15 years ago
Only a person with the intelligence of a goat would say something like this: "What's next, Two Men and a goat?"
Or that this person is so deranged that it would pose a serious threat to our society.
Mike - 15 years ago
Consider these hypotheticals:
Assume the absolute equality in all respects between a married couple (man/woman) and a homosexual couple (woman/woman or; man/man). Age, character, finances, health and so on. Now, assume both couples want to adopt a baby that is available for adoption. Should the adoption agency give preference to the heterosexual couple? Homosexual couple? Or; should the issue be decided by a metaphorical coin toss?
Now, assume the above initial facts, with the only difference being the person available for adoption is 13. Furthermore, assume the 13 year old has no knowledge of the specific life circumstances of either couple other than one couple is heterosexual and the other homosexual. Should the 13 year be given a choice?
JusticeForAll - 15 years ago
Finally the moment of fairness in a civilized society who respects the union of love for loving couples of independent of what gender you are.
It will go down in history as the liberation day, and the end of oppression era by the religious bigots.
Mike - 15 years ago
I have no difficulty with the concept of a "New Birth Certificate" that references the names of adoptive parents. As long as the original birth certificate still exists there is no problem. I leave, without comment, the rest of your rantings.
proud to be lesbian in iowa - 15 years ago
Mike!!! YOU ARE AN AS#
YOU REALLY DNT KNOW WHAT LIVES WE LIVE AND U KNOW WHAT ITS CALLED ADOPTION!!!!!!!!
YOU STRAIGHT PEOPLE WERE TO ADOPT A CHILD YOUR NAMES WOULD BE ON THAT CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFERCATE!!!!!!!! ITS CALLED A NEW BIRTH CERTIFERCATE WHEN THEY ARE ADOPTED
SO MY GIRLFRIEND THE KIDS OTHER MOM HAVE THE RIGHT!!!! TO HAVE HER NAME ON IT!!!!!!!!! YOUR BIGOTRY REALLY NEEDS TO LEAVE THIS SITE AND GO TEACH YOUR KIDS SOME MORALS OF BEING KIND AND RESPECT EVERYONE AND MAYBE YOU SHOULD TAKE A CRASH COURSE TOOO IN RESPECT AND MORALS AND TREATING EVERYONE HOW YOU WOULD WANT TO BE TREATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET A LIFE AND GROW THE F@ UP!!!!
MY KIDS UNDERSTAND THE WORD RESPECT, MY PARTNER AND I HAVE 9 FOSTER KIDS!!! AND 2 OF OUR BIRTH CHILDREN
AGES RANGE FROM 4MONTHS OLD-17 YOU REALLY NEED TO GROW UP
MY KIDS AS YOUNG AS THEY ARE UNDERSTAND THE WORD LOVE, RESPECT, HONOR, CHERISH, AND EQUAL THEY LOVE THAT THEY HAVE 2 MOMS TO RUN TO!!! THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOOO PROBLEM!!
SO SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE AND I REALLY HOPE THAT YOU ARENT TEACHING YOUR CHILDREN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ON HERE!!
Byron - 15 years ago
Congrats! Iowa! The court decided the right way. I used to live in Iowa and at one time couldn't wait to get the hell out. But now Iowa, my home state, is ahead of New York and California. Indded, we cannot yet buy booze or wine in grocery store yet, but you can in Iowa.
As for the usual arguments such as "it threatens the institution of marriage", I wonder HOW?!! or "it's not biblical". You're right it's not biblical, as most marriages listed in the Bible are polygamous. When you examine (and social conservatives don't) the original Bibical texts, a great deal has been "lost in translation" to satisfy church authorities and others for nearly two millenia. Iowa rocks!
Mike - 15 years ago
A birth certifcate is not a commentary on the moral character of the parent. There is a reason it is called a birth certificate and not a parent certificate. As I said; the big lie begins here. And official records ought not to be doctored to make someone feel good. They are what they are.
PROUD TO BE LESBIAN IN IOWA - 15 years ago
MY PARTNER IS ADOPTING MY CHILDREN WHO ALSO HAPPEN TO BE HER CHILDREN, I GAVE BIRTH TO THEM AND SHE HAS BEEN RAISING THEM FOR A LONG TIME NOW!!! AND SO GUESS WHAT SHE IS THE PARENT!!!
AND HER NAME WILL BE ON THE BIRTH CERTIFERCATE!!!
proud to be a lesbian in iowa - 15 years ago
I DONT THINK THERE SHOULD BE BIOLOGICAL PARENTS ON THERE!!!!
MY PARTNER AND I ARE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING HER NAME ON OUR CHILDRENS BIRTH CERTIFERCATES!!!!!!!! IM SOOO FREAKIN HAPPY!!!
IT TAKES THE BIOLOGICAL FATHERS NAME OFF THEIR BIRTH CERTIFERCATES!!!
I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MY SON'S BIO DAD THANK FREAKIN GOD
NOW WOULD YOU WANT TO HAVE SOMEONES NAME ON A BIRTH CERTIFERCATE IF HE SEXUALLY MOLESTED YOUR DAUGTER?!?!?!
HELL THE F* NO YOU WOULDNT!!!!!
NOW I GOT MY POINT ACROSS!!!
OUR CHILDREN DESERVE TO HAVE BOTH THEIR PARENTS ON THE BIRTH CERTIFERCATE AND WHEN I SAID BOTH PARENTS I MEAN BOTH OF THEIR MOMS WHO TAKE CARE OF THEM!!!!
OR BOTH DADS WHO TAKE CARE OF THEM!
WE DESERVE AND OUR CHILDREN DESERVE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR PARENTS ON THEIR BC!!!
YOU ARE JUST AN ARROGANT AS*HOLE THAT NEEDS TO GO BACK TO REALITY!!!
THANKS MIKE FOR YOUR OPINION ITS NOT FAVORED! BUT U NEED TO GO BACK TO REALITY!!!!!!
IM SOOO GLAD FOR IOWA!!!!!!!! THANK YOU FOR GIVING US GLBT PEOPLE THE SAME RIGHTS AS HETEROSEXUALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mike - 15 years ago
Here is where the big lie begins: "We have the right to have both our names on the birth certificate." No!! You do not. The only names on any birth certificate ought to be the biological parents. Period.
proud to be lesbian in iowa - 15 years ago
i really am excited to see that IOWA legalized gay marriage, it finally says hey we realize that they are HUMAN too and they deserve the same rights as straight people. and they legalized gay adoption!!!!!! we are soo excited, we are in the process of adopting our foster children, and we cant wait!!!
right now we have 2 children and they are estatic that they will have a few new siblings!!!
we cant be happier. for those of you who object to this, we arent hurting you!! you dont watch us in our own homes!, we are just like anyone of you except that we love the same sex! we ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN YOU!!
we should have the same rights as straight couples!!
and to the person who said he has gay friends omfg! who in the world are you fooling?!?! you dont have gay friends, if they knew who you really were they wouldnt be friends with your arrigont selfish attitude!!! you are really 2face a##hole
I AM PROUD TO SAY I AM A LESBIAN AND I AM PROUD TO SAY WE ARE A LESBIAN FAMILY
I AM ALSO PROUD TO SAY THAT WE ARE PROUD LESBIAN MOMS
I AM PROUD TO SAY WE ARE 2 PROUD LESBIAN FOSTER MOMS!!!
I AM PROUD TO SAY WE WILL BE 2 PROUD LESBIAN ADOPTIVE MOMS!!!
we are here to take children who no one wants!! we love them we should have the rights as you straight couples to have children, to be able to share our partners medical, to have both of our names in the birth certifercate!!
you people that dont agree and think you need to say crap are selfish arrogant people!!
and for those straight people who stick up for us GLBT people THANK YOU!!!!
from the PROUD LESBIAN MOM, PROUD TO BE SOON TO BE LESBIAN ADOPTIVE MOMS, AND PROUD TO BE A LESBIAN FOSTER MOM, AND PROUD TO BE A LESBIAN PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Luke - 15 years ago
Gary. Just to address the points you make. First you say gay people have always had the same as straight in the US. Then you say that expanding the right to marry to gays is a mistake. Your second statement completely contradicts your first!!! (??) Also, it is not giving a privilege to specific group - it is, as you said, expanding a privilege so far only enjoyed by heterosexual couples to gay couples. Next, if being gay is a lifestyle choice, when did you choose to be straight? I just simply can't recall when I chose my sexuality. Odd. Last point, there is no war on christian religion in America, the country is still intensely religious and mostly christian, nothing will change that.
Hope that helps you.
Gary - 15 years ago
Gay people have always had the same rights as straight people when it comes to marriage. This is pandering to a lifestyle choice. Expanding the definition of marriage beyond that of one man and one woman is a mistake. It is not enhancing civil rights. It is providing specific privilege to a specific group. It is not like denying African Americans the right to vote. No the sky will not fall but our politically oriented judicial system may. Legislating from the bench is not the original intent of the founding fathers for the judicial branch of government.
So why should I pay taxes for the salaries of these judicial legislators to not interpret the law but create a law to pander to a specific group? That is not their job. They should be fired just like the CEO of GM.
The new administration in Washington is intensely secular in their views will and are drastically change the direction of our Nation. The war on religion (more specifically Christianity) in America is being turned up. Socialism and religion do not go well together. Giving homosexuals the right to marry does not impinge on any religious freedom. Freedom is a gift from the True God who is in control of all of what is going on. He is handing us over to our own desires because we refuse to acknowledge him. Our national obsession with rights without responsibility is what this is all about. The Politicians and judges who bring about the type of laws that are the subject of this article could care less about anyone's rights. They just want to be elected and have the power that gives them.
Mike - 15 years ago
Whoops! I submitted the above for William King. It wasn't written by him.
William King - 15 years ago
Mr. King; alas, you haven't understood a word of what I said about the establishment clause. At the time the first Amendment was written the establishment clause meant the Federal Government could not say the Anglican Church, for example, was the official church of the country; or the Catholic Church; or the Baptist Church, or any other particular denomination. In fact, originally, the First Amendment didn't even apply to the states. But that is another story. However, it was not meant to preclude government involvement with general religious practices or prevent the expression of religious, commonly shared viewpoints; otherwise, someone like Lincoln would have been speechless!! Today, however, there is an attempt to constrain religious expression within the four walls of home and church. Additionally, as the state becomes more and more controlling over every aspect of our lives; there can be little room left for advocacy based on religious principles, if the argument is "you can practice your religion anyway you like outside a public regulated activity." Of course, that is exactly what took place under communist regimes. The argument went something like this: There must be a separation of Church and state. The state is everything. Therefore the church is nothing.
Finally, it is time to end the public education system. Every parent must be allowed to keep their portion of taxes for schools to be spent at the school of their choice. This way parents can exercise their right (you like the word???)
to control the education of their children.
Since you like to take things so litteral and there is no "speperation of Church & State". What is our National Religion? For that matter what is any STate Religion? ANd if there are not any, why Not? Also if there are not any, why don't you try to get one.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So by going what your say about "seperation of Chruch & State" I am free to marry as a Homosexual because my church recognizes gay marriage.
And I quote "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Or is this a case you would rather have us pick and choose what the Bill Of Rights say?
Jumpin' Jehovah - 15 years ago
There's no end to this today... Now the Wash DC council makes a move (from www.foxnews.com):
WASHINGTON -- The D.C. Council has voted to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Lawmakers say Tuesday's unanimous vote moves the city a step closer to eventually allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in the nation's capital. Gay couples married in other states are currently recognized as domestic partners when they move to Washington.
The council will hold a final vote on the measure next month. The D.C. Council's action comes the same day that Vermont became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage, joining Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa.
What is this? Equality to be recognized inside the nation's capitol?
ekiM - 15 years ago
AND...they warn about what will happen "come next election day..." Well...in Vermont, what they'll do is vote out the wingnuts that were AGAINST marriage equality. Yay Vermont!!!!!
Jumpin' Jehovah - 15 years ago
And this time, it wasn't the activist judges legislating from the bench. It was those activist legislators legislating actively as the people's representatives from the State Legislature! What will the right-wingers say now? Those darn Legislative activists! How dare they presume to legislate from the legislature!
ekiM - 15 years ago
Oh my GOD, Jumpin' Jehovah!!!!!!! I heard it from YOU before I saw the headline. What wonderful news!!! I have a little log cabin in VT and spend much vacation time there. Between living in Massachusetts and summering in Vermont, you'd think I could find a damn HUSBAND, but noooooooooo!
Jumpin' Jehovah - 15 years ago
"But when a church chooses to provide state regulated services to the public, they step outside their constitutionally protected zone." Well said, ekim. And by the way, congrats and kudos for what you are doing for your son. And in breaking news just now, today... Vermont makes it 4! Cheers to Vermont for overriding the governor's veto and doing the right thing.
ekiM - 15 years ago
Mike, I stand corrected. Catholic Charities of Boston WAS required by law to continue to facilitate adoptions to any qualified individuals or couples, including lesbian and gay persons. The agency had been facilitating adoptions by gay and lesbian parents for years (one such family, two fabulous moms, are friends of mine from my church) but suddenly the Catholic Church ordered the practice stopped. "Sadly, we have come to a moment when Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Boston must withdraw from the work of adoptions, in order to exercise the religious freedom that was the prompting for having begun adoptions many years ago," [Archbishop Sean P.] O'Malley said in a statement. The Church chose to act in accordance with its values and beliefs. In deed this position DID place the agency on the wrong side of the law, but it is interesting to note that this had nothing to do with the arrival of marriage equality in Massachusetts; it was because of the larger equal protection issue. All adoptions in process were completed. Within weeks, other agencies, public and private, filled the void. All 15 adoption professionals who were employed by Catholic Charities found employment in compliant agencies. Thankfully, individual liberty and religious liberty are coexisting in Massachusetts! Sadly though, there are still not enough couples and individuals willing to step up to the plate and adopt one of the many thousands of older children waiting to be chosen. Here in Massachusetts, the state Department of Children and Families ACTIVELY RECRUITS lesbian and gay couples and individuals to be adoptive parents; I am one of the recruits (although they didn’t really get a chance to twist my arm...I went to them with the decision.) The bottom line for religious freedom: It’s alive and well. Worship and religious practice are safe. No church will ever be required to endorse or perform same sex weddings. No church will ever be required to grant full membership to lesbian and gay individuals who live their lives openly and authentically. But when a church chooses to provide state regulated services to the public, they step outside their constitutionally protected zone. This is as it should be here in America.
Whitney - 15 years ago
If the entire argument from the opposing side is based from a religious stand point, then who do you think you are, God?! What right do you have to judge? The only person who should be allowed to judge is God and that's when you are standing in front of him and pleading your own case. If God didn't want there to be homosexual people, than he wouldn't have put them here. I am a God fearing woman just like you but I don't believe God would intend for anyone to treat other people this way. It sickens and disheartens me to think that there are people out there who have gone as far as to say death unto them. Everyone has a right to their opinions but death threats are a federal offense and deserve the utmost attention from the government. Maybe you who say this should think about what other laws prevent you from killing and threatening to take someone's life before you spew your tyrant hatred in a public forum. This country has built itself on its EQUAL RIGHT FOR ALL and yet you stand to fight against this? This times are changing and that's that. Ask yourself this, would you want anyone in your life living in fear of you? Completely and utterly afraid to tell you the truth about who they are because you may end it. Parents condemning their children to hell for being who they are, siblings turning their backs on each other simply for loving someone who has the same body parts. Is that who you want to be when God sends for you? Judging a person for who they are is not our right, based on religion. The love is no different nor does it mean any less than it does between a man and a woman. Homosexual couples are just as devoted and caring to one another as the relationship between a man and a woman. Let them have their happy endings in life just like anyone else.
Since when is it legal to mix church with state? The Iowa Supreme Court did not base their decision from a religious stand point because they can't and shouldn't. Life is filled with tests from God on each and every one of us, did you ever think you just failed yours? Argue that your God isn't like that, well, prove it. The God I was raised to believe in would never condone murder of another human being, it's a commandment. Having an opinion is one thing but threatening others to instill it is another. Equal rights should include everyone in this country and the world. Not just the people other people have chosen. April 3, 2008 still is a proud day for equal rights and shall stay that way.
Remember who you were and are when heaven calls for you, because they will.
