Now Iowa
April 3rd, 2009 11:22 am · 22 comments
Iowa Supreme Court rules - unanimously! - that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.
This will trigger the usual OUTRAGE! But it strikes me that we are seeing society change before our very eyes, and it is not because - as conservatives would have it - some minority is pushing its radical agenda upon the majority via the courts. In fact, I think we’re getting to an age where the majority accepts that gay marriages/unions need to be legally accommodated somehow. Demographics plays a huge role in this, as does the passage of time. What might have been unthinkable a decade ago now becomes just another political point to be argued, not so unusual after all.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Tags: Gay marriage
There are currently 22 comments on this blog postView Topic | Comment on this blogGayDutchBoi
4/3/09
9:55 PM | Bottom line, conservatives are the minority (although you can't do anything to help them get it), and b/c of their hateful thinking, they will continue to shrink. They've destroyed the republican party, for which I once was a member, until the hate began. The tent is tiny, don't let them fool you. And that tent is getting smaller, picture the US map below MD, no wait, below VA, no wait, below NC. Get it folks. You can have your bible, it's silly rule and live your life how you wish. But do not attempt to legislate my life based upon your fantasies. |
Goldilocks
4/4/09
9:47 AM | Yet another ruling based on the decisions of judges and not the voice and voting of the people. Welcome to the new socialist America, where a few elite judges rule and the majority of the people have no voice.
|
Bustina di tè
4/4/09
10:09 AM | Yet another ruling based on the decisions of judges and not the voice and voting of the people. Welcome to the new America, where the elite judges rule and the people have no voice.
How about protecting the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. You know, the reason we have a representative instead of a direct democracy. Something some of you would have learned if you weren't sleeping in civics class.
A majority of Germans were in favor of the "Final Solution", by Goldie's logic, that makes it right. |
Goldilocks
4/4/09
10:27 AM | How about protecting the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
There are always two sides to a coin.
How about protecting the majority from the tyranny of the minority.
Just my opinion, but I wish a compromise could be reached on this issue, like civil unions with all the perks of marriage.
BTW. marriage is not a right, but a privilege, requiring a criteria to be met. |
dragonrider
4/4/09
11:53 AM | There are always two sides to a coin.
How about protecting the majority from the tyranny of the minority.
Just my opinion, but I wish a compromise could be reached on this issue, like civil unions with all the perks of marriage.
BTW. marriage is not a right, but a privilege, requiring a criteria to be met. Yeah compromise like seperate water fountains for blacks and whites or seperate school systems. Seperate but unequal, you know like apartheid in South Africa. I wish we could come to a compromise with conservative christians like they live their life according to their understanding of the bible and they leave the rest of us the fug alone. |
tugrad
4/4/09
5:46 PM | Yet another ruling based on the decisions of judges and not the voice and voting of the people. Welcome to the new socialist America, where a few elite judges rule and the majority of the people have no voice.
Again I will remind you that it was judges not "the voice and voting of the people" that changed civil rights laws for blacks. |
Bigmaclender2
4/4/09
6:05 PM | There are always two sides to a coin.
How about protecting the majority from the tyranny of the minority.
Just my opinion, but I wish a compromise could be reached on this issue, like civil unions with all the perks of marriage.
BTW. marriage is not a right, but a privilege, requiring a criteria to be met.
I agree completely with your statements. I do belive that gays, for the most part, expect to be handed the entire package and it should just be that way "because it's the right thing to do". One should crawl before they walk. IMOO, civil unions would be a monumental step in the right direction for gay rights in the USA. Instead of accepting this compromise it seems as if gays are saying, indirectly, "we want it all or nothing". I, as most of you know, am gay and know my position. I don't like when any idea is "shoved" down my throat sideways without a chance to even digest it. Something is better than nothing-compromise, in this specific instance, is the key, IMOO. |
dragonrider
4/4/09
11:34 PM | I agree completely with your statements. I do belive that gays, for the most part, expect to be handed the entire package and it should just be that way "because it's the right thing to do". One should crawl before they walk. IMOO, civil unions would be a monumental step in the right direction for gay rights in the USA. Instead of accepting this compromise it seems as if gays are saying, indirectly, "we want it all or nothing". I, as most of you know, am gay and know my position. I don't like when any idea is "shoved" down my throat sideways without a chance to even digest it. Something is better than nothing-compromise, in this specific instance, is the key, IMOO.
Rights are not something one negotiates. We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. There is no less equal or more equal there is only equal. |
fuego
4/7/09
6:02 AM | There are always two sides to a coin.
How about protecting the majority from the tyranny of the minority.
The majority is hardly being tyrannized. This particular minority is simply being granted an equal right (or privilege, however you chose to call it.)
