Iowa court rules same-sex couples can marry

A peck of pickled peppers!

It's a human rights issue, like Kucinich said at the GLBT debate. It's difficult for me to understand the mentality that insists marriage must be between a man and a woman.

It mostly feels like an anti-gay issue to me. I am surprised that various states, like Washington, have found that banning same sex marriage does not violate equal protection laws.

Hell, if they can strike down affirmative action laws, I really don't see why it hasn't happened with gay marriage. Although, in the case of affirmative action it was the majority demographic that thought/thinks they are getting a raw deal.

I was gonna go with a "and a partridge in a pear tree." But yours works well too.

As to the topic at hand, let gays marry, just don't force churches to allow them to wed there if they don't want them(gays) to. Seperation of Church and State should work both ways and gays should have the same rights under the law that straits do.

Of course that's to simple an answer so I'm sure that won't happen.

Well it's not like the successes of the civil rights movement were met with widespread approval. I want to say that sometimes the courts make necessary changes and then the rest of the country is forced to catch up, but given the current Supreme Court I'm not so sure.

Man, I love my country.

edit: Well, except for the nasty racism and stuff.

edit 2: Never mind, I don't.

I believe in Europe when couples marry, they first have to get a civil service done then they can go and get married in a church if they like. I don't understand why the same can't be done here? Then you're leaving it up to the individual churches on whether they approve or disapprove of the marriage. But I guess because that would be rather logical, it won't fly here in the states.

That was kind of what I was getting at. It solves the problem that gay/lesbians are facing and allows Churches who choose to, to carry out weddings for gays/lesbians. I know the hardcore fundamentals are going to be against any type of union for gay/lesbians but all citizens should be seen as equal in the eyes of the law.

Nasty racism and stuff aside, I love your country too.

Nasty racism and stuff aside, our country's not so bad either.

This is always brought up by church-goers, and I don't get it. Who out there is even suggesting that Churches should be 'forced' to recognize gay marriage? Nobody is, but people keep brining it up like it's a possibility. The fact is, it's only brought up because anti gay marriage leaders know how to get people to fight against something. There's probably a lot of religious types who don't give a shit if the state recognizes a gay marriage, so how do you get them to fight against it? Tell them the evil government will come into your church and force dogma on you!

Be prejudiced in private all you like. Worship a God that hates his children. Worship satan, I don't give a fuck. This is about equal rights under law, not under a douchebag God.

So what does that have to do with me? If anything I'm agreeing with you about it being an equal rights issue. The point of me bringing up the Church at all was to point out that the Church really has no gripe with it. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

It clouds the argument. It's a non-sequitur that insinuates something that's not true. It's like saying 'yeah, I'm pro-choice, just as long as the doctors aren't aborting children at random, shoving their tools up everyone's birth canals. Because that's something that should remain illegal'.

By bringing it up you're saying that it's a possibility and raising doubt about the whole situation.

It pisses me off that this is even an issue. It's two consenting adults who as individuals have the same rights under the law as every other individual. It doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. I just cannot see how this is anything other than rampant homophobia.

Well, here I'll clear it up for you.

Gays/lesbians should be allowed to marry.

Does that make it any clearer?

I must first of all say that I am in favor of civil unions or whatever in order to apply legal protections, benefits and whatever else that heterosexual couples enjoy that is the basic crux of the gay marriage argument.

My first thoughts several years ago when this began making much hay in Massachusetts was that equal protection applies to all people in the regard that we are free/equal to marry anyone of the opposite sex.

That being said I must lay a good deal of blame at my queer brethrens feet for being unable to compromise. 2004 saw several gay marriage/civil union statutes fail but were resurrected in 2006 and passed overwhelmingly. My theory on that? Stubborness over the word "marriage".

My state saw a ban on even civil unions and this upset me. However the gay "agenda" made a monster push for gay "marriage" instead of seeing the fact that red staters were not going to give up "marriage".

Is this a bullshit semantic argument? Quite possibly but if the national debate had been couched in terms of civil unions only and for the purposes of the inherent legal ramifications of hetero marriage then I cannot help but think many more states would have found a compromise point. In the end though I think the gay lobby pissed off too many people (read: fundamentalist legislators) by insisting on "marriage".

True dat.