Luke - 15 years ago
umm mike, how does the assurance that adoption agencies do not discriminate in who they adopt children to force people to accept gay marriage? It doesn't. And don't get upset about something that didn't even happen!
Also adoption agencies shouldn't be making decisions with their own religious beliefs in mind anyway! Not that I know of a religion that warns against its followers helping gay couples adopt..but anyway.
Mike - 15 years ago
ekim; They stopped providing any adoptions because the law was going to REQUIRE they provide adoptions to gay couples. So much for gay marriage not having anything to do with forcing others to accept it. Or, impinging on others religious beliefs.
ekiM - 15 years ago
Of course religious based social service agencies could not be required to offer adoption to gay couples and likewise, doctors and nurses in religious based hospitals could not be required to perform procedures to provide children to gay couples. It would be their option... After marriage equality came to Massachusetts, Catholic Charities, which had facilitated a number of gay adoptions previously, elected to stop doing so. It was their choice.
Mike - 15 years ago
To those who believe that a recognized gay marriage right does not impinge on religious freedom: I assume then you would:
Not require religious based social service agencies to offer adoption to gay couples?
Not require doctors and nurses in religious based hospitals to perform procedures to provide children to gay couples?
Not impose a duty on doctors and nurses in secular hospitals to participate in the above practices contrary to their consciences?
Not require religious institutions who may employ gays to offer the same benefits that would be offered to married couples?
Mike - 15 years ago
Hey TerryM, you are wrong. The phrase is not in the Bill of Rights, nor anywhere else in the Constitution. It appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson expressing his viewpoint of what the first Amendent could mean. For most of our consitutional history the first Amendment prohibition against the establishment of religion simply meant: The Government could not mandate a particular denomination to be the state religion. Modern secularists, which would include most on the forum in support of gay marriage, have worked very hard to have the first Amendment mean the government cannot, in anyway, mix or support a general religious viewpoint. Now, those are two very different meanings of the first Amendment. The first meaning was the context and intent of the founders. The second meaning is the context and intent of the destroyers. By the way, the second meaning was also the meaning given to religous freedom in the old Soviet Union. And yes I know first hand since I was in and out of the Soviet Union on numerous occassions in the 70s and 80s. The Soviet Officials I met with always argued they permitted freedom of religion. Everyone was free to have religious belief in private but COULD NEVER EXPRESS RELIGIOUS VIEWS IN PUBLIC OR TRY TO USE RELIGION AS THE BASIS FOR POLICY. So, please; no more of the separation of church and state mantra.
TerryM - 15 years ago
Hey Mike, I think it's in the 'Bill of Rights'....but I could be wrong : )
TerryM - 15 years ago
Well, I live in the wonderful state of MA, where we've had 'gay marriage' for many years....and believe it or not, the sky hasn't fallen. It's quite simple to me, and that is that all individuals have the basic right of marrying whomever they choose (regardless of their gender). We as Americans should be offended by the notion proposed by the radical/religious right which asserts that we have the right to dictate who our fellow Americans can and can not fall in love with. Aren't we better than this?
Although, I was surprised by the news from the internet about 'Iowa allowing gay marriage'.....because I guess I thought, 'wow, I thought Iowa was all farms? Interesting that these farmers are so fair and broad minded. hmmm?
Anyway, the residents of Iowa should feel proud of being one of the early States to validate the rights of the queer/gay community within their state. One day we will all look back at this and wonder 'how did we ever think we had the right to dictate to others, whom they should fall in love with'
Well done Iowa : )
Be well, Terry M. (Cambridge MA)
p.s. for those that have not embraced this notion as yet, set aside your fear and take note that by allowing others to have their 'civil rights' you are not harmed.....the sky won't fall.
Explain it please - 15 years ago
Would someone please explain exactly how same-sex marriage cheapens, ruins, demeans, etc, heterosexual marriage? What is it about a same-sex couple obtaining legal treatment equal to that afforded to heterosexuals, that thereby lowers the bar for heterosexuals? Isn't it more accurate to say that this actually elevates same-sex couples to enjoy and share in a (presumed) higher status held by heterosexuals? Isn't that really what this is about? (to paraphrase, if homosexuals are just the same as heterosexuals under the law, then it follows that the reverse is true - heterosexuals are just the same as homosexuals. God forbid that thought, thinks the fearful and insecure hetero; I am NOT the same as a homosexual).
Otherwise I just don't get what all the fuss is about. It seems that some heterosexuals are just TORTURED by their own thoughts (fantasies, projections, neuroses) about what might be going on somewhere in the privacy of someone else's life.
Mike - 15 years ago
I am still looking for the phrase "separation of church and state" in the U.S. Constitution, but I can't find it. Can someone help me??? Can you tell me where I can find it?? Thanks.
NiK - 15 years ago
I think there are a lot of folks here who don't truly understand what being an American means. From the pilgrims who came here to flee persecution to african-americans and women gaining the right to vote, America is based on the Constitution that ALL MEN are created equal. It did not say, only Straight men. Indeed, there should be a separation of Church and State, so unless WE as a country REDEFINE marriage to only pertain to the Church and does NOT include LEGAL rights and benefits of both Federal and State, it is VERY much the Supreme Courts' right to determine whether marriage should be between only a man or a woman, or between two consenting adults of legal age, who have made a commitment to love and cherish each other and care for each other in the eyes of the LAW, not GOD.
If homophobic Churches want to create a new term to define this very commitment as only between a man and woman so they can keep their ceremonies restricted to their religious beliefs, I'm all for it but keep it restricted only for their religion and out of the STATE and Federal Constitution as those are designed to protect ALL human beings, not just straight ones.
Karma - 15 years ago
I find the argument [What's next; 2 men and a goat?] to be so common and self disclosing of pure ignorance. The argument is absurd; but it does however frame the ignorance of people who say it. To make that argument, one must truly believe that same gender lovers are less of a person and only those individuals who can love the opposite gender are worthy of a commitment that is recognized in the eyes of the law.
The ignorance of the population that is against equal rights for homosexual individuals is emotional rather than rational. When homosexual relationships are banned from marriage - we can easily pass judgment without the fear of social persecution. We can hate them, make jokes about them, and bash their existence. For example; when black people and women did not have the right to vote, we could easily judge them as less of people or people whose opinions did not matter. We could feel superior to their existence; however once the law allowed them to vote - it was the negative judgments against black people and women that became the focus of social persecution. If you continued to view black people and women as insignificant - you were the one being judged as sexist or racist (there is a moral deficiency "recognized" in you now) - and that is why it is so threatening!
Kwestion - 15 years ago
People keep using the fact you cannot procreate as proof God did not want same sex couples. Yet those of us that can, man/woman couples, seem to be taking liberties with the ability. Gay/Lesbian couples actually plan their life around having a kid. Hetero couples are draining resources and over-populating the earth. And unfortunately it's often the poor and uneducated of the planet that seem to be having the most kids which is an even more impossible a situation. But what if God is smarter than all of us. I don't think any Christian would argue against that. What if God realizes we aren't able to control our urges in a way that we protect the future. What if God realizes we are using our resources and damaging our planet because there are just too many people. He hasn't passed down His word in a really long time. What if He could produce a revised Bible. Do you think he might state things differently today? Do you think he'd mention 'Thou shalt not drive a vehicle that gets less that 20 mpg?' Or 'Thou shalt not have more children than you can support'. No one would believe it is the word of God of course. You'd be locked up as crazy. Despite 'belief', no one believes things can change. Perhaps the only thing He can do to help us is to evolve His creation. Evolve them to where a percent of us will not further the destruction of His planet by over population. It's just a 'What if..' But 'what if' homosexuality is by God's plan? How would that make you feel?
Nick - 15 years ago
I think many people, left and right, have a hard time understanding the purpose of courts. The courts do not make laws, they do not ignore the will of the population, the sole purpose of the courts is pass judgement on the validity of a law compared against the constitution of a body. In essence, they rule if a passing majority's law is consistent with the most basic of rules set by the population themselves.
To those who would make this issue out to be different from slavery, or women's suffrage that is also clearly misguided. You may be able to choose who you sleep with, or marry, but ask any homosexual, you are not able to choose who you love. It is not the place of the Moral Majority to dictate who someone should associate with, and it is not the place of the law to deny someone equal rights because they are not a part of the Majority. The United States has always been about upholding the will of the Majority, whilst defending the rights of the Minority. If it weren't this way, there would never have been an American Dream.
Kelly Dooley - 15 years ago
I am a 23 year old heterosexual woman who recently had the privilege of getting married. I call it a privilege because while Iowa has finally recognized marriage between same-sex couple the rest of the country has decided to use their privilege to discriminate against same-sex couples. Today I want to leverage my privilege of being heterosexual to give a voice to those who cannot yet marry.
To those of you who believe that homosexuality is a choice, when did you make the “choice” to be heterosexual? I don’t think you did. If being gay was the norm, would you be able to make the “choice” to be attracted to a person of the same sex?
I have a few questions! How does any of this effect your life in anyway? How does two men or two women getting married effect anyones life but there own? People have all types of opinions and beliefs, however being a homosexual is just a word people have given us and WE are still people know matter what! Being gay is the way of life for some people and theres know changing it! The issue is not going anywhere however we as a nation, as Iowans can rise above what other states are doing and be a leader, be what other states want and live life like we all have been, but living life as a whole and not as haters! Martin luther king jr. lead a great life in changing the way America is today!! What would have happened if HE DIDN"T STEP UP and change life?
John Merrill - 15 years ago
Homosexual activity is simply a vice like drinking or smoking.
It is not evil and certainly not immoral if the latter two aren't. So why are people who engage in this vice viewed as an unofficial protected class?
shelly haley - 15 years ago
To all the people who beleave in pushing hate
I have been gay all my life, being gay is not a choice, but a way of life! I have spent most of my life being judge by other people, and have been told more times than I can count how I'm going to hell for who I am. Let just say so meny people are sceaming about my beleifs being pushed on people, but what about your beleifs being pushed on me. I don't say anyone is going to hell because they beleave that man should be with woman and thats it. I beleave we all should just live and let live. It is a sad world when limit our selfs to hate, and it's even wrost when we tell our kids that. I think people would think twice, when a younge kid kills himself or her self, because they are gay, and they have no where to turn because some lame back hills thought says we"re damed because we beleave or live a differnt way. I do beleave in GOD, but also beleave that he has enough in his heart for you and me. And if this is all about a sin, than what about the part thats says judging anyone is a sin. So if I must go to hell for my life than I will meet so meny of you their, BECAUSE NO SIN IS GREATER THAN THE NEXT.
maddog86 - 15 years ago
Thank you IOWA - -I am so proud of our state!
Luke - 15 years ago
Just from the point of view of an outsider to the U.S., this seems like great news.
Secondly, umm, with all these neo-nazi's commenting, how on earth did Obama win?? Perhaps it's just a case of the minority (haters) being the most out-spoken. Whats that phrase? "Empty vessels make a lot of noise". Yep.
People who qoute a whole lot of nonsensical statistics about gay people should at least cite their sources. It would be interesting to find out who is making it up.
This legislation does not lead to marriage of pedos, animals or polygamy. Mind I can't see why polygamy is so bad, if all the parties involved are consenting, then why not. It's pretty obvious pedophilia and beastiality, amongst other things, are psychological problems, caused by possible past grievances or chemical imbalance. Those people need help. They are not associated with homosexuality. Which is just a natural occurance as sexuality is widely understood to be not a defined catagory, rather a spectrum, with 100% homosexuality and 100% heterosexuality at each end, and due to genetics and chemical makeup, we all fall somewhere on the spectrum.
Very few people are 100% gay or straight, hence our ability to note and percieve attractiveness in both sexes, we are just usually more attracted sexually to one or the other.
Pedophilia and beastiality don't fit AT ALL on this spectrum. They are seperate.
Historically, marriage is not actually traditionally between a man and a woman, so much as one man, and many woman.
Gay parents can definately do the job and do it well, particularly in the sense of cultivating a sense of moral equality and fair treatment of their pairs.
If you are Christian, i'm pretty sure the god you pray to wants you to accept everyone and treat them well, if he exists, he will do the punishing yeah? You don't need to okay?
Also, to say that homosexuals want to encourage atheism is untrue. I'm gay, and I don't believe in god. My parents and nearly my whole family is Catholic, and perhaps it is partly due to my sexuality that I have gained the ability to realise we are not of god or any sort of spirity-hocus pocus or whatever you believe (i'm not trying to offend). It's just clear to me that the whole religion thing and books like the bible were created in an attempt to explain things. They are skewed against gays because the majority of people then, like now was straight, hence the people who wrote it were of the opinion they were the normal ones, and it was also more likely straight people would write such books, simply beacause there was more of them. (Not 98% as much more I hasten to add!! lol).
Anyway, as a person, i am secular, and i'm happy for anyone to believe whatever they want to believe, you just can't force it on other people!!
Everything has a rational explanation. We are all equal!
Mike - 15 years ago
By the way, has anyone in the equal protection camp noticed, it took constitutional amendments for women to get the universal right to vote and 18 year olds as well. Couldn't get it done by the equal protection clause.
Mike - 15 years ago
Daniel; Sorry, the evidence is not that people are born gay. It appears your understanding of Constitutional law is suspect as well. The interpretive strategy of this court is called the living, breathing strategy: If we can't find a fundamental right in the constitution; and we want a particular fundamental right; then we announce; the constitution is a living, breathing document meant to be upadated for future generations. By whom? Well, by judges of course. There is another way, course, amend the constitution. However, that is much more difficult and the outcome would be less certain.
Daniel Salazar - 15 years ago
The more you think, the less you believe. One is not born a polygamist. One is not born incestuous. The majority of pedophiles are NOT homosexual, and have no wish to marry children- only to assert their power over them. If one wishes NOT to believe the obvious fact that people are born gay, (just as they are born black, or female) then one is not thinking. In this country, no ONE group owns civil rights. No one group gets to decide if others [productive members of civil society] are allowed their civil liberties as endowed by this country's Constitution. Destructive members of society go to jail. Want to protect marriage- don't get a divorce!... but keep your religion away from MY Constitution. That is the idea behind the United States. As usual, those who cannot THINK for themselves are pursuing an ideal that is doomed to fail. The unanimous Republican and Democratic judges in Iowa cannot square the belief of ONLY "one woman-one man marriage" with/and EACH woman and each man being entitled to his and her own rights under our Constitution. Congratulations to Iowans and their example of responsibility and fairness. The BELIEFS of gay marriage opponents will never be successful because of their ignorance of Constitutional law. Ultimately, your vote cannot decide whether or not I get my rights. See you in Iowa at my wedding....
Jimbob - 15 years ago
I find it funny that most, if not all, of the people that oppose same sex marriage are "devout Christians" I thought the point of being a Christian was to let God do the judging. Aren't we supposed to love unconditionally? If it truly is a sin, and that could be debated as well, then God will Judge them. Until then, all "Christians" need to quit with the hypocrisy. I think it's time to have a look at your Christian roots and decide if you really want to continue judging, or if you want to say, "Even though they are different, they are God's children, so I must love them unconditionally. God will be the final Judge."
In addition to this, we have a separation of Church and State for a reason. This is strictly a religious battle. Every church can still make its own decision as to whether or not to hold a ceremony for a gay couple, so no one's right's are being infringed upon!
For those of us that are younger, we don't remember the Black Civil Rights movement. Think of all the riots and hate. What came out of it? Eventually Blacks got equality. It's about time it came for Gay people.
tom - 15 years ago
we will soon be overrun by gays since we are the only midwest state to legalize gay marraige soon we will have more than we know what to do with.......it will take a tole on sociaty here in iowa and this once great state will be painted up with rainbows and unicorns and all the other "gay" stuff i dont know about you guys but i dont my kids growing up in that kind of state.....LETS ALL MOVE TO SOUTH DAKOTA!!!
Mike - 15 years ago
Rob and Jon; I know I said my last post was the other day, but I can't resist; especially when I encounter so much stupidity. The gay marriage issue and inter-racial marriage are not connected. I would explain to you why but I doubt you could follow the arguments. As for the court. The court exists to determine if legislative enactments are consistent with a written constitution. It may mean that at times legislative majorities; which many not always reflect societal majorities, will be upheld. It may also mean that legislative majorities may overturned from time to time. However, they don't exist to sanction the claims of any old minority simply because they are in the minority. So please stop the mantra; "we are a minority therefore our rights are being violated." By definition, they may not be. And, yes, we can legislatge morality. It is done all the time. Now, it may be true not all things that are morally wrong, because of purdence, should be the subject of the law. However, I suppose it is possible to argue there is no morality and so the law has no substantive purpose other than pursuing an agenda; like sanctioning any old right that is claimed. Of course, this was the Nazi view of the Law. The law exists to promote the regime. No need for a constitution in these cases. Finally, until the modern judicial revolution "equal protection of the laws" had a much narrower meaning. But, we could pray in public schools until 1962; Can't imagine how the republic survived so long with that majority tyranny.
