Iowa legalizes same-sex marraige!

[TheTitanicExpert 0]

It's about time!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage

Now the third state to have it legal!

[Duke87 1,070]

Iowa, of all places.

I hit the mute button on my computer before clicking the link, half expecting to get rickrolled or something.

But damn, it's real!

3 down, 47 to go...

[belfastuniguy 18]

I welcome it and hope other states follow. To me it's not about damaging the institution of marriage, becuase to be honest straight people have been doing that rather well themselves. It is also not about pawning gay couples off with 'civil partnerships' it's about allowing them the right to avail of a legal union that others take for granted.

No one is saying that religious institutions have to perform gay marriage, I wouldn't ask such a thing, but marriage is NOT a religious union, its a legal union and as such I see no reason why it should be denied to gay people who simply want to marry and give the final seal to their relationship. What harm does that do?

Does the marriage of a gay couple suddenly shatter the world around you? I think people need to get a grip of themselves if that believe that and all the religious BS that accompanies such moves.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Iowa legalizes same-sex marraige!quote>

Why the exclamation point? I know it is exciting, but it may carry connotations of disapproval of the decision.

That said, I concur with Duke -- 3 down, 47 to go. It's time to grant homosexuals the right that they have been denied by their government for too long: the right to marry the (or one) person they love. Real progress is very refreshing in a climate of pure uncertainty.

[fukuda 351]

It's time to grant homosexuals the right that they have been denied by their government for too longquote>

Well, it's technically society that denied them their rights, looks like the average Iowan didn't appreciate this at all..

[DuskTrooper 314]

Iowa? Ya know what this means? Your uncle can now also be your wife!

...yeah...

[ironicepitome 0]

Iowa, oh my god. I've always thought of Iowa as Conservative-Uber Republican- Anti Stem Cell/ Gay people. IOWA!!!!

O well, my uncles from San Francisco, so I'm used to the gay thing (but don't like it). But IOWA!

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

marriage is NOT a religious union, its a legal unionquote>

An awful lot of people would beg to differ with you on that, and they'd be standing on some pretty firm ground.

Historically, marriage was very much a religious institution. But, we've codified the term into law, and that throws a wrench into things.

Which is why I've always said that the optimal thing to do would be to have the state only grant civil unions to all couples, and leave the term "marriage" out of the law entirely.

Problem is, that's not what the gays want, since it still enables the churches to deny them something, if not the government. It gives them equal treatment under the law, but it does not get them accepted as equals by socitety.

The latter is a much larger and trickier battle, for this reason:

In order for women to be accepted as equals, the notion that men were superior to women had to be defeated.

In order for blacks to be accepted as equals, the notion that whites were superior to blacks had to be defeated.

In order for gays to be accepted as equals, the notion that homosexuality or the practice thereof is a sin will have to be defeated.

And there's the rub. Religion, a very powerful force, was ultimately in favor of the first two. Martin Luther King was a pastor and invoked god in his speeches quite often. But that same very powerful force is decidedly against the third.

The (and I hate to use this term, but) inconvenient truth here is that, well, "this town ain't big enough for the two of us". Christianity (at least as we know it) and gays cannot both be simultaneously accepted by society. It's impossible for two groups to coexist peacefully and tolerantly when one believes the other's lifestyle to be sinful.

So, ultimately, somebody's rights have to get trampled on here. Either the Christians maintain their right to preach against homosexuality, or the gays get their right to live their lifestyle and not be preached against. It can't be both ways.

Given that, it's no small wonder that gays are always attacking the church. If they don't take it down, they will continue to be oppressed and treated as outcasts.

*prepares for barrage of bricks from angry Christians*

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

The (and I hate to use this term, but) inconvenient truth here is that, well, "this town ain't big enough for the two of us". Christianity (at least as we know it) and gays cannot both be simultaneously accepted by society. It's impossible for two groups to coexist peacefully and tolerantly when one belives the other's lifestyle to be sinful. quote>

There are Christians and then there are Christians. They don't all believe the same thing.

[Zelgadis 638]

Need I say more?

Iowa isn't as conservative as y'all may think. It went for Obama in the last election. In the last election, Iowa went to Bush and in the previous one, it went to Gore. Sandwiched between the liberal north and conservative south, you never know what they'll do.

ISF

[Meg 368]

The home of Slipknot!

. . . had a Sloppet flashback there for a second . . .