Just my opinion, but I wish a compromise could be reached on this issue, like civil unions with all the perks of marriage.
If civil unions had all the perks of marriage, other than the title, what would be the difference?
BTW. marriage is not a right, but a privilege, requiring a criteria to be met.
Perhaps it would be easier to see it as a "privilege" if it were something that could be taken away from rapists, murderers and child molesters. But seeing as they're still able to be married (assuming of course, they want to marry someone of the opposite sex) I have a hard time as seeing it as anything but a right. |
fuego
4/7/09
6:19 AM | I agree completely with your statements. I do belive that gays, for the most part, expect to be handed the entire package and it should just be that way "because it's the right thing to do". One should crawl before they walk. IMOO, civil unions would be a monumental step in the right direction for gay rights in the USA. Instead of accepting this compromise it seems as if gays are saying, indirectly, "we want it all or nothing". I, as most of you know, am gay and know my position. I don't like when any idea is "shoved" down my throat sideways without a chance to even digest it. Something is better than nothing-compromise, in this specific instance, is the key, IMOO.
As I said to Goldilocks, assuming her idea of civil union with all the perks of marriage, what would be the difference other than what it were called? I don't know of any- and while my estimation of public intelligence tends to be fairly low, I do believe that most people would be intelligent enough to see that we're talking about the same thing with two different names.
And if you're thinking of civil unions without all the same perks, with them eventually phased in....where do you start? What comes first? What comes later? When do you introduce hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights? In the meantime, what of the man who's dying in the hospital whose family is barring his committed partner from seeing him? Or what of the woman who dies and leaves part of her estate to her partner, which is then taken away from her because the family of the deceased challenges it in court? They're still screwed.
If all are equal in the eyes of the law, why should equal same-sex marriages have to wait? The issue has been in question for quite some time now, it's not like this is some new thing that no one's ever heard of. Back in the 1920's, women were suddenly, all at once given the right to vote. A lot of men didn't like that, but there was no compromise there. There was no compromise when schools were desegregated. Do you consider those issues to have been shoved down people's throats sideways with no chance to digest them? |
Freedom
4/7/09
6:44 AM | Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.
Your premise Gil, as usual, is wrong. The majority of Americans aren't accepting gay marraige as normal. Look at California, and many other states, including Iowa, who have banned gay marraige by the will of the people, only to be overturned by activist judges. But hey, you keep telling yourself you are on the side of the majority. If it helps you sleep at night and helps your company sell more papers, touche. But its disingenuous to try to spin the will of the people to match your beliefs.
...but...the beat goes on |
always_smiling
4/7/09
7:26 AM | If you want to call them civil unions that is fine with me. Let's call them all civil unions then. I for one don't mind calling my marriage a civil union if it is for the greater good of the people. If by someone calling their union together a marriage somehow takes away from your marriage then you need to closely look at your marriage because there is something wrong with it that has nothing to do with this issue. |
dragonrider
4/7/09
7:49 AM | Civil Unions are never even close to being equal to marriages. Some civil unions are no better than TP for their value. |
always_smiling
4/7/09
9:37 AM | I was only talking about changing the name of marriage to civil union. Everything else, benifits wise, etc. would be equal. |
Shawn
4/7/09
9:47 AM | There are always two sides to a coin.
How about protecting the majority from the tyranny of the minority.
Just my opinion, but I wish a compromise could be reached on this issue, like civil unions with all the perks of marriage.
BTW. marriage is not a right, but a privilege, requiring a criteria to be met.
Actually, there are three sides to a coin. The third side being the edge, and that is where compromise comes in. In your opinion, what is the difference between a marriage and a civil union? What the the necessary criteria to be met for a marriage?
I think the compromise is to make all legally binding unions and those recognized by the state and fed government, civil unions. Marriage then becomes a religious event that is at the discression of churches, but confers or denies no legal rights in the eyes of the state and fed government.
Later...Shawn |
Jake-9
4/7/09
11:15 AM | Woo...here we go again!
BTW. marriage is not a right, but a privilege, requiring a criteria to be met.
Please elaborate on these criteria?
I think the compromise is to make all legally binding unions and those recognized by the state and fed government, civil unions. Marriage then becomes a religious event that is at the discression of churches, but confers or denies no legal rights in the eyes of the state and fed government.
While some compromises are great, creating two seperate but equal classifications of unions is a complete waste of time and resources. There is already a perfectly good system in place, why duplicate it. I think you should be required to carry a different drivers license to drive a car, suv, truck, and minivan. So that's four licenses to do the same exact thing. Get my point? I believe the discussion had already happened about 'Marriage' not being a sole religious event. Churches can deny a couple the 'privilege' to be married in the eyes of god, or whatever they call it. Yet you can be 'married' without ever setting foot in a church, or having any religious affiliation. The whole religious aspect is moot, it's a tactic for oppression and segregation. If we're going to go down the path that a 'marriage' has a religious aspect, then that would force every straight couple that doesn't plan on being married in a church to use the 'civil union' term. Think that will go over well? I doubt it.