If I hear one more time that we need to "let the people vote" I think i'll scream. You folks need to read the United States Constitution. The majority cannot vote on rights of a minority. Believe me.. if that was the case, Blacks wouldn't have rights, interracial marriage would not be allowed and i'm pretty sure that women wouldn't have the right to vote.
The right wing needs to understand that certain things should not be subjected to the approval of a majority of strangers. I know the right wing wackjobs will howl and whine about this, and many civil rights veterans will as well, but cosnider this: if we followed the same tired argument of the "will of the people", we may still not have passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, and interracial marriage would still be illegal in some states,since a majority of people in several states believed African-Americans should not have equal rights.
The courts are there to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. You cannot legislate morality, and might seldom makes right. Heaven help us if we allow a majority of ignorant, conservative, closed-minded bigots to determine what is "normal: and "acceptable", then we are in big trouble. Also remember; one day you may find the balance is completely in the opposite direction. Would you then accept a far-left majority determining what the law of the land should be, simply because of "majority rule"? Think about it.
New England has been the battleground of same-sex marriage for the last five years, with every state with either same-sex marriage or a civil union, excluding Rhode Island, who has had a conservative governor, unwilling to sign anything into law.
Although Iowa legalized same-sex marriage, it's very likely that two other states, Vermont and New Hampshire here in New England, will legalize same-sex marriage as well. Vermont passed legislation with flying colors, and even though their governor promised a veto, the legislature thinks they'll get enough votes to overturn his veto with 2/3rds vote. This would be a major landmark.
New Hampshire, the most conservative state in New England, also passed a bill in the house of representatives that would eliminate their civil unions and replace it with marriage. they're the only state in the country that has a civil union that is the exact equivalent of marriage, but without the name.
Tom - 15 years ago
A bad day for civilization indeed, legalizing homosexual or "gay" marriage is against natural law, should be against human law, & against Gods law.
Iowans must amend the State Constitution defining marriage between one woman & one man. However legalize civil union, clearly defining it as common law habitation of two humans only. This would preserve equal rights & limit government role in personal relationships,.
Andrew - 15 years ago
The folks who want to restore "traditional" marriage don't take it far enough. We should bring back all aspects of traditional marriage, to whit:
1. Exchange of goods. When I take a wife, I also want the deal to include some cattle, some land, and a dowry.
2. I want multiple wives. More wives = more property and power. King Solomon had what? a few hundred wives? And Abraham. And Isaac. And King David. They were all about as traditional as they come. I want the same.
3. The decision of whom to take as my wives is to be carried out in negotiations with her father. Like Old Testament practice, it should be done on a barter basis. In order to marry the younger, more desirable daughter (eg, Rachel), I promise to first marry the older, less preferred daughter (Leah) and produce sons.
4. Upon my death, property will be passed down to my eldest son only. In the absence of a son, my property will be handed over to my brothers. In the absence of blood brothers, my property will be handed over to my eldest brother in law.
Anything less than this, and the "traditional" marriage folks are just being hypocritical and namby-pamby.
David Bennett - 15 years ago
Too bad judges now control the morality of once a great state!
Dave - 15 years ago
Personally, I don't care if a gay couple wants to get married. The issue is that the court cited equal protection. They cannot say that it applies to civil issues only. By their ruling, then income tax rates should be the same for all income levels. People paying different rates based on income is then a violation of equal protection. I think someone should file a suit against the state demanding the same tax rate for all incomes. In the suit they should cite this ruling. If it applies to gay marriage then it should apply to all laws, like income taxes.
Pensive Observer - 15 years ago
Wow ekiM, you serve as a wonderful role model for me and the thousands of other homosexuals who have the opportunity to adopt! I hope to have the chance to fulfill my civic duty someday! And go you for standing up for the fact that bringing another dad into your house wouldn't confuse your son! There are too many myths out there about homosexuality confusing young children, but none of them are supported by research! Thanks for setting the record straight!
Mike - 15 years ago
ekim; by the way, I have a relative who is gay, so I have more insight into these issues than one might think. In any case, I take you at your word in summarizing your situation. I would only say, in the end, I think of these things in terms of long range consequences. I also believe there is an important connection between the public and private that tends to be ignored in our world that proclaims "right to privacy" to the heavens. I also believe society is more fragile than one might think as well. I will conclude my commentary on this thread with a wish for your success and happiness. I have meant no malice. I have made my objections to the Iowa Supreme court decision in the most logical and reasonable way possible. At least, that has been my intent. I will continue to argue and work for the common good of society to the best of my ability. The good news is: Baseball season opens next week and my damn Yankees will be in a new ballpark!! Take care, M
ekiM - 15 years ago
Mike, I said just that in my first post, "My success in parenting has nothing to do with my being gay..." Then I went on to point out that "of course civil marriage has nothing to do with how anyone becomes a father or mother." in response to your commentary about how two people of the same sex can't make a baby, as if that has anything to do with marriage equality. As for your thoughts that I shouldn’t bring another dad into the house, my son brings joy to me every time he attempts to 'fix me up' with men he thinks I'll like (and it happens fairly often.) There is a man who lives in another state who has adopted not one but two boys from the foster care system. If it weren't for the distance, we'd be dating; and our three sons would be better for it -- to have yet another caring, responsible, nurturing adult in their lives -- that is NEVER a bad thing. My son is lobbying for us to move and become one family. He knows what is good for him, eh? This other dad is a dream boat -- handsome, kind, intelligent, nurturing, a good cook -- and he is so good with my son. Anyway...this conversation started with your assertions that same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because same sex couples can't use their body parts for the 'normal' purpose. I think we have digressed.
Mike - 15 years ago
Jumpin Jehovah; go read the Iowa Ct. decision. As a jokester, you are more apt to appreciate the joke of the reasoning found in the decision.
To ekim; there is nothing relevant about being gay in the situation you have described. Your efforts are honorable on their own terms. Now, given the reality of the boys confusion and difficulties I suggest you don't add to his confusion by bringing another 'dad' into the house. And no; don't assume anything about my cherry lane childhood. I am well aware of the circumstances this boy has had to deal with. In fact, much of my thinking on these matters is the result of an attempt to create order out of chaos and make sense of it.
ekiM - 15 years ago
Mike, unfortunately, my son won't have the option of meeting his biological father. He signed the paper relinquishing his claim on the child (before he was even born) indicating he did not want to be "found." And, speaking as a shoe, I've been successfully pounding this nail (my son) for the past five years and, quite honestly I have saved his life. He waited in a 'limbo' state for over five years to be chosen by a family. I came along and, despite the challenges I knew he would present, I chose him. His social workers were certain he would never be adopted (because of his emotional and developmental deficits, caused by the trauma.) Kids who 'age out' in the system don't usually live very healthy or productive adult lives. Incidentally, in Massachusetts it's remarkable how often gay singles and couples actually CHOOSE, not 'settle for' kids with severe physical, emotional, and developmental disabilities. In addition to being heartwarming, it's also a tremendous service to a society that has almost always treated us gay folks as second class citizens. So Mike, I don't point to current problems to justify more liberal policies, and I don't lament that the liberal policies of the past were what brought us to this point. Faced with a child before me who needed to be loved and cared for, to do that would have seemed decidedly unhelpful. I simply saw a need, fell in love with a little boy who needed a family, and made a choice to become his dad.
Jumpin' Jehovah - 15 years ago
Mike: "So, what is left? The will to power. And reason is shunted into the dark night,.." I think I know what you mean. After 20 years of traditional marriage to my wife, and raising two children to college age, and reading the news about this S.C. decision... this morning I woke up with the oddest feeling: I wanted to buy leather chaps, get a nipple ring, and have one of my ears pierced. I wanted to kiss another man. In public. I want to sing show tunes. It's something that is just coming over me all of a sudden. I. Just. Can't. Seem. To. Help. My. Self.
Mike - 15 years ago
Sharon; Hannah Arendt, in trying to explain, the participation of many thousands of people in the National Socialist movement (Nazis) observed they had lost the capacity to think. We see a similar kind of situation today. The post-modern world wants everyone to say they see 4 lights when there are in fact only 3 lights present. As for the transgressions of Christians: The modern world, through the worshiping of man as gods, has destroyed more lives and created more horror in 100 years than the Christian era could possibly have achieved in 1000. All the totalitarian man worshiping systems; fascism; communism; indivdualism and so on all have the same foundation; the denial of God. Nietzsche saw it all coming in the late 19th century:
"Where has God gone? I will tell. We have killed him; you and I. And, we are all his murderers." So, what is left? The will to power. And reason is shunted into the dark night, the abyss. Well, I can tell you, I will not go quietly into the abyss. I will resist to your face*; gay marriage; abortion; euthanasia, and the will to power in all its manifestations.
All those who support the above named nonsense.
Jumpin' Jehovah - 15 years ago
to Sharon, who asks: "What were these people thinking, or were they?" They seem to have been thinking that "equality" means that everybody should be treated the same under the laws of the state.
Sharon - 15 years ago
I have lived in Austin for 10 years, which is now considered the gay capitol of the US. The repercussions here are profound. I am not proud to say that I live in Austin. The motto here is "keep Austin weird" and it is. I was proud to say that I was from Iowa, but no longer. This is an outrage and an insult to God and country. There will be consequences to the state and it won't be good. Of all the things that are going on in this country right now, I think this is the saddest thing of all. What were these people thinking, or were they?
Venerable Bede - 15 years ago
All you Christians should stop trying to push your beliefs on everyone else. Separation of church and state is a foundation to our country's government for a reason because you Christian morons have used it to defend slavery, segregation and so many other social atrocities in our past. Before you even say "our founding fathers said in god we trust" or some other misguided quote from history, God or Christianity are NEVER mentioned in our Constitution (The piece of paper that regulates our country and our rights). Our founding fathers were NOT Christians, in fact they made sure to let everyone know they were theists(Washington,Jefferson, Madison, Franklin,Lincoln and Adams are included in this list). Feel free to believe in your superstition but don't try and take away rights from other human beings because you interpret 1600 year old text written by random desert nomads as God's word. Also, calling gay marriage something other than marriage would be a similar clause to the separate but equal period in our history, you should examine yourself as a person if you think that is a viable option.
You people don't believe in Santa, aliens, Bigfoot or ghosts, so why do you still hold onto these ancient mythologies so close to your heart.
Face the fact that as more of you old people die, your bigoted beliefs will slowly die with you the same way ideologies supporting slavery died with that generation of bigots. It is never too late to grow up, let your old superstitions go and worry about your own life.
Mike - 15 years ago
My above post is for ekim.
Mike - 15 years ago
Sir; I happen to think the modern world has lost contact with the ability to integrate our reason with our passions. A thing (object) or our person has a natural use or end. A thing can be used for purposes other than the best use; for example, I could pound a nail with a shoe. We now live in a world were people want to say it is perfectly normal to sell shoes in a hardware stores to pound nails; if one likes. The fact that the idea of parenthood is not met by many does not preclude the point that we would be better off if the idea were met. By the way, I believe it was a mistake to go away from states divorce laws requiring cause to be shown for a divorce. Many of the problems concerning children and other social issues result from a sky high divorce rate. We allowed the courts to give people freedom to their passions without realizing the harm to society for a lack of reason. In my view, gay couples ought not to adopt unless the child is of an age to consent. However, in your case I assume your child will be given the option to seek his biological father if he so desires? Finally, on this point: I would say liberals always point to current problems to justify more liberal policies, when it is the liberal policies of the past that have brought us to this point.
Now; concerning the Iowa Supreme Court decision interpretive strategy. I am 15 pages into the decision. Early on the court announces it will follow the living, breathing understanding of the constitution. So, right up front all arguments based on community standards, common law, precedent, intent are out the window. It is the same interpretive strategy used by Liberal courts over the past 50 years to basically say: We will substitute our will for the will of anyone else; and the constitution be damned.
JC in WI - 15 years ago
I AM A STRAIGHT MAN. LET ME BE CLEAR HERE. EQUAL RIGHTS ARE EQUAL RIGHTS! LET ME ASK YOU ALL SOMETHING, WHAT SIDE OF EQUALITY DO YOU STAND ON? WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT EQUALITY YOU ARE EITHER WRONG OR YOU ARE RIGHT. NOW, IF YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE THAT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE'S VERSION OF MARRIAGE NEED I REMIND YOU THAT IT WAS WRITTEN BY MAN. IT IS INTERESTING THEN IN THESE SAME WRITINGS BY MAN EXODUS 21:7 SAYS THAT I CAN SELL MY DAUGHTER INTO SLAVERY AND THAT I MY SELF CAN OWN SLAVES. BOY WILL THIS HELP MY FINANCIAL SITUATION IN THIS ECONOMY BECAUSE MY DAUGHTER WILL FETCH A HIGH PRICE. I COULD SURE USE THE EXTRA MONEY TO PURCHASE SLAVES. I CAN FINALLY JUST SIT AROUND AS MY SLAVES DO MY BIDDING. I AM WORRIED THOUGH, WITH EXODUS 35:2 BECAUSE IT CLEARLY STATES I SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH FOR WORKING ON THE SABBATH. I WANT TO KNOW THEN FROM YOU, DO I HAVE TO FEAR MY NEIGHBOR COMING TO KILL ME ON MY WAY TO WORK ON THE DAY OF THE SABBATH. I AM A REGISTERED NURSE WORKING IN AN ICU. WHO WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU OR YOUR LOVED ONES WHEN MYSELF AND MY STAFF ARE PUT TO DEATH. THE BIBLE ALSO SAYS I STONE MY NEIGHBOR THIS SPRING WHEN SHE PLANTS IN HER GARDEN TWO DIFFERENT CROPS SIDE BY SIDE. OR WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO ME AS I WEAR CLOTHES MADE FROM TWO DIFFERENT FIBERS OR THREADS? LEVITICUS 11:7 SAYS TOUCHING THE SKIN OF A DEAD PIG MAKES ONE UNCLEAN. SHOULD I THEN BAN MY SON FROM PLAYING FOOTBALL AND TAKING PART IN THE CAMARADERIE AND FRIENDSHIP OF TEAM PLAY, OR LOBBY CONGRESS TO BAN FOOTBALL ALL TOGETHER TO PROTECT MY CHILD AND COMMUNITY FROM BECOMING UNCLEAN OR PUT TO DEATH FOR WORKING ON THE SABBATH SHOULD THIS BE ONE'S JOB. ISN'T IT STRANGE HOW INDIVIDUALS WILL ONLY USE THE BIBLE VERSES THAT SERVE THEIR OWN AGENDAS? SINCE 54% OF MARRIAGES END IN DIVORCE MAYBE WE SHOULD BAN THESE INDIVIDUALS THE SANCTITY OF A SECOND MARRIAGE BECAUSE THEY DEFILED THE SANCTITY OF THEIR FIRST. IF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE MEANS SOOOO MUCH TO YOU WHY HAVE YOU NOT LOBBIED FOR CIVIL UNIONS THAT GRANT THE SAME RIGHTS TO INDIVIDUALS IN LOVING RELATIONSHIPS. THIS WOULD HAVE PROTECTED THE 46% OF YOU THAT HAVE NOT DEFILED THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE. YOU COULD HAVE DONE THIS A LONG TIME AGO WHEN THIS DEBATE GOT STARTED OR EVEN PUSH FOR IT NOW. YOU HAVE HAD PLENTY OF TIME SINCE THESE UNEQUAL DEBATES BEGAN. COME ON, YOU ALL KNOWING PEOPLE HAD TO HAVE SEEN THIS COMING. SO AGAIN I STATE, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT EQUALITY YOU ARE EITHER WRONG OR YOU'RE RIGHT. WHAT SIDE OF EQUALITY DO YOU STAND ON???
Pensive Observer - 15 years ago
Will someone please respond to my assertion that polygamy isn't necessarily undesirable under the principles of civil marriage.