[yamaneko 2]

Iowa is part of the Northern Midwest, which has a long history of liberal and progressive activism, and was among the first states to pass civil rights legislation. They stood by Bill Clinton with a handful of other states when he was unpopular in 1994.

On the other hand, this was a decision of judges in a state that voted for Bush twice. The churches who got California to pass Prop 8 will probably be in Iowa tomorrow morning to demand that Iowans amend their Constitution.

By the way, if any state can practice tolerance and coexistence, it would be Iowa. Mother Nature enforces neighborliness, on pain of death by drowning or freezing.

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: yamaneko

On the other hand, this was a decision of judges in a state that voted for Bush twice.

quote>

Once, actually.  They voted for Al Gore in 2000. 

ISF

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

There are Christians and then there are Christians. They don't all believe the same thing.quote>

No, but it is a fundamental principle of Christianity that homosexuality, or at least the practice thereof, is a sin. To say otherwise is to contradict something explicitly stated in the Bible. I'm not going to say Christianity can't adjust, but it won't be easy. Accepting homosexuality with open arms means accepting that you can ignore parts of the Bible which listening to does you a disservice, or something similar. Which is why the "as we know it" caveat is there. A Christianity which can accept homosexuality would be a decidedly different Christianity from the one we know today.

Of course, the christianity we know today is decidedly different from the Christianity of even just a couple hundred years ago. So it can change and addapt. The question is: will it?

[DuskTrooper 314]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

The home of Slipknot!

. . . had a Sloppet flashback there for a second . . .

quote>

Des Moines even! XD

I srsly wonder what happened to that dude

[matusmatus 0]

As an Iowan, I wish I could be offended when I read "Iowa of all places", but that was my first reaction, too.

Intended or not, it might provide economic stimulus? Education in Iowa is better than you might think, but they take their degrees elsewhere.

[belfastuniguy 18]

An awful lot of people would beg to differ with you on that, and they'd be standing on some pretty firm ground.

Historically, marriage was very much a religious institution. But, we've codified the term into law, and that throws a wrench into things.

Which is why I've always said that the optimal thing to do would be to have the state only grant civil unions to all couples, and leave the term "marriage" out of the law entirely.

Problem is, that's not what the gays want, since it still enables the churches to deny them something, if not the government. It gives them equal treatment under the law, but it does not get them accepted as equals by socitety.quote>

Indeed a lot would, however the term marriage was not originally a religious term, in fact the first recorded use of the word marriage was in Roman Italy and it given to describe the union of two men.

And there's the rub. Religion, a very powerful force, was ultimately in favor of the first two. Martin Luther King was a pastor and invoked god in his speeches quite often. But that same very powerful force is decidedly against the third.quote>

I would agree, but thankfully their influence is declining and as such society is becoming more enlightened and free of the more archaic and distasteful opinions that some religions have.

The (and I hate to use this term, but) inconvenient truth here is that, well, "this town ain't big enough for the two of us". Christianity (at least as we know it) and gays cannot both be simultaneously accepted by society. It's impossible for two groups to coexist peacefully and tolerantly when one believes the other's lifestyle to be sinful.

So, ultimately, somebody's rights have to get trampled on here. Either the Christians maintain their right to preach against homosexuality, or the gays get their right to live their lifestyle and not be preached against. It can't be both ways.quote>

Yes and no.

I would not campaign against freedom of speech, but with homosexuality it becomes complicated. Some would argue that homosexuality is not a choice for an individual while religious belief is. As such gay people are to be protected against hate and oppression. In the UK with have strict Hate Crime legislation as well as some of the best anti-homophobia laws and guidelines. We also have laws to protect the rights of people to hold a religious belief and not be subject to incitement of religious hated. However, the view that religion for too long has been over stepping the mark is shown by the abolition of blasphemy laws and a general shift in society.

To say otherwise is to contradict something explicitly stated in the Bible. I'm not going to say Christianity can't adjust, but it won't be easy. Accepting homosexuality with open arms means accepting that you can ignore parts of the Bible which listening to does you a disservice, or something similar. Which is why the "as we know it" caveat is there. A Christianity which can accept homosexuality would be a decidedly different Christianity from the one we know today.

quote>

Well that's hardly something new, they have done it in the past and revised parts of the Bible. They can do the same with homosexuality. To be honest, I don't think they have much choice, especially in western and developed nations, were such things are becoming less tolerated.