Also again, 51% is hardly a majority opinion. Because that's 51% of the people who care enough to vote, which is what less than 50% of the eligible voting population anyway? So that means less than 25% of the population actually are so insecure about their own sexual desires they find it necessary to pass ridiculous laws saying who can marry who. I'm sure I pay more in taxes already then the majority of those 25% (which are most likely over 40) as far as I'm concerned they can suck it. I'll be out voting down their medicare and social security increases...see how they like me then! lol |
dragonrider
4/7/09
11:19 AM | I agree that marriage is a religous institution and as such should be seperate from any benefits received therein from government. Any and all benefits from a union of two people should be based on a civil union open to all people of all sexual orientations. Religion should play no part in wether a person receives a tax break or has inheritance rights, or rights to make medical decisions these are the province of government. Seperate church from state , open all unions to any two people. Religous marriage should be just that conferring no more rights than baptism as far as government goes. |
Shawn
4/7/09
11:25 AM | Woo...here we go again!
Please elaborate on these criteria?
While some compromises are great, creating two seperate but equal classifications of unions is a complete waste of time and resources. There is already a perfectly good system in place, why duplicate it. I think you should be required to carry a different drivers license to drive a car, suv, truck, and minivan. So that's four licenses to do the same exact thing. Get my point? I believe the discussion had already happened about 'Marriage' not being a sole religious event. Churches can deny a couple the 'privilege' to be married in the eyes of god, or whatever they call it. Yet you can be 'married' without ever setting foot in a church, or having any religious affiliation. The whole religious aspect is moot, it's a tactic for oppression and segregation. If we're going to go down the path that a 'marriage' has a religious aspect, then that would force every straight couple that doesn't plan on being married in a church to use the 'civil union' term. Think that will go over well? I doubt it.
Thats not exactly what I'm talking about. In the eyes of government entities (both state and Fed), there would be only one thing -- Civil Unions. Thats it. The other thing -- Marriage would confer nothing to the individuals involved other than whatever they get out of it from a religious perspective. Getting married in a church would not grant a couple any legal rights or benefits from a government perspecitve. I do think that every stright couple, whether they are married or not, would use the 'civil union' term. That would be part of the compromise. I'm perfectly fine with sticking with the term "Marriage". I couldn't possibly care less what term someone uses to define my union with my wife. Just so long as I get the same benefits from the government as the next couple that has a union.
Later...Shawn |
Jake-9
4/7/09
12:04 PM | Thats not exactly what I'm talking about. In the eyes of government entities (both state and Fed), there would be only one thing -- Civil Unions. Thats it. The other thing -- Marriage would confer nothing to the individuals involved other than whatever they get out of it from a religious perspective. Getting married in a church would not grant a couple any legal rights or benefits from a government perspecitve. I do think that every stright couple, whether they are married or not, would use the 'civil union' term. That would be part of the compromise. I'm perfectly fine with sticking with the term "Marriage". I couldn't possibly care less what term someone uses to define my union with my wife. Just so long as I get the same benefits from the government as the next couple that has a union.
Later...Shawn
Ok, I understand where you're coming from, but I think heads will roll if you try to tell everyone that as part of a 'compromise' you're going to change the legal term of marriage to civil union for everyone. If you want to call yourself married, then you have to have a ceremony in the church. It's a circular argument over terminology. I personally don't care what you call it, but I do not see any reason to create two complete yet equal terms as some suggest as a compromise. It is pointless. I understand it takes small steps to get somewhere, but this isn't 1940 anymore. It's 2009, as a world and culture we're further ahead than our though process. It's the religious aspect that makes it difficult. If you take that out of the mix the real majority doesn't care, and I don't think they care either way. As a country our priorities are so f'd up, we spend so much time worrying, complaining, and debating over topics (such as gay marriage) that really have absolutely no affect on anything, then actually trying to do something worthwhile. I wonder how much $ has actually been spent on fight for/against gay marriage...I'm sure there is a better use for it somewhere. |
grieker
4/7/09
12:35 PM | Yet another ruling based on the decisions of judges and not the voice and voting of the people. Welcome to the new socialist America, where a few elite judges rule and the majority of the people have no voice.
AMEN! God help us. |
Jake-9
4/7/09
4:42 PM | AMEN! God help us.
I don't think you're praying right  |
dragonrider
4/8/09
8:52 AM | And then there's Vermont! |
View Topic | Comment on this blog