@ekiM, I applaud your story! Gays can serve society in a positive way as you have clearly demonstrated! Bravo! Also, you made a perfect point about the fact that civil marriage isn't primarily about proceedtion. If it were, elderly people would be excluded from marriage. Also, if it were so important for a child to have a male and a female parent, we would have to outlaw single parenthood and divorce that gives custody to only one parent. That leads me to assert that if it is so important to preserve the "sanctity" of marriage, we should outlaw divorce to protect our society. I believe most people would resist that movement vehemently (as they probably should). Our modern society has created civil marriage that must be separate from religious mandates. I would certainly support the idea of giving all heterosexual and homosexual couples a civil union for the legal side of marriage while the church could control the religious side of marriage (a similar system is seen in France). The truth is that society made a big mistake by not separating marriage, a clearly religious thing, from government a long time ago! Everyone could be a winner in this argument if we stopped issuing government marriage licenses and only issued civil unions to any two consenting adults who wish to combine their lives and assets. The religiously concerned wouldn't lose their definition of marriage, and all couples would gain the protection they deserve. Anyone like that idea?
ekiM - 15 years ago
Mike, Civil marriage does not exist exclusively or primarily to support procreation. What one uses her or his body parts for has nothing to do with marriage. The word normal simply means the most common type. I don't really think it's reasonable to say that sexual intercourse for the purpose of procreation is the most common thing we do with out sexual body parts. Most of us pee a lot more often than we have sex.
It's true that as a gay man, I cannot make a baby with another man. But I can raise a child with another man and that child's basic welfare is much better supported if he or she can be legally related to both dads. But let's not get into that here because these comments are about same sex marriage, not same sex parenting.
I live in Massachusetts but unfortunately I haven't yet met the man of my dreams. I do hope to be married some day though. I am however a dad. In 2001 I was matched by the Big Brother Program with a little eight-year-old boy. He had been horribly neglected by his heterosexual mother and sexually abused by her heterosexual boyfriend (not the boy's biological father.) The bio-dad never laid eyes on his beautiful son -- the pregnancy resulted from a one night stand. After removal from the birth "home" at age five, this boy floated to three different foster homes and was living in an institution when we were first matched. At age 10, after two years as my 'little brother' he moved into my home. At age eleven, we appeared before the same judge who had given the original order to remove him from the abusive "home" and she joyfully granted my adoption of my son. Today he's fifteen and continues to suffer the typical after-affects of his abusive early childhood -- difficulty in school, trouble controlling his emotions, mental health issues -- but he has put behind him at least one of these after-affects: inability to trust adults. He knows he is loved unconditionally by me and that his safety and welfare are of utmost importance to me. I am a much better man for this experience of parenting my son. My success in parenting has nothing to do with my being gay, and of course civil marriage has nothing to do with how anyone becomes a father or mother.
Now, is there anything else I can help you with?
Mike - 15 years ago
I meant to write; "not necessarily" in the above post.
Mike - 15 years ago
1. I have never grounded any of my points on a theological argument. 2. Homosexuality is not like blue eyes and handedness; blue eyed people can see normally, left handed and right handed people can exercise all the functions appropriate to the use of hands. Homosexuals cannot procreate together naturally, therefore the physical attributes of homosexuals cannot be used for their normal purpose. If a blue eyed person were blind we would not say being blind is like being not blind. 3. I intend to read the entire Iowa decision and respond. I have read parts and am particularly struck about the judges non-concern for children. "We find no evidence of harm to children, but if we did, that would necessarily---" and so on.
Now, please respond to the above arguments, if you can. But, don't rant on about "Christian haters."
Herman Schornstein MD - 15 years ago
Homosexuality is a normal human variant like blue eyes and handedness. Much more education is obviously needed. What is exciting about the Iowa decision is the clear respect shown to churches and the state and our Constitution's wisdom in making that distinction. Believe what you want - but don't force others - particularly absent a factual basis. Bravo, Iowa!
My marriage is gone! - 15 years ago
I woke up this morning and found that my heterosexual marriage of 20 years is no more! All because Iowa now permits same-sex couples to have what I have had all to myself until yesterday. My straight marriage is gone, gone, gone and I have no idea where it went!
two spirits - 15 years ago
What's the problem with gay marriage? We just doubled your last chance for happiness. Will the world fall apart? I think not. Next thing we will be giving the women the right to vote and guess what will happen then? They will take up smoking and God forbid start wearing pants, and not wearing hats in church, and take to cutting their hair. Gosh they may even start wanting equal pay. Point being, We are all humans and as such are equal. Yes I know there is a God, but I am not about ready to kneel down to all rules/laws in the Bible that we know are wrong in this time. To the women who read this, sorry to use you as an example, I respect you and your rights.
RJMathews - 15 years ago
"2009-04-03 15:07:05 ET
What's next, Two Men and a goat?"
Indeed. That is clearly the logical next step to two consenting adults being allowed to marry.
My big fear is that my own happy heterosexual marriage is in danger. Now that gay marriage is legal, how can a heterosexual like myself avoid getting gay-married? Any advice?
Now that gay marriage is legal, surely none of us will be able to resist engaging in it.
Jenny - 15 years ago
Matt - I would like to hear your argument why racial equality and gay rights are differing issues. I would respond.
Matt - 15 years ago
@Sven from Brooklyn: It is sorta fun to be in an argument where you can't possibly lose.
Matt - 15 years ago
"By the way folks, issues of racial equality and gay marriage are not the same. I would take the trouble to lay out the argument in support of the assertion, but I doubt anyone would actually respond to the argument. They simply would reply with another assertion. As for comparing animals with humans. Of course the analogy is not meant to offer a complete correspondance. Human have the capacity for thought to act beyond their animal natures. We are more than animals and yet, less than the angels. And, we are clearly not gods, although much of the last 100+ years has been spent in trying to make it so. No, equal protection of the laws does not entail the right for two consenting adults to do anything they please. Finally, for those who don't think polygamy would follow, on equal protection grounds, from gay marriage; please explain: Why should number be a limitation on consenting adults getting marriad to each other??? I hope to see a response. Should be interesting. " Hahaha, so you're rejecting the advancement of humanity AND you're still adamant on your "belief" (read as: bullshit) that legalizing polygamy would rise from this? CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP FOLKS!
Allison - 15 years ago
I love my gay friends and family but I don't agree that they should be allowed under law to marry each other. They should be allowed the same rights as everyone else just not through the covenant of marriage.
P.S. Chill haters, it's just makes you sound really stupid.
Jenny - 15 years ago
This is a question for Justin who commented that homosexuals are more likely to molest children. Please provide a study to back up that claim. You will find that all credible studies find there is no correlation between being a homosexual and molesting children. I suggest not making such statements when a quick search of the internet quickly discredits them.
Jenny - 15 years ago
After having read all those who so vehemently attack this decision, I have a question for each of you: have you actually read the opinion? Do yourselves a favor - read all 69 pages of this intelligent and well-rounded opinion and then comment.
Steven - 15 years ago
I like how all the ignorant "conservative so-called-christians" jump to the "it must be the liberals" at every issue. I am a Christian and I vote Democrat. I also read my BIBLE! It seems to me it was the "conservative so-called-christians" who ran a man and his family out of a church!! For what? Where does it say in the Bible to do that! Which not too many "christians" can say these days is that they read the Bible, so we don't hold that against you brainwashed "conservatives". But it seems to me that it was a REPUBLICAN who got caught in the gay-sex scandal in the Minneapolis airport. So you republicans need to find a new strategy other than blaming the "liberals" for all your problems. Jesus did NOT teach us to cry and blame others. GO AND READ YOUR BIBLES and maybe you will realize how completely ignorant and mislead you really are in your beliefs. Christians are to LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. Jesus specifically said that commandment! We are ALL sinners and fall short to the glory of God. What HUMAN has the right to determine which is the worst sin? America has a very warped view on Christianity and gives us who REALLY know what we are supposed to be doing as Christians, and actually PRACTICE JESUS' TEACHING are getting bad name because of your ignorance.
Sven from Brooklyn - 15 years ago
What's the point of even arguing with these people? Fighting superstition with logic is as futile as using a wrench to drink a beer. They're not even in the same family. Why even get angry banging your head against the wall of somebody whose main premise is that a ghost floating in the heavens tells him how to behave? There is no "winning". Try explaining to a violent fundamentalist Muslim why it's o.k. to be another religion. Not particularly fruitful. They're full of the same virulent hate, based on fiction, that the people posting above have. Obviously, I'm an Atheist, but barring some huge "Neo"-figuring-out-the-Matrix revelation sweeping across the planet, it would be nice if Christians, Muslims, Jews, Budhists, Hindu's and people of every faith would at least adhere to the love and forgiveness their texts espouse instead of cherry-picking and re-interpreting convoluted ancient texts to defend their angry, paranoid and selfish world-views. "Christian love" often feels like a whip to those of us on the receiving end.
Alright thumpers.... bring on the psycho-babble. Just realize that to me it sounds like you think Harry Potter is real and is coming to get me.
See you at Ragbrai. I'm going to get drunk all across your state and screw anything that moves.
Anon. - 15 years ago
Same-sex marriages, unions of souls, date back to the early Christian church. Before that (and often after it) gender-biased marriage was a property transfer where a woman was owned by her husband, and used like a tool for making children. Hurrah for Christian values finally triumphing over self-described "Christians".
Jill - 15 years ago
This makes me so happy to be from Iowa. I am appalled, however, by the arguments going on in God's name. It feels to me that people are hiding behind religion to voice their own intolerance. I agree with commenter Carrie, I am baffled by some of the hate-filled illogical responses going on. Marrying animals? Really? People are not animals. No one deserves that comparison.
Justin - 15 years ago
Jumpin Jevohal - you are so historically ignorant I'm not sure I want to waist my time. Never have I hated a homosexual. You don't even know me personally. Because I disagree on homosexuality you say I'm full of hatred. So if I hold a belief that you shouldn't smoke b/c it harms your body then I'm full of hatred too right? So you can disagree with me but I can't disagree with you? Makes perfect sense. Almost all liberals have the same dimented thinking. Be inclusive, be diverse. But the first time you disagree with somebody you'll call names, stereotype (Bible-thumpers), curse and become enraged. You liberals also become defensive the very moment that God or the Bible is mentioned? I agree many "Christians" certainly give Christ a bad name. But what does that have to do with you personally? Has God ever did you wrong? There's so much hate toward God and His word because it brings conviction to a man or woman who is living in sin. Not enough time to or necessary to quote scriptures. The comments here back it all up. That's the whole struggle in life. Live the way you (your flesh) wants to live or how God wants you to live. It's man's nature to want to do his own thing. But this will ultimately end us in chaos and anarchy like we are seeing played out in the world today. It's not God's fault that we're in the shape we're in. Man makes his own decision everyday that he wakes up. When a man is tempted to lust after another's wife, he makes a decision to either entertain those thoughts and ultimately act on those or to turn from temptation and ask God for strength. Only through the blood of Christ can we gain victory over sin. Only if we walk, live in the Spirit will we not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. It's something that played out everyday. A man follows the lusts and empty promise that more money will make him happy so he walks into a store, shoots the clerk, and grabs the money. Sin. His choice. What are you running from Jumpin Jehoval and many others on here? Were you totally truthful on your taxes? No? Does that not affect the rest of society. If every person cheated on their taxes does that not have an adverse affect on society? When people steal in stores does that not drive the prices up for others? When someone commits fraud on a claim, does that not make other's premiums higher? Your actions absolutely affect others; even done in private. Because that affects that person, the way they act, the way they think and they have to go out in society and work with others, communicate, etc. When a man does wrong, more than likely, unless he's totally destroyed his conscience, he knows it and is ashamed, embarrassed, hurt. This affects his actions which affects others he interacts with. Have you ever been encouraged by someone? They had an affect on you. Ever been discouraged by someone? What about pastor's that are found to have cheated on a spouse? Does that not cause great harm, pain, suffering on them, their family, friends, congregations. Same for any other man? Sin has consequences. Perhaps a spouse, for instance, is unaware of her husband’s addiction to pornography, but his addiction leads to a guilty secretiveness and change in attitude toward her as his sexual partner. She perceives that change and speculates on the possible cause—he finds her unattractive, he doesn’t love her any more, or he’s having an affair. While none of these things are true, the consequences of his “private” sin are potentially devastating to her, their marriage, and their family, even if his secret is never discovered. I could go on and on. God created mankind and He also created sex. God said that a woman would leave her home and cleave to the man; commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. When man goes against God, against nature, the outcome is certainly not good. These are my last comments. I pray that someone will read and truly rethink how they are living, what they believe and find a wonderful life in Christ Jesus. He is life. God blss
Dan - 15 years ago
re: Justin! I just talked talked to the Big Man on sat-phone. That's, the G-O-D himself, none other. Gotta' be honest with ya' big guy. He's not happy with the comments you've making about the company. Now we both know that you were just trying to make the company look good - hell, you wouldn't be your damn JOB if you weren't.
Thing is Justin - you can't just go around making mission statements on behalf of the company just because you want to. I can't even do that, and I've been working here for 25 years! Needless to say, the Boss is NOT happy, a feeling exasperated by the fact that he was inundated with angry calls during his golf round with the CEO of Telemex. The company's stock dropped 1.5% moments after your "statement". We just can't tolerate that kind of exposure, and we're going to have to distance ourselves from this, as a company, by taking drastic measures.
Now you've been a valuable member of this team for quite some time, and that's not something the company just going to brush aside. But we can't forgive your disregard for basic company regs, Justin. This comes down from the BIG MAN HIMSELF. . . We're just gonna' have to let you go, my friend. Clean out your desk before 5. Oh, and prepare a statement for press release this afternoon - we're going to have to make you look like a fucking pariah, for damage control purposes obviously.
So, in closing, it's been great having you on board. And don't forget - you're fired.
Carrie - 15 years ago
I am so proud to be from Iowa now. A little less when I read the quality of logic and analysis in some of the comments here, but still....
Jumpin' Jehoval - 15 years ago
What I wonder is, who will the ultra-conservatives and Bible-thumpers demonize next? It was the Jews during the Middle Ages; then Muslims during the Crusades and Protestants during the Inquisition; the blacks during the Industrial Age and into the 20th Century; then women, Communists in the first half of the 20th century, and gays in the latter decades of the 20th Century. But within another generations' dying off, gay people will be a non-issue as the younger generations grow up. The Bible thumpers will need to identify a new target to continue their fund-raising and brain washing. So who do they pick on next?
Jumpin' Jehovah - 15 years ago
"They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, quarreling, deceit, and viciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, haughty, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to their parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless." Sounds like you are describing Justin, Patty, Mike, Jack Meoff, and some of the other "Christians" here.
Pensive Observer - 15 years ago
Why would polygamy be so terrible for society if all parties were equal and consenting? Civil marriage is an agreement to care for one another and to share resources. I saw no posts which supported polygamy. I only saw quotes that jumped to the conclusion that polygamy is bad. Why is the communal agreement of polygamy instantly judged to be negative?
I was going to do a lengthy post and why the Supreme Courts decision in Iowa is correct, but after reading so many insane post and the hatred being spewed here, I will only say this. For those who are upset with the Iowa Supreme Courts decision GET OVER IT!