[saltandsauce 0]

civil partnership i don't care if it's legalised for homosexuals. but forcing the church into accepting something it clearly does not is fascism on the states part. as you know you can't pick and choose your beliefs without changing your church. i don't care of whatever wordy, limp wristed, lawyer language-twisting you use but a christian marriage is the pairing of a man and a woman in God's house by a minister/priest/pastor/whatever else. civil partnership/humanist marriage(the same thing) is when you get the tax breaks.

if any religion changed for popular beliefs and flavours of the decade then it wouldn't really be a religion at all since they usually forbid things like alcohol or drugs and often involve fasting and repentance and being nice to people in some shape or form.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I STATED that churches should not be forced to marry gay people if they disagree but marriage IS NOT and NEVER ORIGINALLY WAS a religious union. HENCE marriage should be open to anyone.

As for religion changing. Well clearly you're not exactly too informed on that either. Last time I checked the Catholic Church and Church of England were no longer ordering the persecution of Jews or scientists that speak against them. The Bible has underwent countless revisions and changes to suit the opinion of the religion of the time, so that's hardly new.

[belfastuniguy 18]

This itself is a violation of the constituion IMOquote>

Would you like to provide us with evidence for this statement?

Oh and to top it all off the group fighting for the gay rights activists was based out of New York. I don't think that's right, either.quote>

Explain why that's not right? Maybe having anti-abortionists from say Texas protest in New York is also wrong, yet no one seems to mind about that, or the Mormon Church in Utah funding and supporting Prop 8 in California. Was that also wrong?

[Zezug 6]

This itself is a violation of the constituion IMO. The Courts cannot make policy, it can only rule on the constituionality of policy.- right there you point it out yourself, they decided it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage there, regardless of the vote. The masses arent always right when it comes to giving out rights to people or in this case, keeping them from others.

[belfastuniguy 18]

The masses arent always right when it comes to giving out rights to people or in this case, keeping them from others.quote>

I agree

[Pinoy30 0]

Well it's about time Midwest State legalize same-sex marriage, as for California its banned-same sex marriage, but GLBT community continue to fight for our rights. The people voted for Prop 8 and it passed. I don't understand how people are ignorant and uneducated that same-sex marriage has affect in in heterosexual people. Does it really affect in you any way???

[falenyo 0]

In Iowa most people might think that gay marriage isn't right, but not always is like this. This is a great example. On the other hand, what is marriage anyways?

As far as I am concerned, a great amount of marriages end up in divorce after a pledge of living together until does them apart. So, until now if any threat to marriage and the regular father+mother figure family is the straight people themselves. Maybe gay people would give us better teachings that marriage is a real vow and not some lets sign marriage today and tommorrow I am with another one.

And religiously, guyz, if I was to take it religiously, I would have the right to have as many wives I want and maybe never met some of them. Ask Solomon and David from the Bible...they know how the game is played!!!

[falenyo 0]

Sorry, I meant ..."living together until death does them apart"...and I forgot to add something else to my post...

I was raised with two mothers and a father...weird huh? Well yeah, my father divorced and had a great relationship with my biological mom, then I got a step mother since I was a kid and It's my other mom...And my dad... It's pretty disturbing, buts is something not out of the usual. And almost none of my friends either met their father or their mother...or they simply dont see one of them since their childhood...

So marriage for me means something legal and reflects nothing special other than in front of the law.

[spa 970]

Originally posted by: Duke87

To say otherwise is to contradict something explicitly stated in the bible

quote>

To quote Reverend Lovejoy: "The bible says a lot of things. Have you ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not allowed to go to the bathroom."

[Boggy1 45]

Yay! Go progression!

[Haljackey 17,380]

Good for you Iowa. I used to be against all-out legalization, but after a while I didn't see the point of blocking such a thing. It seems Iowa and I share similar traits.

Question: do individual states have to approve legalization, or can the federal government make it legal nationwide if they approve it?

[Zezug 6]

The Feds can make it legal nationwide, either by making a change to the law to make states approve it or by doing the same thing as they do with drinking, States lower the alcohol sale age to below 21, but they lose all highway funding from the feds. So there are multiple ways to make states follow the feds.

[Pinoy30 0]

so funny people quote the bible about homosexuals, but in the real world you cannot you use those quotes. Just people who grew up that religion answers for everything;they more likely to be brain-washed by their own people they surround themselves and their own church they attend.