I got that from your first post, jackass. Is my point reaching you, at all? I'm well aware that you don't give a shit, but when you insinuate the possibility that the gays are trying to get the government to force churches to recognize same-sex marriages then you're perpetuating a lie that would keep what you support from actually happening.

Stubbornness on which side, the gays or the straights?

If narrow-minded people truly believe the government is gonna storm their churches and force them to marry gay/lesbians do you think they NEED someone else to insinuate anything?
I'm sorry you're offended at how I worded my post. I'm not going to argue with you anymore on the topic. You've decided I wronged the argument by bringing church into it and I disagree.

Gays.

Gays pushed, straights dug in.

Had the gay lobby simply realized the uphill battle of trying to apply the word marriage across the board instead of focusing on the true matter at hand I think they might have gotten at least half the states that backlashed to present compromise legislation.

What is the crux of the argument? Is it love and churches and ceremonies and receptions and all that? No, the entirety of the exercise was and is to extend the legal benefits of two people cohabitating in a state sponsored relationship to same sex couples.

As I said the semantics of the argument are bullshit on both sides. However gays were the one seeking a change in the status quo. Coming to the table and saying, "We realize John and Suzy Biblethumper like the word marriage and want to reserve it for breeders only. We just want the legal benefits and don't want to offend you by appropriating a word. We just want our unions to be recognized by the state." would have had a much more meaningful impact.

And it would have pissed off a lot less people who vote.

What the hell are you on about? No matter what the "gay agenda" (?) asked for, civil unions or marriages, the response is the same. The term "marriage" is how it was reported...just because the media sensationalizes the issue doesn't mean that the "gays" (?) endorse it. If your position was true than why have so many states outlawed gay marriage, civil unions AND private contracts between partners? Good job blaming homosexuals for the mistreatment though, that is just swell.

And may I commend you for not reading everything I wrote. Glad we could have this exchange.

He's arguing strategy, not ethics or consistency.

The thing is that gay couples do want to be married, not simply civilly unionized or whatever, so arguing for this lesser status would have missed the point in all regards and would have been disingenuous, anyway, since they'd eventually push for the inevitable recognition of gay marriage. The desire is to change the status quo, at least in terms of cultural recognition, if not in terms of church acceptance.

It's not entirely a valid analogy, but black activists didn't do this kind of strategic hairsplitting - it's not like MLK would have said, "Okay, you can keep the segregated fountains as long as we can get some integration going in the schools, okay? And the 'back of the bus' thing? We'll let that stand if you make the seats comfier, m'kay?" When your goal is equality, you don't settle for "kinda sorta equality." That's a bad strategy, as it perpetuates the idea that there are some merits to the perceived inequality in the first place, and that you're happy to compromise on what you consider to be your rights.

Scsotdc, as DaveB posted above, we've already learned that separate but equal isn't. I think what needs to be communicated here is that marriage can be a government-sanctioned institution that can (and often does) have nothing to do with a religious organization. Heteronormative religious types need to understand that isn't their word and they aren't allowed to act as if it is. Making nice-nice and playing strategy isn't going to make that happen. Why on earth would gay rights activists want to ingratiate themselves to these bigots?

Also, this is the second thread in a couple of days in which I've seen you refer to homosexuals as "queer." I realize that you're being colloquial and that you mean no offense by it, but, honestly, it sounds kind of weird. Maybe it's just my own discomfort shining through, but it makes me picture you chewing on a toothpick and wearing a greasy baseball cap.

He's a libertarian, and libertarians do whatever the fuck they want!

Wow, does being a libertarian also mean you are a dismissive twat? I have read all of your posts in this thread and posed an honest question to you and that is your response? You really ARE swell.

If I took your post incorrectly then by all means I retract what I said. Your opening line coupled with "blaming homosexuals" put me on guard. If you were being innocuous then I missed it.

The end result of the push for change was legal recognition that brings about with it certain perks the government confers on you for cohabitating with one person and by extension, like it or not, perpetuating the species for more taxpayers. Getting a civil union recognized and then saying you are married in everyday language is much different than asking heterosexual couples to put you on the same footing right off the bat. Does it suck? Yeah, but that's ignorant people for you.

I would argue that MLK's insistance on non-violent protest was a passive aggressive form of the same strategies I am suggesting would have helped the gay lobby. Which road did America go down for change, King's or Malcolm's "By any means necessary."?