Dear Newk, then how would you explain the fact that I, raised CATHOLIC, by HETEROSEXUAL PARENTS, and having gone through a FAILED HETEROSEXUAL marriage, would find my soul mate, a WOMAN, who I have been in love with and faithful to now for 18 years?? What interference was there in my childhood?? Possibly the fact that three of my siblings were molested by members of the OPPOSITE SEX????? Yes Evan , your facts are so skewed as to be ridiculous.Are these falsehoods what the churches that are supposed to be teaching the nation's children of love and tolerance are spewing??? Why don't you look up some historical FACTS about how many people were wiped out by the Crusades when Christian Churches tried to forcibly convert people of other faiths? How many people were tortured and killed during the Inquisitions, under the name of God?? How many innocent people were tortured and killed, burned at the stake as witches throughout the centuries?? And Chris, I think we hate that in others most what we hate in ourselves, a little case of "the Lady doth protest too much". You spout hate and violence in the name of God : Who is your God, SATAN???? Isn't that the entity who promotes hate and violence and intolerence?? I am so sick of people thinking that they know what God is thinking. They only read what he was thinking some 2000 years ago. What? God can't change his mind?? Mention NOTHING of the fact that certain Kings and rulers throughout history have rewritten the Bible to suit their own political agendas. If you tell a person a story, then that person tells someone else, and that someone else passes it along, you wind up with three VERY different stories, so how accurate are these 2000 year old stories??? And our Founding Fathers RAN from a country where they were not allowed to worship as they chose, but at that time the King of England was merely a puppet of the church. Separation of Church and State cuts both ways. You are allowed to worship in any way that does not violate anothers civil liberties, and yet 30 or so states, under the hideous disguise of doing " God's work" have stomped all over the equal rights guaranteed us by the US Constitution of at least ten percent of the population. This is why, as a Gulf War veteran of the USAF, and a native Mainer, I took down my American flag, when the bible thumpers of this great state voted away my legal rights , based on their seriously hypocritical religious views. When ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL as declared in our Declaration of Independence, and afforded the same NOT special rights, then I will once again fly Old Glory from that post on the side of my house that I share with my " wife " of over 14 years, who is also my lover of over 18 years. And to the idiot who said that the life expectancy of lesbians is 45, I'll mention that to all of my lesbian friends ( most of whom are in their 50's and 60's). I'm sure they'll get a good laugh out of it.
"Our Liberties We Prize, Our Rights We Will Maintain." God Bless the US State of Iowa. The home of my birth, the home of my ancestors for at least three generations. We came to Iowa when it was still just a territory. "We can be as cold as the month of December but we'll give you the shirt off our backs." Those that cannot believe Iowa allows same-sex marriage does not know Iowan history. Iowa was a major route on the underground railroad, bringing slaves to freedom. My great-great uncle was shot and killed in Western Iowa for helping slaves to freedom from Missouri. Protecting folks rights/freedom is not a new concept for Iowans. God Bless Iowa, my home sweet home.
gay people adopting children so they can turn normal children into gay children sick man how sick
our children are learning that its ok to be gay,im not ok with that.a decision made by an adult reflects apon the children that look their way.i will overt my childs sight as long as i can,and when i cant i will explain the sick and twisted views of so many liberals that push their ideals or lack their of off on those who dont have the platform to defend their right not to allow these forms of opression apon their children,i am strong enough to deflect your opressive ideals and soon my child will be impervius to your perverse attempt to tarnish possitive free thinking
y
I agree with foolishness. What is next? If homosexual marriage is a right, then why isn't polygamy a right? Why can a 14 yr old be thrown in jail for making out with a 13 year old when it is consentual by both (we're not talking sexual intercourse, just making out)? Yes, this is against the law. Why do we limit marriage to 18, or 16 with a parent's consent? How about someone whose preference is sex with an animal? Should Iowa should legalize that too. Equal rights to all!!! Right??? You can't argue that it is not natural if you are arguing man and man or woman and woman is natural. It is a sexual preference...a sexual orientation! Right??
I am not saying gays should be the target of harrassment. I am not saying they should be denied jobs. By all means, if they are the most qualified, go for it! Just like a 60 yr old should be hired over a 25 yr old if they are the most qualified.
Ultimately, it will be the gay person who will pay the price when they meet their maker. And I don't think God is going to say, hey, your lifestyle was just fine with me, that's how I made you.
And ultimately all the Christians will have questions to answer if we just sit back and don't stand up for God's Word. We may not win every battle, but the final victory will be ours if we are standing on HIS WORD.
To any politicians out there reading these comments, if God is your ruler, your judge, then you CAN NOT separate religion and politics. In the end, YOU will be judged for each of your actions just as every human being on this earth. God will not say it was OK because it was the political arena rather than the religious arena. When the nations of God turned away from God, they were defeated. When they were faithful to God, even when greatly outnumbered, they were victorious. Our state and nation need to head this historical wisdom.
Only a person with the intelligence of a goat would say something like this: "What's next, Two Men and a goat?"
Or that this person is so deranged that it would pose a serious threat to our society.
Consider these hypotheticals:
Assume the absolute equality in all respects between a married couple (man/woman) and a homosexual couple (woman/woman or; man/man). Age, character, finances, health and so on. Now, assume both couples want to adopt a baby that is available for adoption. Should the adoption agency give preference to the heterosexual couple? Homosexual couple? Or; should the issue be decided by a metaphorical coin toss?
Now, assume the above initial facts, with the only difference being the person available for adoption is 13. Furthermore, assume the 13 year old has no knowledge of the specific life circumstances of either couple other than one couple is heterosexual and the other homosexual. Should the 13 year be given a choice?
Finally the moment of fairness in a civilized society who respects the union of love for loving couples of independent of what gender you are.
It will go down in history as the liberation day, and the end of oppression era by the religious bigots.
I have no difficulty with the concept of a "New Birth Certificate" that references the names of adoptive parents. As long as the original birth certificate still exists there is no problem. I leave, without comment, the rest of your rantings.
Mike!!! YOU ARE AN AS#
YOU REALLY DNT KNOW WHAT LIVES WE LIVE AND U KNOW WHAT ITS CALLED ADOPTION!!!!!!!!
YOU STRAIGHT PEOPLE WERE TO ADOPT A CHILD YOUR NAMES WOULD BE ON THAT CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFERCATE!!!!!!!! ITS CALLED A NEW BIRTH CERTIFERCATE WHEN THEY ARE ADOPTED
SO MY GIRLFRIEND THE KIDS OTHER MOM HAVE THE RIGHT!!!! TO HAVE HER NAME ON IT!!!!!!!!! YOUR BIGOTRY REALLY NEEDS TO LEAVE THIS SITE AND GO TEACH YOUR KIDS SOME MORALS OF BEING KIND AND RESPECT EVERYONE AND MAYBE YOU SHOULD TAKE A CRASH COURSE TOOO IN RESPECT AND MORALS AND TREATING EVERYONE HOW YOU WOULD WANT TO BE TREATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET A LIFE AND GROW THE F@ UP!!!!
MY KIDS UNDERSTAND THE WORD RESPECT, MY PARTNER AND I HAVE 9 FOSTER KIDS!!! AND 2 OF OUR BIRTH CHILDREN
AGES RANGE FROM 4MONTHS OLD-17 YOU REALLY NEED TO GROW UP
MY KIDS AS YOUNG AS THEY ARE UNDERSTAND THE WORD LOVE, RESPECT, HONOR, CHERISH, AND EQUAL THEY LOVE THAT THEY HAVE 2 MOMS TO RUN TO!!! THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOOO PROBLEM!!
SO SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE AND I REALLY HOPE THAT YOU ARENT TEACHING YOUR CHILDREN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ON HERE!!
Congrats! Iowa! The court decided the right way. I used to live in Iowa and at one time couldn't wait to get the hell out. But now Iowa, my home state, is ahead of New York and California. Indded, we cannot yet buy booze or wine in grocery store yet, but you can in Iowa.
As for the usual arguments such as "it threatens the institution of marriage", I wonder HOW?!! or "it's not biblical". You're right it's not biblical, as most marriages listed in the Bible are polygamous. When you examine (and social conservatives don't) the original Bibical texts, a great deal has been "lost in translation" to satisfy church authorities and others for nearly two millenia. Iowa rocks!
A birth certifcate is not a commentary on the moral character of the parent. There is a reason it is called a birth certificate and not a parent certificate. As I said; the big lie begins here. And official records ought not to be doctored to make someone feel good. They are what they are.
MY PARTNER IS ADOPTING MY CHILDREN WHO ALSO HAPPEN TO BE HER CHILDREN, I GAVE BIRTH TO THEM AND SHE HAS BEEN RAISING THEM FOR A LONG TIME NOW!!! AND SO GUESS WHAT SHE IS THE PARENT!!!
AND HER NAME WILL BE ON THE BIRTH CERTIFERCATE!!!
I DONT THINK THERE SHOULD BE BIOLOGICAL PARENTS ON THERE!!!!
MY PARTNER AND I ARE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING HER NAME ON OUR CHILDRENS BIRTH CERTIFERCATES!!!!!!!! IM SOOO FREAKIN HAPPY!!!
IT TAKES THE BIOLOGICAL FATHERS NAME OFF THEIR BIRTH CERTIFERCATES!!!
I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MY SON'S BIO DAD THANK FREAKIN GOD
NOW WOULD YOU WANT TO HAVE SOMEONES NAME ON A BIRTH CERTIFERCATE IF HE SEXUALLY MOLESTED YOUR DAUGTER?!?!?!
HELL THE F* NO YOU WOULDNT!!!!!
NOW I GOT MY POINT ACROSS!!!
OUR CHILDREN DESERVE TO HAVE BOTH THEIR PARENTS ON THE BIRTH CERTIFERCATE AND WHEN I SAID BOTH PARENTS I MEAN BOTH OF THEIR MOMS WHO TAKE CARE OF THEM!!!!
OR BOTH DADS WHO TAKE CARE OF THEM!
WE DESERVE AND OUR CHILDREN DESERVE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR PARENTS ON THEIR BC!!!
YOU ARE JUST AN ARROGANT AS*HOLE THAT NEEDS TO GO BACK TO REALITY!!!
THANKS MIKE FOR YOUR OPINION ITS NOT FAVORED! BUT U NEED TO GO BACK TO REALITY!!!!!!
IM SOOO GLAD FOR IOWA!!!!!!!! THANK YOU FOR GIVING US GLBT PEOPLE THE SAME RIGHTS AS HETEROSEXUALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is where the big lie begins: "We have the right to have both our names on the birth certificate." No!! You do not. The only names on any birth certificate ought to be the biological parents. Period.
i really am excited to see that IOWA legalized gay marriage, it finally says hey we realize that they are HUMAN too and they deserve the same rights as straight people. and they legalized gay adoption!!!!!! we are soo excited, we are in the process of adopting our foster children, and we cant wait!!!
right now we have 2 children and they are estatic that they will have a few new siblings!!!
we cant be happier. for those of you who object to this, we arent hurting you!! you dont watch us in our own homes!, we are just like anyone of you except that we love the same sex! we ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN YOU!!
we should have the same rights as straight couples!!
and to the person who said he has gay friends omfg! who in the world are you fooling?!?! you dont have gay friends, if they knew who you really were they wouldnt be friends with your arrigont selfish attitude!!! you are really 2face a##hole
I AM PROUD TO SAY I AM A LESBIAN AND I AM PROUD TO SAY WE ARE A LESBIAN FAMILY
I AM ALSO PROUD TO SAY THAT WE ARE PROUD LESBIAN MOMS
I AM PROUD TO SAY WE ARE 2 PROUD LESBIAN FOSTER MOMS!!!
I AM PROUD TO SAY WE WILL BE 2 PROUD LESBIAN ADOPTIVE MOMS!!!
we are here to take children who no one wants!! we love them we should have the rights as you straight couples to have children, to be able to share our partners medical, to have both of our names in the birth certifercate!!
you people that dont agree and think you need to say crap are selfish arrogant people!!
and for those straight people who stick up for us GLBT people THANK YOU!!!!
from the PROUD LESBIAN MOM, PROUD TO BE SOON TO BE LESBIAN ADOPTIVE MOMS, AND PROUD TO BE A LESBIAN FOSTER MOM, AND PROUD TO BE A LESBIAN PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gary. Just to address the points you make. First you say gay people have always had the same as straight in the US. Then you say that expanding the right to marry to gays is a mistake. Your second statement completely contradicts your first!!! (??) Also, it is not giving a privilege to specific group - it is, as you said, expanding a privilege so far only enjoyed by heterosexual couples to gay couples. Next, if being gay is a lifestyle choice, when did you choose to be straight? I just simply can't recall when I chose my sexuality. Odd. Last point, there is no war on christian religion in America, the country is still intensely religious and mostly christian, nothing will change that.
Hope that helps you.
Gay people have always had the same rights as straight people when it comes to marriage. This is pandering to a lifestyle choice. Expanding the definition of marriage beyond that of one man and one woman is a mistake. It is not enhancing civil rights. It is providing specific privilege to a specific group. It is not like denying African Americans the right to vote. No the sky will not fall but our politically oriented judicial system may. Legislating from the bench is not the original intent of the founding fathers for the judicial branch of government.
So why should I pay taxes for the salaries of these judicial legislators to not interpret the law but create a law to pander to a specific group? That is not their job. They should be fired just like the CEO of GM.
The new administration in Washington is intensely secular in their views will and are drastically change the direction of our Nation. The war on religion (more specifically Christianity) in America is being turned up. Socialism and religion do not go well together. Giving homosexuals the right to marry does not impinge on any religious freedom. Freedom is a gift from the True God who is in control of all of what is going on. He is handing us over to our own desires because we refuse to acknowledge him. Our national obsession with rights without responsibility is what this is all about. The Politicians and judges who bring about the type of laws that are the subject of this article could care less about anyone's rights. They just want to be elected and have the power that gives them.
Whoops! I submitted the above for William King. It wasn't written by him.
Mr. King; alas, you haven't understood a word of what I said about the establishment clause. At the time the first Amendment was written the establishment clause meant the Federal Government could not say the Anglican Church, for example, was the official church of the country; or the Catholic Church; or the Baptist Church, or any other particular denomination. In fact, originally, the First Amendment didn't even apply to the states. But that is another story. However, it was not meant to preclude government involvement with general religious practices or prevent the expression of religious, commonly shared viewpoints; otherwise, someone like Lincoln would have been speechless!! Today, however, there is an attempt to constrain religious expression within the four walls of home and church. Additionally, as the state becomes more and more controlling over every aspect of our lives; there can be little room left for advocacy based on religious principles, if the argument is "you can practice your religion anyway you like outside a public regulated activity." Of course, that is exactly what took place under communist regimes. The argument went something like this: There must be a separation of Church and state. The state is everything. Therefore the church is nothing.
Finally, it is time to end the public education system. Every parent must be allowed to keep their portion of taxes for schools to be spent at the school of their choice. This way parents can exercise their right (you like the word???)
to control the education of their children.
This message is also for Mike.
Since you like to take things so litteral and there is no "speperation of Church & State". What is our National Religion? For that matter what is any STate Religion? ANd if there are not any, why Not? Also if there are not any, why don't you try to get one.
Inquiring minds want to know!
This message is for Mike,
Hes is what the 1st amendment says.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So by going what your say about "seperation of Chruch & State" I am free to marry as a Homosexual because my church recognizes gay marriage.
And I quote "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Or is this a case you would rather have us pick and choose what the Bill Of Rights say?
There's no end to this today... Now the Wash DC council makes a move (from www.foxnews.com):
WASHINGTON -- The D.C. Council has voted to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Lawmakers say Tuesday's unanimous vote moves the city a step closer to eventually allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in the nation's capital. Gay couples married in other states are currently recognized as domestic partners when they move to Washington.
The council will hold a final vote on the measure next month. The D.C. Council's action comes the same day that Vermont became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage, joining Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa.
What is this? Equality to be recognized inside the nation's capitol?
AND...they warn about what will happen "come next election day..." Well...in Vermont, what they'll do is vote out the wingnuts that were AGAINST marriage equality. Yay Vermont!!!!!
And this time, it wasn't the activist judges legislating from the bench. It was those activist legislators legislating actively as the people's representatives from the State Legislature! What will the right-wingers say now? Those darn Legislative activists! How dare they presume to legislate from the legislature!
Oh my GOD, Jumpin' Jehovah!!!!!!! I heard it from YOU before I saw the headline. What wonderful news!!! I have a little log cabin in VT and spend much vacation time there. Between living in Massachusetts and summering in Vermont, you'd think I could find a damn HUSBAND, but noooooooooo!
"But when a church chooses to provide state regulated services to the public, they step outside their constitutionally protected zone." Well said, ekim. And by the way, congrats and kudos for what you are doing for your son. And in breaking news just now, today... Vermont makes it 4! Cheers to Vermont for overriding the governor's veto and doing the right thing.
Mike, I stand corrected. Catholic Charities of Boston WAS required by law to continue to facilitate adoptions to any qualified individuals or couples, including lesbian and gay persons. The agency had been facilitating adoptions by gay and lesbian parents for years (one such family, two fabulous moms, are friends of mine from my church) but suddenly the Catholic Church ordered the practice stopped. "Sadly, we have come to a moment when Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Boston must withdraw from the work of adoptions, in order to exercise the religious freedom that was the prompting for having begun adoptions many years ago," [Archbishop Sean P.] O'Malley said in a statement. The Church chose to act in accordance with its values and beliefs. In deed this position DID place the agency on the wrong side of the law, but it is interesting to note that this had nothing to do with the arrival of marriage equality in Massachusetts; it was because of the larger equal protection issue. All adoptions in process were completed. Within weeks, other agencies, public and private, filled the void. All 15 adoption professionals who were employed by Catholic Charities found employment in compliant agencies. Thankfully, individual liberty and religious liberty are coexisting in Massachusetts! Sadly though, there are still not enough couples and individuals willing to step up to the plate and adopt one of the many thousands of older children waiting to be chosen. Here in Massachusetts, the state Department of Children and Families ACTIVELY RECRUITS lesbian and gay couples and individuals to be adoptive parents; I am one of the recruits (although they didn’t really get a chance to twist my arm...I went to them with the decision.) The bottom line for religious freedom: It’s alive and well. Worship and religious practice are safe. No church will ever be required to endorse or perform same sex weddings. No church will ever be required to grant full membership to lesbian and gay individuals who live their lives openly and authentically. But when a church chooses to provide state regulated services to the public, they step outside their constitutionally protected zone. This is as it should be here in America.
If the entire argument from the opposing side is based from a religious stand point, then who do you think you are, God?! What right do you have to judge? The only person who should be allowed to judge is God and that's when you are standing in front of him and pleading your own case. If God didn't want there to be homosexual people, than he wouldn't have put them here. I am a God fearing woman just like you but I don't believe God would intend for anyone to treat other people this way. It sickens and disheartens me to think that there are people out there who have gone as far as to say death unto them. Everyone has a right to their opinions but death threats are a federal offense and deserve the utmost attention from the government. Maybe you who say this should think about what other laws prevent you from killing and threatening to take someone's life before you spew your tyrant hatred in a public forum. This country has built itself on its EQUAL RIGHT FOR ALL and yet you stand to fight against this? This times are changing and that's that. Ask yourself this, would you want anyone in your life living in fear of you? Completely and utterly afraid to tell you the truth about who they are because you may end it. Parents condemning their children to hell for being who they are, siblings turning their backs on each other simply for loving someone who has the same body parts. Is that who you want to be when God sends for you? Judging a person for who they are is not our right, based on religion. The love is no different nor does it mean any less than it does between a man and a woman. Homosexual couples are just as devoted and caring to one another as the relationship between a man and a woman. Let them have their happy endings in life just like anyone else.
Since when is it legal to mix church with state? The Iowa Supreme Court did not base their decision from a religious stand point because they can't and shouldn't. Life is filled with tests from God on each and every one of us, did you ever think you just failed yours? Argue that your God isn't like that, well, prove it. The God I was raised to believe in would never condone murder of another human being, it's a commandment. Having an opinion is one thing but threatening others to instill it is another. Equal rights should include everyone in this country and the world. Not just the people other people have chosen. April 3, 2008 still is a proud day for equal rights and shall stay that way.
Remember who you were and are when heaven calls for you, because they will.
umm mike, how does the assurance that adoption agencies do not discriminate in who they adopt children to force people to accept gay marriage? It doesn't. And don't get upset about something that didn't even happen!
Also adoption agencies shouldn't be making decisions with their own religious beliefs in mind anyway! Not that I know of a religion that warns against its followers helping gay couples adopt..but anyway.
ekim; They stopped providing any adoptions because the law was going to REQUIRE they provide adoptions to gay couples. So much for gay marriage not having anything to do with forcing others to accept it. Or, impinging on others religious beliefs.
Of course religious based social service agencies could not be required to offer adoption to gay couples and likewise, doctors and nurses in religious based hospitals could not be required to perform procedures to provide children to gay couples. It would be their option... After marriage equality came to Massachusetts, Catholic Charities, which had facilitated a number of gay adoptions previously, elected to stop doing so. It was their choice.
To those who believe that a recognized gay marriage right does not impinge on religious freedom: I assume then you would:
Not require religious based social service agencies to offer adoption to gay couples?
Not require doctors and nurses in religious based hospitals to perform procedures to provide children to gay couples?
Not impose a duty on doctors and nurses in secular hospitals to participate in the above practices contrary to their consciences?
Not require religious institutions who may employ gays to offer the same benefits that would be offered to married couples?
Hey TerryM, you are wrong. The phrase is not in the Bill of Rights, nor anywhere else in the Constitution. It appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson expressing his viewpoint of what the first Amendent could mean. For most of our consitutional history the first Amendment prohibition against the establishment of religion simply meant: The Government could not mandate a particular denomination to be the state religion. Modern secularists, which would include most on the forum in support of gay marriage, have worked very hard to have the first Amendment mean the government cannot, in anyway, mix or support a general religious viewpoint. Now, those are two very different meanings of the first Amendment. The first meaning was the context and intent of the founders. The second meaning is the context and intent of the destroyers. By the way, the second meaning was also the meaning given to religous freedom in the old Soviet Union. And yes I know first hand since I was in and out of the Soviet Union on numerous occassions in the 70s and 80s. The Soviet Officials I met with always argued they permitted freedom of religion. Everyone was free to have religious belief in private but COULD NEVER EXPRESS RELIGIOUS VIEWS IN PUBLIC OR TRY TO USE RELIGION AS THE BASIS FOR POLICY. So, please; no more of the separation of church and state mantra.
Hey Mike, I think it's in the 'Bill of Rights'....but I could be wrong : )
Well, I live in the wonderful state of MA, where we've had 'gay marriage' for many years....and believe it or not, the sky hasn't fallen. It's quite simple to me, and that is that all individuals have the basic right of marrying whomever they choose (regardless of their gender). We as Americans should be offended by the notion proposed by the radical/religious right which asserts that we have the right to dictate who our fellow Americans can and can not fall in love with. Aren't we better than this?
Although, I was surprised by the news from the internet about 'Iowa allowing gay marriage'.....because I guess I thought, 'wow, I thought Iowa was all farms? Interesting that these farmers are so fair and broad minded. hmmm?
Anyway, the residents of Iowa should feel proud of being one of the early States to validate the rights of the queer/gay community within their state. One day we will all look back at this and wonder 'how did we ever think we had the right to dictate to others, whom they should fall in love with'
Well done Iowa : )
Be well, Terry M. (Cambridge MA)
p.s. for those that have not embraced this notion as yet, set aside your fear and take note that by allowing others to have their 'civil rights' you are not harmed.....the sky won't fall.
Would someone please explain exactly how same-sex marriage cheapens, ruins, demeans, etc, heterosexual marriage? What is it about a same-sex couple obtaining legal treatment equal to that afforded to heterosexuals, that thereby lowers the bar for heterosexuals? Isn't it more accurate to say that this actually elevates same-sex couples to enjoy and share in a (presumed) higher status held by heterosexuals? Isn't that really what this is about? (to paraphrase, if homosexuals are just the same as heterosexuals under the law, then it follows that the reverse is true - heterosexuals are just the same as homosexuals. God forbid that thought, thinks the fearful and insecure hetero; I am NOT the same as a homosexual).
Otherwise I just don't get what all the fuss is about. It seems that some heterosexuals are just TORTURED by their own thoughts (fantasies, projections, neuroses) about what might be going on somewhere in the privacy of someone else's life.
I am still looking for the phrase "separation of church and state" in the U.S. Constitution, but I can't find it. Can someone help me??? Can you tell me where I can find it?? Thanks.
I think there are a lot of folks here who don't truly understand what being an American means. From the pilgrims who came here to flee persecution to african-americans and women gaining the right to vote, America is based on the Constitution that ALL MEN are created equal. It did not say, only Straight men. Indeed, there should be a separation of Church and State, so unless WE as a country REDEFINE marriage to only pertain to the Church and does NOT include LEGAL rights and benefits of both Federal and State, it is VERY much the Supreme Courts' right to determine whether marriage should be between only a man or a woman, or between two consenting adults of legal age, who have made a commitment to love and cherish each other and care for each other in the eyes of the LAW, not GOD.
If homophobic Churches want to create a new term to define this very commitment as only between a man and woman so they can keep their ceremonies restricted to their religious beliefs, I'm all for it but keep it restricted only for their religion and out of the STATE and Federal Constitution as those are designed to protect ALL human beings, not just straight ones.
I find the argument [What's next; 2 men and a goat?] to be so common and self disclosing of pure ignorance. The argument is absurd; but it does however frame the ignorance of people who say it. To make that argument, one must truly believe that same gender lovers are less of a person and only those individuals who can love the opposite gender are worthy of a commitment that is recognized in the eyes of the law.
The ignorance of the population that is against equal rights for homosexual individuals is emotional rather than rational. When homosexual relationships are banned from marriage - we can easily pass judgment without the fear of social persecution. We can hate them, make jokes about them, and bash their existence. For example; when black people and women did not have the right to vote, we could easily judge them as less of people or people whose opinions did not matter. We could feel superior to their existence; however once the law allowed them to vote - it was the negative judgments against black people and women that became the focus of social persecution. If you continued to view black people and women as insignificant - you were the one being judged as sexist or racist (there is a moral deficiency "recognized" in you now) - and that is why it is so threatening!
People keep using the fact you cannot procreate as proof God did not want same sex couples. Yet those of us that can, man/woman couples, seem to be taking liberties with the ability. Gay/Lesbian couples actually plan their life around having a kid. Hetero couples are draining resources and over-populating the earth. And unfortunately it's often the poor and uneducated of the planet that seem to be having the most kids which is an even more impossible a situation. But what if God is smarter than all of us. I don't think any Christian would argue against that. What if God realizes we aren't able to control our urges in a way that we protect the future. What if God realizes we are using our resources and damaging our planet because there are just too many people. He hasn't passed down His word in a really long time. What if He could produce a revised Bible. Do you think he might state things differently today? Do you think he'd mention 'Thou shalt not drive a vehicle that gets less that 20 mpg?' Or 'Thou shalt not have more children than you can support'. No one would believe it is the word of God of course. You'd be locked up as crazy. Despite 'belief', no one believes things can change. Perhaps the only thing He can do to help us is to evolve His creation. Evolve them to where a percent of us will not further the destruction of His planet by over population. It's just a 'What if..' But 'what if' homosexuality is by God's plan? How would that make you feel?
I think many people, left and right, have a hard time understanding the purpose of courts. The courts do not make laws, they do not ignore the will of the population, the sole purpose of the courts is pass judgement on the validity of a law compared against the constitution of a body. In essence, they rule if a passing majority's law is consistent with the most basic of rules set by the population themselves.
To those who would make this issue out to be different from slavery, or women's suffrage that is also clearly misguided. You may be able to choose who you sleep with, or marry, but ask any homosexual, you are not able to choose who you love. It is not the place of the Moral Majority to dictate who someone should associate with, and it is not the place of the law to deny someone equal rights because they are not a part of the Majority. The United States has always been about upholding the will of the Majority, whilst defending the rights of the Minority. If it weren't this way, there would never have been an American Dream.
I am a 23 year old heterosexual woman who recently had the privilege of getting married. I call it a privilege because while Iowa has finally recognized marriage between same-sex couple the rest of the country has decided to use their privilege to discriminate against same-sex couples. Today I want to leverage my privilege of being heterosexual to give a voice to those who cannot yet marry.
To those of you who believe that homosexuality is a choice, when did you make the “choice” to be heterosexual? I don’t think you did. If being gay was the norm, would you be able to make the “choice” to be attracted to a person of the same sex?
I have a few questions! How does any of this effect your life in anyway? How does two men or two women getting married effect anyones life but there own? People have all types of opinions and beliefs, however being a homosexual is just a word people have given us and WE are still people know matter what! Being gay is the way of life for some people and theres know changing it! The issue is not going anywhere however we as a nation, as Iowans can rise above what other states are doing and be a leader, be what other states want and live life like we all have been, but living life as a whole and not as haters! Martin luther king jr. lead a great life in changing the way America is today!! What would have happened if HE DIDN"T STEP UP and change life?
Homosexual activity is simply a vice like drinking or smoking.
It is not evil and certainly not immoral if the latter two aren't. So why are people who engage in this vice viewed as an unofficial protected class?
To all the people who beleave in pushing hate
I have been gay all my life, being gay is not a choice, but a way of life! I have spent most of my life being judge by other people, and have been told more times than I can count how I'm going to hell for who I am. Let just say so meny people are sceaming about my beleifs being pushed on people, but what about your beleifs being pushed on me. I don't say anyone is going to hell because they beleave that man should be with woman and thats it. I beleave we all should just live and let live. It is a sad world when limit our selfs to hate, and it's even wrost when we tell our kids that. I think people would think twice, when a younge kid kills himself or her self, because they are gay, and they have no where to turn because some lame back hills thought says we"re damed because we beleave or live a differnt way. I do beleave in GOD, but also beleave that he has enough in his heart for you and me. And if this is all about a sin, than what about the part thats says judging anyone is a sin. So if I must go to hell for my life than I will meet so meny of you their, BECAUSE NO SIN IS GREATER THAN THE NEXT.
Thank you IOWA - -I am so proud of our state!
Just from the point of view of an outsider to the U.S., this seems like great news.
Secondly, umm, with all these neo-nazi's commenting, how on earth did Obama win?? Perhaps it's just a case of the minority (haters) being the most out-spoken. Whats that phrase? "Empty vessels make a lot of noise". Yep.
People who qoute a whole lot of nonsensical statistics about gay people should at least cite their sources. It would be interesting to find out who is making it up.
This legislation does not lead to marriage of pedos, animals or polygamy. Mind I can't see why polygamy is so bad, if all the parties involved are consenting, then why not. It's pretty obvious pedophilia and beastiality, amongst other things, are psychological problems, caused by possible past grievances or chemical imbalance. Those people need help. They are not associated with homosexuality. Which is just a natural occurance as sexuality is widely understood to be not a defined catagory, rather a spectrum, with 100% homosexuality and 100% heterosexuality at each end, and due to genetics and chemical makeup, we all fall somewhere on the spectrum.
Very few people are 100% gay or straight, hence our ability to note and percieve attractiveness in both sexes, we are just usually more attracted sexually to one or the other.
Pedophilia and beastiality don't fit AT ALL on this spectrum. They are seperate.
Historically, marriage is not actually traditionally between a man and a woman, so much as one man, and many woman.
Gay parents can definately do the job and do it well, particularly in the sense of cultivating a sense of moral equality and fair treatment of their pairs.
If you are Christian, i'm pretty sure the god you pray to wants you to accept everyone and treat them well, if he exists, he will do the punishing yeah? You don't need to okay?
Also, to say that homosexuals want to encourage atheism is untrue. I'm gay, and I don't believe in god. My parents and nearly my whole family is Catholic, and perhaps it is partly due to my sexuality that I have gained the ability to realise we are not of god or any sort of spirity-hocus pocus or whatever you believe (i'm not trying to offend). It's just clear to me that the whole religion thing and books like the bible were created in an attempt to explain things. They are skewed against gays because the majority of people then, like now was straight, hence the people who wrote it were of the opinion they were the normal ones, and it was also more likely straight people would write such books, simply beacause there was more of them. (Not 98% as much more I hasten to add!! lol).
Anyway, as a person, i am secular, and i'm happy for anyone to believe whatever they want to believe, you just can't force it on other people!!
Everything has a rational explanation. We are all equal!
By the way, has anyone in the equal protection camp noticed, it took constitutional amendments for women to get the universal right to vote and 18 year olds as well. Couldn't get it done by the equal protection clause.
Daniel; Sorry, the evidence is not that people are born gay. It appears your understanding of Constitutional law is suspect as well. The interpretive strategy of this court is called the living, breathing strategy: If we can't find a fundamental right in the constitution; and we want a particular fundamental right; then we announce; the constitution is a living, breathing document meant to be upadated for future generations. By whom? Well, by judges of course. There is another way, course, amend the constitution. However, that is much more difficult and the outcome would be less certain.