The stereotypical view of gays is this flaunting personality type. It began with the whole "We're here, were queer, get used to it." sloganeering back in the late 80's, early 90's. I think middle America got tired of being flaunted to. Sad, I know, but it seems to be a plausible theory.

Don't forget, the spectre of "gay marriage" is a classic Rovian button that gets pushed when the GOP/Bushie crowd needs to "energize the base." What "energize the base" means is to legitimize the fear/hatred/bully mentality that lurks in even the most outwardly gracious people to attain a desired result. Throw some noncontroversial issue out there, most people can't be bothered, but push buttons way down at the root of who they think they are and they'll become your worker bees.

I honestly don't think most politicians give two $#!@& about the issue, but they know it's one that gets people fired up. The corporate media likes to stoke the flames, giving that same hatred/fear/bully mentality a platform to air itself out as some kind of virtue. But at the end of the day you have to see it for what it is. History will not be kind to the anti-gay crowd (like the scary mob of the anti-immigration crowd). It's bigotry and hatred; there's nothing legitimate about it. Disguising it as some kind of respect for something sacred is just a lie.

Again, please call me Scotty for the ease of typing.

Diplomacy often involves luring your opponent into a false sense of security. Hmm, that doesn't sound quite right.

How about this, so far most of you have obviously come across some pretty wacky libertarians who adhere to the fringes of my politcal party. One of us must have killed GFC's dog fer fuck's sake. Here comes little ole Scotty though wanting to play in your reindeer games. I could jump in and just begin spouting party line for this argument and that but that would lead to quite a bit of dismissiveness.

Alternately I can present my viewpoints in as logical, intelligent and friendly a manner as possible and perhaps we all come to a point where we amicably agree to disagree. As Neal Boortz tells callers, after he immediately hangs up on them, who say they believe everything he does, "Well, then one of us isn't necessary."

In the same way I think that the gay lobby could have done a better job for those that they represent. I don't particularly see it as ingratiating themselves to bigots. I see it as getting a foot in the door and letting familiarity breed complacency. If you have your legal recognition then overtime referring to your union as a marriage will become second nature for almost everyone.

Did that come out the way I intend it to?

Most of the homosexuals I know actually prefer the term queer. To my knowledge it became en vogue when Queer Eye hit the tube. Perhaps it has dropped out of fashion. I shall have to call my friends and ask.

Can I say giblets?

*EDIT* Also, not that I plan on turning on you guys and going libertarian moonbat. Just the best way I can think of right now to explain my position.

Exactly, yt. I think that, were gay rights activists to fight for civil unions rather than marriage, it would assent to the fear and shame that conservatives like to stir up. It would, in effect say, "yeah, there is something different/wrong about us and we should be given a different type of protection under the law." I think it is a far better thing to push and push hard for equal protection for same-sex couples under the law.

But isn't that what you were saying gays wanted in the Chicago thread? To be recognized as different and get different protections?

*EDIT* Didn't like the way I originally said this.

I understand what you're saying, Scotty, but I think most same-sex couples would prefer acknowledgment to sneaking in the back door when no one's looking, if only because that will guarantee that some bigoted bureaucrat won't attempt to deprive them of their rights because she/he thinks that he/she can get away with it. Plus, public recognition (and I'm not just talking about your family - I'm talking about being married in everyone's eyes) of one of the biggest decisions you'll ever make in your life is kind of nice.

As for terminology - I'm sure your gay friends sometimes call each other queers, just like my gay friends and I do. But there is something to be said for certain groups having a privileged relationship with certain words. Just as I'd prefer if my male friends didn't call me a cunt, I'm quite certain that my Hispanic friends would prefer that I didn't call them wetbacks. I know that different people have different opinions on this matter, but that's mine.

eta - I'm sorry if it read that way, Scotty, but I wasn't saying that at all. What I was saying is that, under the 14th Amendment and, with regards to hate crimes laws that are on the books, if someone commits a crime against a homosexual because that person is a homosexual, the punishment should reflect that fact. An extra degree of malice is involved there and it should be noted. I don't think there should be special rules for homosexuals/minorities/women, but I think that if some sick bastard has a problem with one of those groups, and this problem drives them to do harm/intimidate, this needs to be addressed in a legal context.

I don't think that any gay American should edit which kinds of freedoms they want based on the prejudices of red staters, even if it meant inching toward those freedoms a little bit faster. If marriage and civil unions were the same thing, there wouldn't be an argument.

Beam me up, Scotty. Beam us all up.

ETA: Crap, I wasted my 1000th post on this?

Minsky, it wasn't a waste. You used your 1,000th post to defend your gay brothers and sisters and to make a tragically awful Star Trek joke. That, my friend, is the good fight.

There's a few things wrong with this statement. One, it takes for granted the work that Malcolm X did in moving Civil Rights forward. MLK was intimidating to white America until Malcolm showed up and showed them what intimidating really is. That swayed opinion toward MLK as something of a moderate, someone white America could trust. It's always good to have extremists there to make everyone else more comfortable with the 'moderate' opinion.

Two, you're also insinuating that Gay Rights Lobbyists who are calling for equal marriage rights are analogous to Malcolm X threatening America. Gays never said they were going to 'take' what they wanted if it wasn't given to them. They've followed the non-violent, as non-threatening as possible routine to a T. It's one of the reasons they're not winning the war at the moment. They'll win battles like this here and there, but on a national level, they're still being ignored.

Three, it also intimates that people should just sit back and wait for their rights to come to them. As if change has every occurred in this nation or any other without the right mix of outrage, protest and anger.

As for a Libertarian hurting my dog, I don't get why you think I'm angry or bitter towards you all. I really don't think about Libertarians much at all, I just think the mindset to follow such a philosophy is juvenile.

Better if it was "six sets of same-sex supplicants."

I still think the entire marriage protection issue should be revamped. Children are what we need to protect and the tax breaks, etc. should be focused on keeping minor children in stable environments - regardless of the status or orientation of their parents or guardians. If, as a nation, we want adults to be able to delegate other adults to make legal decisions for them, inherit, etc that shouldn't be limited to marriage, IMHO.

Guttenberg already answered this, but it should be emphasized how wrong this analogy is.

You're not distinguishing between ends and the means to those ends. For gay marriage advocates to say they'd settle for civil unions is either a changing of the ends (something MLK did NOT do) or a strategic lie about the ends (also something that MLK did not do). The chief difference between MLK and Malcolm X is the means to the ends. To make your analogy more accurate, you'd have to find rival groups of gay marriage advocates, one of which would employ lobbying or peaceful protest and the other of which would be more willing to engage in "by any means necessary" style upheaval. You're probably not gonna find the latter.

A couple of you people are really thick. There have been pushes for Civil Unions...all that does it spur anti-Civil Union laws. Stop blaming gays for the passage and popularity of anti-gay legislation. Don't tell me you've never heard that blaming the victim is wrong?

I'm gonna try to derail here and play devil's advocate. I'm prepared for a drubbing.

I'm in favor of gay marriage. However I'll use the right wing argument.(No I'm not going to compare gay marriage to a person marrying an animal, which I've actually heard a fundy do.) Does anyone think that this type of marital legal protection should be afforded to polygamists? Or...(gulp) members of the same family?(probly go over big in North Dakota.) Why or why not?

The thing is, it doesn't matter. Polygamy or incestuous marriages are not an argument against gay marriage. It's a fraudulent idea floated by the right that misses the point as much as, though not as offensively as, saying gay marriage could open the door for people to marry animals.

Do you consider polygamy and incest as being similar to homosexuality? If not, then I don't get the point of the question.

DRUB! DRUB! DRUB!

Polygamists and incestuous unions are causing harm and inequality. Gay unions are not.

How does some guy like Hudson having three hot wives cause inequality?

ETA: Just because I don't even have one?

What about Bi-sexuals? They should have to choose one or the other? Can't Decide! Can't decide!

The only reasonable (i.e. not looney Religious bullshit) argument anyone can make against same-sex unions is based on economics. Assuming a roughly 1-7% gay population statistic (The classic 10% number has been tossed around without any substantial evidence, but there's not much better to counter it out side of a vague 1-7% range), and then say 25% of those wish to become married, and then estimate that 25% of those people exist with only 1 out of two people working in a job involving benefits, then there's a potential burden there of businesses having to assume health care/life insurance benefits for possibly .5 % of the population. Even with co-pays this is a pretty substantial financial hit to the corporate world that the marriage income tax penalty doesn't offset.

With that said, it's just another argument for implementing a semi-decent universal health care system, and it's time America got out of it's archaic religious mentality and let people live their lives however they wish.