The more you think, the less you believe. One is not born a polygamist. One is not born incestuous. The majority of pedophiles are NOT homosexual, and have no wish to marry children- only to assert their power over them. If one wishes NOT to believe the obvious fact that people are born gay, (just as they are born black, or female) then one is not thinking. In this country, no ONE group owns civil rights. No one group gets to decide if others [productive members of civil society] are allowed their civil liberties as endowed by this country's Constitution. Destructive members of society go to jail. Want to protect marriage- don't get a divorce!... but keep your religion away from MY Constitution. That is the idea behind the United States. As usual, those who cannot THINK for themselves are pursuing an ideal that is doomed to fail. The unanimous Republican and Democratic judges in Iowa cannot square the belief of ONLY "one woman-one man marriage" with/and EACH woman and each man being entitled to his and her own rights under our Constitution. Congratulations to Iowans and their example of responsibility and fairness. The BELIEFS of gay marriage opponents will never be successful because of their ignorance of Constitutional law. Ultimately, your vote cannot decide whether or not I get my rights. See you in Iowa at my wedding....
I find it funny that most, if not all, of the people that oppose same sex marriage are "devout Christians" I thought the point of being a Christian was to let God do the judging. Aren't we supposed to love unconditionally? If it truly is a sin, and that could be debated as well, then God will Judge them. Until then, all "Christians" need to quit with the hypocrisy. I think it's time to have a look at your Christian roots and decide if you really want to continue judging, or if you want to say, "Even though they are different, they are God's children, so I must love them unconditionally. God will be the final Judge."
In addition to this, we have a separation of Church and State for a reason. This is strictly a religious battle. Every church can still make its own decision as to whether or not to hold a ceremony for a gay couple, so no one's right's are being infringed upon!
For those of us that are younger, we don't remember the Black Civil Rights movement. Think of all the riots and hate. What came out of it? Eventually Blacks got equality. It's about time it came for Gay people.
we will soon be overrun by gays since we are the only midwest state to legalize gay marraige soon we will have more than we know what to do with.......it will take a tole on sociaty here in iowa and this once great state will be painted up with rainbows and unicorns and all the other "gay" stuff i dont know about you guys but i dont my kids growing up in that kind of state.....LETS ALL MOVE TO SOUTH DAKOTA!!!
Rob and Jon; I know I said my last post was the other day, but I can't resist; especially when I encounter so much stupidity. The gay marriage issue and inter-racial marriage are not connected. I would explain to you why but I doubt you could follow the arguments. As for the court. The court exists to determine if legislative enactments are consistent with a written constitution. It may mean that at times legislative majorities; which many not always reflect societal majorities, will be upheld. It may also mean that legislative majorities may overturned from time to time. However, they don't exist to sanction the claims of any old minority simply because they are in the minority. So please stop the mantra; "we are a minority therefore our rights are being violated." By definition, they may not be. And, yes, we can legislatge morality. It is done all the time. Now, it may be true not all things that are morally wrong, because of purdence, should be the subject of the law. However, I suppose it is possible to argue there is no morality and so the law has no substantive purpose other than pursuing an agenda; like sanctioning any old right that is claimed. Of course, this was the Nazi view of the Law. The law exists to promote the regime. No need for a constitution in these cases. Finally, until the modern judicial revolution "equal protection of the laws" had a much narrower meaning. But, we could pray in public schools until 1962; Can't imagine how the republic survived so long with that majority tyranny.
If I hear one more time that we need to "let the people vote" I think i'll scream. You folks need to read the United States Constitution. The majority cannot vote on rights of a minority. Believe me.. if that was the case, Blacks wouldn't have rights, interracial marriage would not be allowed and i'm pretty sure that women wouldn't have the right to vote.
Get over it!!
The right wing needs to understand that certain things should not be subjected to the approval of a majority of strangers. I know the right wing wackjobs will howl and whine about this, and many civil rights veterans will as well, but cosnider this: if we followed the same tired argument of the "will of the people", we may still not have passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, and interracial marriage would still be illegal in some states,since a majority of people in several states believed African-Americans should not have equal rights.
The courts are there to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. You cannot legislate morality, and might seldom makes right. Heaven help us if we allow a majority of ignorant, conservative, closed-minded bigots to determine what is "normal: and "acceptable", then we are in big trouble. Also remember; one day you may find the balance is completely in the opposite direction. Would you then accept a far-left majority determining what the law of the land should be, simply because of "majority rule"? Think about it.
New England has been the battleground of same-sex marriage for the last five years, with every state with either same-sex marriage or a civil union, excluding Rhode Island, who has had a conservative governor, unwilling to sign anything into law.
Although Iowa legalized same-sex marriage, it's very likely that two other states, Vermont and New Hampshire here in New England, will legalize same-sex marriage as well. Vermont passed legislation with flying colors, and even though their governor promised a veto, the legislature thinks they'll get enough votes to overturn his veto with 2/3rds vote. This would be a major landmark.
New Hampshire, the most conservative state in New England, also passed a bill in the house of representatives that would eliminate their civil unions and replace it with marriage. they're the only state in the country that has a civil union that is the exact equivalent of marriage, but without the name.
A bad day for civilization indeed, legalizing homosexual or "gay" marriage is against natural law, should be against human law, & against Gods law.
Iowans must amend the State Constitution defining marriage between one woman & one man. However legalize civil union, clearly defining it as common law habitation of two humans only. This would preserve equal rights & limit government role in personal relationships,.
The folks who want to restore "traditional" marriage don't take it far enough. We should bring back all aspects of traditional marriage, to whit:
1. Exchange of goods. When I take a wife, I also want the deal to include some cattle, some land, and a dowry.
2. I want multiple wives. More wives = more property and power. King Solomon had what? a few hundred wives? And Abraham. And Isaac. And King David. They were all about as traditional as they come. I want the same.
3. The decision of whom to take as my wives is to be carried out in negotiations with her father. Like Old Testament practice, it should be done on a barter basis. In order to marry the younger, more desirable daughter (eg, Rachel), I promise to first marry the older, less preferred daughter (Leah) and produce sons.
4. Upon my death, property will be passed down to my eldest son only. In the absence of a son, my property will be handed over to my brothers. In the absence of blood brothers, my property will be handed over to my eldest brother in law.
Anything less than this, and the "traditional" marriage folks are just being hypocritical and namby-pamby.
Too bad judges now control the morality of once a great state!
Personally, I don't care if a gay couple wants to get married. The issue is that the court cited equal protection. They cannot say that it applies to civil issues only. By their ruling, then income tax rates should be the same for all income levels. People paying different rates based on income is then a violation of equal protection. I think someone should file a suit against the state demanding the same tax rate for all incomes. In the suit they should cite this ruling. If it applies to gay marriage then it should apply to all laws, like income taxes.
Wow ekiM, you serve as a wonderful role model for me and the thousands of other homosexuals who have the opportunity to adopt! I hope to have the chance to fulfill my civic duty someday! And go you for standing up for the fact that bringing another dad into your house wouldn't confuse your son! There are too many myths out there about homosexuality confusing young children, but none of them are supported by research! Thanks for setting the record straight!
ekim; by the way, I have a relative who is gay, so I have more insight into these issues than one might think. In any case, I take you at your word in summarizing your situation. I would only say, in the end, I think of these things in terms of long range consequences. I also believe there is an important connection between the public and private that tends to be ignored in our world that proclaims "right to privacy" to the heavens. I also believe society is more fragile than one might think as well. I will conclude my commentary on this thread with a wish for your success and happiness. I have meant no malice. I have made my objections to the Iowa Supreme court decision in the most logical and reasonable way possible. At least, that has been my intent. I will continue to argue and work for the common good of society to the best of my ability. The good news is: Baseball season opens next week and my damn Yankees will be in a new ballpark!! Take care, M
Mike, I said just that in my first post, "My success in parenting has nothing to do with my being gay..." Then I went on to point out that "of course civil marriage has nothing to do with how anyone becomes a father or mother." in response to your commentary about how two people of the same sex can't make a baby, as if that has anything to do with marriage equality. As for your thoughts that I shouldn’t bring another dad into the house, my son brings joy to me every time he attempts to 'fix me up' with men he thinks I'll like (and it happens fairly often.) There is a man who lives in another state who has adopted not one but two boys from the foster care system. If it weren't for the distance, we'd be dating; and our three sons would be better for it -- to have yet another caring, responsible, nurturing adult in their lives -- that is NEVER a bad thing. My son is lobbying for us to move and become one family. He knows what is good for him, eh? This other dad is a dream boat -- handsome, kind, intelligent, nurturing, a good cook -- and he is so good with my son. Anyway...this conversation started with your assertions that same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because same sex couples can't use their body parts for the 'normal' purpose. I think we have digressed.
Jumpin Jehovah; go read the Iowa Ct. decision. As a jokester, you are more apt to appreciate the joke of the reasoning found in the decision.
To ekim; there is nothing relevant about being gay in the situation you have described. Your efforts are honorable on their own terms. Now, given the reality of the boys confusion and difficulties I suggest you don't add to his confusion by bringing another 'dad' into the house. And no; don't assume anything about my cherry lane childhood. I am well aware of the circumstances this boy has had to deal with. In fact, much of my thinking on these matters is the result of an attempt to create order out of chaos and make sense of it.
Mike, unfortunately, my son won't have the option of meeting his biological father. He signed the paper relinquishing his claim on the child (before he was even born) indicating he did not want to be "found." And, speaking as a shoe, I've been successfully pounding this nail (my son) for the past five years and, quite honestly I have saved his life. He waited in a 'limbo' state for over five years to be chosen by a family. I came along and, despite the challenges I knew he would present, I chose him. His social workers were certain he would never be adopted (because of his emotional and developmental deficits, caused by the trauma.) Kids who 'age out' in the system don't usually live very healthy or productive adult lives. Incidentally, in Massachusetts it's remarkable how often gay singles and couples actually CHOOSE, not 'settle for' kids with severe physical, emotional, and developmental disabilities. In addition to being heartwarming, it's also a tremendous service to a society that has almost always treated us gay folks as second class citizens. So Mike, I don't point to current problems to justify more liberal policies, and I don't lament that the liberal policies of the past were what brought us to this point. Faced with a child before me who needed to be loved and cared for, to do that would have seemed decidedly unhelpful. I simply saw a need, fell in love with a little boy who needed a family, and made a choice to become his dad.
Mike: "So, what is left? The will to power. And reason is shunted into the dark night,.." I think I know what you mean. After 20 years of traditional marriage to my wife, and raising two children to college age, and reading the news about this S.C. decision... this morning I woke up with the oddest feeling: I wanted to buy leather chaps, get a nipple ring, and have one of my ears pierced. I wanted to kiss another man. In public. I want to sing show tunes. It's something that is just coming over me all of a sudden. I. Just. Can't. Seem. To. Help. My. Self.
Sharon; Hannah Arendt, in trying to explain, the participation of many thousands of people in the National Socialist movement (Nazis) observed they had lost the capacity to think. We see a similar kind of situation today. The post-modern world wants everyone to say they see 4 lights when there are in fact only 3 lights present. As for the transgressions of Christians: The modern world, through the worshiping of man as gods, has destroyed more lives and created more horror in 100 years than the Christian era could possibly have achieved in 1000. All the totalitarian man worshiping systems; fascism; communism; indivdualism and so on all have the same foundation; the denial of God. Nietzsche saw it all coming in the late 19th century:
"Where has God gone? I will tell. We have killed him; you and I. And, we are all his murderers." So, what is left? The will to power. And reason is shunted into the dark night, the abyss. Well, I can tell you, I will not go quietly into the abyss. I will resist to your face*; gay marriage; abortion; euthanasia, and the will to power in all its manifestations.
All those who support the above named nonsense.
to Sharon, who asks: "What were these people thinking, or were they?" They seem to have been thinking that "equality" means that everybody should be treated the same under the laws of the state.
I have lived in Austin for 10 years, which is now considered the gay capitol of the US. The repercussions here are profound. I am not proud to say that I live in Austin. The motto here is "keep Austin weird" and it is. I was proud to say that I was from Iowa, but no longer. This is an outrage and an insult to God and country. There will be consequences to the state and it won't be good. Of all the things that are going on in this country right now, I think this is the saddest thing of all. What were these people thinking, or were they?
All you Christians should stop trying to push your beliefs on everyone else. Separation of church and state is a foundation to our country's government for a reason because you Christian morons have used it to defend slavery, segregation and so many other social atrocities in our past. Before you even say "our founding fathers said in god we trust" or some other misguided quote from history, God or Christianity are NEVER mentioned in our Constitution (The piece of paper that regulates our country and our rights). Our founding fathers were NOT Christians, in fact they made sure to let everyone know they were theists(Washington,Jefferson, Madison, Franklin,Lincoln and Adams are included in this list). Feel free to believe in your superstition but don't try and take away rights from other human beings because you interpret 1600 year old text written by random desert nomads as God's word. Also, calling gay marriage something other than marriage would be a similar clause to the separate but equal period in our history, you should examine yourself as a person if you think that is a viable option.
You people don't believe in Santa, aliens, Bigfoot or ghosts, so why do you still hold onto these ancient mythologies so close to your heart.
Face the fact that as more of you old people die, your bigoted beliefs will slowly die with you the same way ideologies supporting slavery died with that generation of bigots. It is never too late to grow up, let your old superstitions go and worry about your own life.
My above post is for ekim.
Sir; I happen to think the modern world has lost contact with the ability to integrate our reason with our passions. A thing (object) or our person has a natural use or end. A thing can be used for purposes other than the best use; for example, I could pound a nail with a shoe. We now live in a world were people want to say it is perfectly normal to sell shoes in a hardware stores to pound nails; if one likes. The fact that the idea of parenthood is not met by many does not preclude the point that we would be better off if the idea were met. By the way, I believe it was a mistake to go away from states divorce laws requiring cause to be shown for a divorce. Many of the problems concerning children and other social issues result from a sky high divorce rate. We allowed the courts to give people freedom to their passions without realizing the harm to society for a lack of reason. In my view, gay couples ought not to adopt unless the child is of an age to consent. However, in your case I assume your child will be given the option to seek his biological father if he so desires? Finally, on this point: I would say liberals always point to current problems to justify more liberal policies, when it is the liberal policies of the past that have brought us to this point.
Now; concerning the Iowa Supreme Court decision interpretive strategy. I am 15 pages into the decision. Early on the court announces it will follow the living, breathing understanding of the constitution. So, right up front all arguments based on community standards, common law, precedent, intent are out the window. It is the same interpretive strategy used by Liberal courts over the past 50 years to basically say: We will substitute our will for the will of anyone else; and the constitution be damned.
I AM A STRAIGHT MAN. LET ME BE CLEAR HERE. EQUAL RIGHTS ARE EQUAL RIGHTS! LET ME ASK YOU ALL SOMETHING, WHAT SIDE OF EQUALITY DO YOU STAND ON? WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT EQUALITY YOU ARE EITHER WRONG OR YOU ARE RIGHT. NOW, IF YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE THAT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE'S VERSION OF MARRIAGE NEED I REMIND YOU THAT IT WAS WRITTEN BY MAN. IT IS INTERESTING THEN IN THESE SAME WRITINGS BY MAN EXODUS 21:7 SAYS THAT I CAN SELL MY DAUGHTER INTO SLAVERY AND THAT I MY SELF CAN OWN SLAVES. BOY WILL THIS HELP MY FINANCIAL SITUATION IN THIS ECONOMY BECAUSE MY DAUGHTER WILL FETCH A HIGH PRICE. I COULD SURE USE THE EXTRA MONEY TO PURCHASE SLAVES. I CAN FINALLY JUST SIT AROUND AS MY SLAVES DO MY BIDDING. I AM WORRIED THOUGH, WITH EXODUS 35:2 BECAUSE IT CLEARLY STATES I SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH FOR WORKING ON THE SABBATH. I WANT TO KNOW THEN FROM YOU, DO I HAVE TO FEAR MY NEIGHBOR COMING TO KILL ME ON MY WAY TO WORK ON THE DAY OF THE SABBATH. I AM A REGISTERED NURSE WORKING IN AN ICU. WHO WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU OR YOUR LOVED ONES WHEN MYSELF AND MY STAFF ARE PUT TO DEATH. THE BIBLE ALSO SAYS I STONE MY NEIGHBOR THIS SPRING WHEN SHE PLANTS IN HER GARDEN TWO DIFFERENT CROPS SIDE BY SIDE. OR WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO ME AS I WEAR CLOTHES MADE FROM TWO DIFFERENT FIBERS OR THREADS? LEVITICUS 11:7 SAYS TOUCHING THE SKIN OF A DEAD PIG MAKES ONE UNCLEAN. SHOULD I THEN BAN MY SON FROM PLAYING FOOTBALL AND TAKING PART IN THE CAMARADERIE AND FRIENDSHIP OF TEAM PLAY, OR LOBBY CONGRESS TO BAN FOOTBALL ALL TOGETHER TO PROTECT MY CHILD AND COMMUNITY FROM BECOMING UNCLEAN OR PUT TO DEATH FOR WORKING ON THE SABBATH SHOULD THIS BE ONE'S JOB. ISN'T IT STRANGE HOW INDIVIDUALS WILL ONLY USE THE BIBLE VERSES THAT SERVE THEIR OWN AGENDAS? SINCE 54% OF MARRIAGES END IN DIVORCE MAYBE WE SHOULD BAN THESE INDIVIDUALS THE SANCTITY OF A SECOND MARRIAGE BECAUSE THEY DEFILED THE SANCTITY OF THEIR FIRST. IF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE MEANS SOOOO MUCH TO YOU WHY HAVE YOU NOT LOBBIED FOR CIVIL UNIONS THAT GRANT THE SAME RIGHTS TO INDIVIDUALS IN LOVING RELATIONSHIPS. THIS WOULD HAVE PROTECTED THE 46% OF YOU THAT HAVE NOT DEFILED THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE. YOU COULD HAVE DONE THIS A LONG TIME AGO WHEN THIS DEBATE GOT STARTED OR EVEN PUSH FOR IT NOW. YOU HAVE HAD PLENTY OF TIME SINCE THESE UNEQUAL DEBATES BEGAN. COME ON, YOU ALL KNOWING PEOPLE HAD TO HAVE SEEN THIS COMING. SO AGAIN I STATE, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT EQUALITY YOU ARE EITHER WRONG OR YOU'RE RIGHT. WHAT SIDE OF EQUALITY DO YOU STAND ON???
Will someone please respond to my assertion that polygamy isn't necessarily undesirable under the principles of civil marriage.
@ekiM, I applaud your story! Gays can serve society in a positive way as you have clearly demonstrated! Bravo! Also, you made a perfect point about the fact that civil marriage isn't primarily about proceedtion. If it were, elderly people would be excluded from marriage. Also, if it were so important for a child to have a male and a female parent, we would have to outlaw single parenthood and divorce that gives custody to only one parent. That leads me to assert that if it is so important to preserve the "sanctity" of marriage, we should outlaw divorce to protect our society. I believe most people would resist that movement vehemently (as they probably should). Our modern society has created civil marriage that must be separate from religious mandates. I would certainly support the idea of giving all heterosexual and homosexual couples a civil union for the legal side of marriage while the church could control the religious side of marriage (a similar system is seen in France). The truth is that society made a big mistake by not separating marriage, a clearly religious thing, from government a long time ago! Everyone could be a winner in this argument if we stopped issuing government marriage licenses and only issued civil unions to any two consenting adults who wish to combine their lives and assets. The religiously concerned wouldn't lose their definition of marriage, and all couples would gain the protection they deserve. Anyone like that idea?
Mike, Civil marriage does not exist exclusively or primarily to support procreation. What one uses her or his body parts for has nothing to do with marriage. The word normal simply means the most common type. I don't really think it's reasonable to say that sexual intercourse for the purpose of procreation is the most common thing we do with out sexual body parts. Most of us pee a lot more often than we have sex.
It's true that as a gay man, I cannot make a baby with another man. But I can raise a child with another man and that child's basic welfare is much better supported if he or she can be legally related to both dads. But let's not get into that here because these comments are about same sex marriage, not same sex parenting.
I live in Massachusetts but unfortunately I haven't yet met the man of my dreams. I do hope to be married some day though. I am however a dad. In 2001 I was matched by the Big Brother Program with a little eight-year-old boy. He had been horribly neglected by his heterosexual mother and sexually abused by her heterosexual boyfriend (not the boy's biological father.) The bio-dad never laid eyes on his beautiful son -- the pregnancy resulted from a one night stand. After removal from the birth "home" at age five, this boy floated to three different foster homes and was living in an institution when we were first matched. At age 10, after two years as my 'little brother' he moved into my home. At age eleven, we appeared before the same judge who had given the original order to remove him from the abusive "home" and she joyfully granted my adoption of my son. Today he's fifteen and continues to suffer the typical after-affects of his abusive early childhood -- difficulty in school, trouble controlling his emotions, mental health issues -- but he has put behind him at least one of these after-affects: inability to trust adults. He knows he is loved unconditionally by me and that his safety and welfare are of utmost importance to me. I am a much better man for this experience of parenting my son. My success in parenting has nothing to do with my being gay, and of course civil marriage has nothing to do with how anyone becomes a father or mother.
Now, is there anything else I can help you with?
I meant to write; "not necessarily" in the above post.
1. I have never grounded any of my points on a theological argument. 2. Homosexuality is not like blue eyes and handedness; blue eyed people can see normally, left handed and right handed people can exercise all the functions appropriate to the use of hands. Homosexuals cannot procreate together naturally, therefore the physical attributes of homosexuals cannot be used for their normal purpose. If a blue eyed person were blind we would not say being blind is like being not blind. 3. I intend to read the entire Iowa decision and respond. I have read parts and am particularly struck about the judges non-concern for children. "We find no evidence of harm to children, but if we did, that would necessarily---" and so on.
Now, please respond to the above arguments, if you can. But, don't rant on about "Christian haters."
Homosexuality is a normal human variant like blue eyes and handedness. Much more education is obviously needed. What is exciting about the Iowa decision is the clear respect shown to churches and the state and our Constitution's wisdom in making that distinction. Believe what you want - but don't force others - particularly absent a factual basis. Bravo, Iowa!
I woke up this morning and found that my heterosexual marriage of 20 years is no more! All because Iowa now permits same-sex couples to have what I have had all to myself until yesterday. My straight marriage is gone, gone, gone and I have no idea where it went!
What's the problem with gay marriage? We just doubled your last chance for happiness. Will the world fall apart? I think not. Next thing we will be giving the women the right to vote and guess what will happen then? They will take up smoking and God forbid start wearing pants, and not wearing hats in church, and take to cutting their hair. Gosh they may even start wanting equal pay. Point being, We are all humans and as such are equal. Yes I know there is a God, but I am not about ready to kneel down to all rules/laws in the Bible that we know are wrong in this time. To the women who read this, sorry to use you as an example, I respect you and your rights.
"2009-04-03 15:07:05 ET
What's next, Two Men and a goat?"
Indeed. That is clearly the logical next step to two consenting adults being allowed to marry.
My big fear is that my own happy heterosexual marriage is in danger. Now that gay marriage is legal, how can a heterosexual like myself avoid getting gay-married? Any advice?
Now that gay marriage is legal, surely none of us will be able to resist engaging in it.
Matt - I would like to hear your argument why racial equality and gay rights are differing issues. I would respond.
@Sven from Brooklyn: It is sorta fun to be in an argument where you can't possibly lose.
"By the way folks, issues of racial equality and gay marriage are not the same. I would take the trouble to lay out the argument in support of the assertion, but I doubt anyone would actually respond to the argument. They simply would reply with another assertion. As for comparing animals with humans. Of course the analogy is not meant to offer a complete correspondance. Human have the capacity for thought to act beyond their animal natures. We are more than animals and yet, less than the angels. And, we are clearly not gods, although much of the last 100+ years has been spent in trying to make it so. No, equal protection of the laws does not entail the right for two consenting adults to do anything they please. Finally, for those who don't think polygamy would follow, on equal protection grounds, from gay marriage; please explain: Why should number be a limitation on consenting adults getting marriad to each other??? I hope to see a response. Should be interesting. " Hahaha, so you're rejecting the advancement of humanity AND you're still adamant on your "belief" (read as: bullshit) that legalizing polygamy would rise from this? CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP FOLKS!
I love my gay friends and family but I don't agree that they should be allowed under law to marry each other. They should be allowed the same rights as everyone else just not through the covenant of marriage.
P.S. Chill haters, it's just makes you sound really stupid.
This is a question for Justin who commented that homosexuals are more likely to molest children. Please provide a study to back up that claim. You will find that all credible studies find there is no correlation between being a homosexual and molesting children. I suggest not making such statements when a quick search of the internet quickly discredits them.
After having read all those who so vehemently attack this decision, I have a question for each of you: have you actually read the opinion? Do yourselves a favor - read all 69 pages of this intelligent and well-rounded opinion and then comment.
I like how all the ignorant "conservative so-called-christians" jump to the "it must be the liberals" at every issue. I am a Christian and I vote Democrat. I also read my BIBLE! It seems to me it was the "conservative so-called-christians" who ran a man and his family out of a church!! For what? Where does it say in the Bible to do that! Which not too many "christians" can say these days is that they read the Bible, so we don't hold that against you brainwashed "conservatives". But it seems to me that it was a REPUBLICAN who got caught in the gay-sex scandal in the Minneapolis airport. So you republicans need to find a new strategy other than blaming the "liberals" for all your problems. Jesus did NOT teach us to cry and blame others. GO AND READ YOUR BIBLES and maybe you will realize how completely ignorant and mislead you really are in your beliefs. Christians are to LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. Jesus specifically said that commandment! We are ALL sinners and fall short to the glory of God. What HUMAN has the right to determine which is the worst sin? America has a very warped view on Christianity and gives us who REALLY know what we are supposed to be doing as Christians, and actually PRACTICE JESUS' TEACHING are getting bad name because of your ignorance.
What's the point of even arguing with these people? Fighting superstition with logic is as futile as using a wrench to drink a beer. They're not even in the same family. Why even get angry banging your head against the wall of somebody whose main premise is that a ghost floating in the heavens tells him how to behave? There is no "winning". Try explaining to a violent fundamentalist Muslim why it's o.k. to be another religion. Not particularly fruitful. They're full of the same virulent hate, based on fiction, that the people posting above have. Obviously, I'm an Atheist, but barring some huge "Neo"-figuring-out-the-Matrix revelation sweeping across the planet, it would be nice if Christians, Muslims, Jews, Budhists, Hindu's and people of every faith would at least adhere to the love and forgiveness their texts espouse instead of cherry-picking and re-interpreting convoluted ancient texts to defend their angry, paranoid and selfish world-views. "Christian love" often feels like a whip to those of us on the receiving end.
Alright thumpers.... bring on the psycho-babble. Just realize that to me it sounds like you think Harry Potter is real and is coming to get me.
See you at Ragbrai. I'm going to get drunk all across your state and screw anything that moves.
Same-sex marriages, unions of souls, date back to the early Christian church. Before that (and often after it) gender-biased marriage was a property transfer where a woman was owned by her husband, and used like a tool for making children. Hurrah for Christian values finally triumphing over self-described "Christians".
This makes me so happy to be from Iowa. I am appalled, however, by the arguments going on in God's name. It feels to me that people are hiding behind religion to voice their own intolerance. I agree with commenter Carrie, I am baffled by some of the hate-filled illogical responses going on. Marrying animals? Really? People are not animals. No one deserves that comparison.
Jumpin Jevohal - you are so historically ignorant I'm not sure I want to waist my time. Never have I hated a homosexual. You don't even know me personally. Because I disagree on homosexuality you say I'm full of hatred. So if I hold a belief that you shouldn't smoke b/c it harms your body then I'm full of hatred too right? So you can disagree with me but I can't disagree with you? Makes perfect sense. Almost all liberals have the same dimented thinking. Be inclusive, be diverse. But the first time you disagree with somebody you'll call names, stereotype (Bible-thumpers), curse and become enraged. You liberals also become defensive the very moment that God or the Bible is mentioned? I agree many "Christians" certainly give Christ a bad name. But what does that have to do with you personally? Has God ever did you wrong? There's so much hate toward God and His word because it brings conviction to a man or woman who is living in sin. Not enough time to or necessary to quote scriptures. The comments here back it all up. That's the whole struggle in life. Live the way you (your flesh) wants to live or how God wants you to live. It's man's nature to want to do his own thing. But this will ultimately end us in chaos and anarchy like we are seeing played out in the world today. It's not God's fault that we're in the shape we're in. Man makes his own decision everyday that he wakes up. When a man is tempted to lust after another's wife, he makes a decision to either entertain those thoughts and ultimately act on those or to turn from temptation and ask God for strength. Only through the blood of Christ can we gain victory over sin. Only if we walk, live in the Spirit will we not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. It's something that played out everyday. A man follows the lusts and empty promise that more money will make him happy so he walks into a store, shoots the clerk, and grabs the money. Sin. His choice. What are you running from Jumpin Jehoval and many others on here? Were you totally truthful on your taxes? No? Does that not affect the rest of society. If every person cheated on their taxes does that not have an adverse affect on society? When people steal in stores does that not drive the prices up for others? When someone commits fraud on a claim, does that not make other's premiums higher? Your actions absolutely affect others; even done in private. Because that affects that person, the way they act, the way they think and they have to go out in society and work with others, communicate, etc. When a man does wrong, more than likely, unless he's totally destroyed his conscience, he knows it and is ashamed, embarrassed, hurt. This affects his actions which affects others he interacts with. Have you ever been encouraged by someone? They had an affect on you. Ever been discouraged by someone? What about pastor's that are found to have cheated on a spouse? Does that not cause great harm, pain, suffering on them, their family, friends, congregations. Same for any other man? Sin has consequences. Perhaps a spouse, for instance, is unaware of her husband’s addiction to pornography, but his addiction leads to a guilty secretiveness and change in attitude toward her as his sexual partner. She perceives that change and speculates on the possible cause—he finds her unattractive, he doesn’t love her any more, or he’s having an affair. While none of these things are true, the consequences of his “private” sin are potentially devastating to her, their marriage, and their family, even if his secret is never discovered. I could go on and on. God created mankind and He also created sex. God said that a woman would leave her home and cleave to the man; commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. When man goes against God, against nature, the outcome is certainly not good. These are my last comments. I pray that someone will read and truly rethink how they are living, what they believe and find a wonderful life in Christ Jesus. He is life. God blss
re: Justin! I just talked talked to the Big Man on sat-phone. That's, the G-O-D himself, none other. Gotta' be honest with ya' big guy. He's not happy with the comments you've making about the company. Now we both know that you were just trying to make the company look good - hell, you wouldn't be your damn JOB if you weren't.
Thing is Justin - you can't just go around making mission statements on behalf of the company just because you want to. I can't even do that, and I've been working here for 25 years! Needless to say, the Boss is NOT happy, a feeling exasperated by the fact that he was inundated with angry calls during his golf round with the CEO of Telemex. The company's stock dropped 1.5% moments after your "statement". We just can't tolerate that kind of exposure, and we're going to have to distance ourselves from this, as a company, by taking drastic measures.
Now you've been a valuable member of this team for quite some time, and that's not something the company just going to brush aside. But we can't forgive your disregard for basic company regs, Justin. This comes down from the BIG MAN HIMSELF. . . We're just gonna' have to let you go, my friend. Clean out your desk before 5. Oh, and prepare a statement for press release this afternoon - we're going to have to make you look like a fucking pariah, for damage control purposes obviously.
So, in closing, it's been great having you on board. And don't forget - you're fired.
I am so proud to be from Iowa now. A little less when I read the quality of logic and analysis in some of the comments here, but still....
What I wonder is, who will the ultra-conservatives and Bible-thumpers demonize next? It was the Jews during the Middle Ages; then Muslims during the Crusades and Protestants during the Inquisition; the blacks during the Industrial Age and into the 20th Century; then women, Communists in the first half of the 20th century, and gays in the latter decades of the 20th Century. But within another generations' dying off, gay people will be a non-issue as the younger generations grow up. The Bible thumpers will need to identify a new target to continue their fund-raising and brain washing. So who do they pick on next?
"They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, quarreling, deceit, and viciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, haughty, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to their parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless." Sounds like you are describing Justin, Patty, Mike, Jack Meoff, and some of the other "Christians" here.
Why would polygamy be so terrible for society if all parties were equal and consenting? Civil marriage is an agreement to care for one another and to share resources. I saw no posts which supported polygamy. I only saw quotes that jumped to the conclusion that polygamy is bad. Why is the communal agreement of polygamy instantly judged to be negative?
I was going to do a lengthy post and why the Supreme Courts decision in Iowa is correct, but after reading so many insane post and the hatred being spewed here, I will only say this. For those who are upset with the Iowa Supreme Courts decision GET OVER IT!