Iowa legalizes same-sex marraige!

[belfastuniguy 18]

DC approves same-sex marriage law

A number of US states are considering laws to allow same-sex marriage

Washington DC city council has voted to recognise same-sex marriages conducted in other US states.

Because Washington DC is not a state, the decision will now have to be approved by Congress before it can become law.

Four US states - Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa - now permit gay marriage, and legislation to allow it is in progress in other states.

The resolution was passed in the council by 12 votes to one.

Council member David A Catania - one of two openly gay members of the body - explained his reasons for supporting the measure during the debate.

"This issue is whether or not our colleagues on a personal level view me and [Council member] Jim Graham as your equals," he said.

"If we are permitted the same rights and responsibilities and obligations as our colleagues. So this is personal. This is acknowledging our families as much as we acknowledge you."

Fellow council member, and former Washington DC Mayor Marion Barry, was the only member to vote against the proposal.

"I understand this is personal to you and Mr Graham," he said in response to Mr Catania's remarks.

"I resent Mr Catania saying either you are a bigot or against bigotry as though this particular legislation represents all of that."

The law will be sent to DC Mayor Adrian Fenty - a supporter of gay marriage - for approval, before being placed before Congress.quote>

[Patricius Maximus 236]

[Easy Bakes 253]

And to think only a few years ago these same laws were being rejected by more then 70% of the voters.

[Meg 368]

It's going to happen eventually.  The question is how long people want to look bigoted while they drag it out.

 

 

[confused04 14]

 Yet another state in such a short period of time! Maine has legalized same sex marriage!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

If the US could overcome opposition to bi-racial marriage, we will eventually overcome opposition to bi-se.... um... same-sex marriage... well, and bi-sexual marriage, lol. Each to his/her own, I say!quote>

Define "bisexual marriage".

I have a friend who's bisexual. She's happily married (to a man) and is expecting her first child soon. Does that count?

Both at the same time, though, would mean polygamy - and that's a different argument entirely.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

DC approves same-sex marriage law

Washington DC city council has voted to recognise same-sex marriages conducted in other US states.

Fellow council member, and former Washington DC Mayor Marion Barry, was the only member to vote against the proposal.quote>

quote>

With him against it how can you lose?

The "Moral Politician" Marion Barry speaks. The hipocracy is thick.

A Quote from a  Utube post

Nothing like have a 4 times married crack head stumping for morality and marriagequote>

How is he still in poilitics?

crack cocaine and prostitutes not enough to get out  someone kicked out of politics anymore? boggles the mind

 

[hym 358]

It seems that the California Supreme Court has decided it can't overturn Prop. 8.

Hopefully the California Supreme Court will continue to realize its job is to intepret the law, not to make it.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[hym 358]

I'm not sure I quite understand what you are driving at.quote>

When Prop. 8 was in the early stages, the California Supreme Court literally said that it objected to the proposition on the grounds that interfered with the "legislative power" of the court. That's what I was referencing.

It's one thing to say "This is unpopular, but you don't have the power to do XYZ."  It's quite another to claim the power to make law, which is what claiming "legislative power" would seem to suggest.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Nothing like have a 4 times married crack head stumping for morality and marriagequote>

How is he still in poilitics?

crack cocaine and prostitutes not enough to get out  someone kicked out of politics anymore? boggles the mind

 quote>

You left out the part about how he didn't pay his taxes when he was already on probation for not paying his taxes.  [link]

There are those who claim that he is "a good mayor but a bad man".

I can't agree that he is a good mayor since he shirks personal accountability.  I believe that is an important trait.

 

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

RE: Jerry Brown wanting the CA Supreme Court to declare some rights 'off-limits' to the Constitutional process was disturbing. Sounds ok on the surface, but do the voters really want anything taken outside a system of Constitutional checks and balances? Former Gov. Moonbeam hasn't lost his step.

The court's deference to the established process is a surprise. I fully expected the court to overturn Prop 8. Their legal reasoning was sound, it wasn't the politically-based decision some wanted to see.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

There are those who claim that he is "a good mayor but a bad man".

I can't agree that he is a good mayor since he shirks personal accountability.  I believe that is an important trait.

 quote>

Something which has been known to happen to people who get involved in politics is a sort of psychological idea that since you make the laws, you're above them.

That's what happened with Elliot Spitzer. He was tough about rules on prostitution, but at the same time he seemed to believe those rules didn't apply to him.

 

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Something which has been known to happen to people who get involved in politics is a sort of psychological idea that since you make the laws, you're above them.

That's what happened with Elliot Spitzer. He was tough about rules on prostitution, but at the same time he seemed to believe those rules didn't apply to him.

 quote>

Another example:     "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."

 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Duke87  Something which has been known to happen to people who get involved in politics is a sort of psychological idea that since you make the laws, you're above them.

That's what happened with Elliot Spitzer. He was tough about rules on prostitution, but at the same time he seemed to believe those rules didn't apply to him.quote>

There is a flaw in your example.  I agree that there is a psychological aspect, but I think the manifestation is different and goes much deeper (with obvious exceptions, so let's not freak out).

We can look at Spitzer as a political example, but we can also look at Haggard from a social perspective.  The world is full of people who have, let's be diplomatic and say, urges or needs that do not jive with their belief system.  They have to act on it, else they go mad or suffer a breakdown, yet they detest it at the same time.

So, let's look at the two examples we have.  First, Spitzer... he was tough on prostitution, yet he himself engaged in this behaviour.  We have to ask why.  I think the primary reason is guilt.  He was psychologically driven toward the mental reward of using a prostitute.  But at the same time, he hated himself for it and chose to project that distaste into his political ability to be harsh on the practice.  It alleviated his conscience, yet allowed his to proceed with his fetish.

The same can be said about our second example, Reverend Haggard.  He was well known to be anti-gay, yet he did not practice what he preached.  His distaste for his own homosexual need was a driver for his need to bash the gay community.  Again, a classic projectionist.

I don't think these scenarios apply to Marion Barry.  I think he is just a hypocritical bigot.

Barbarossa quote>

I think they are all just hypocritical  bigots or just hypocritical.They only feel "Guilty" when they get caught.

They dont practice what they preach because they want it both ways and feel they can get away with it if thier carefull.

personaly i dont realy care if they are gay, or  buy prostitutes just dont be hypocritical about it. or In Mr Barrys case  support a position your past actions dont support. ( the sanctity of marraige )

  

 

[yamaneko 2]

Originally posted by: bobgleason

What ever happened to the conservative America that my parents and grandparents knew and loved?quote>

First, you're making a terrible accusation against your parents and grandparents:  it is unfair to believe that they would not have loved a moderate or liberal America.  It's as unfair as an accusation that you do not love a spouse or a parent even when they are clearly in the wrong. 

Second, that conservative America looked in the mirror and didn't like what it saw.  Gays came out of the closet, first by reluctant trickles, then forced out by AIDS infections, and finally by a self-decloseting movement that gathered speed in the early 1990s.  Those of us not disposed to condemn our families and friends willy-nilly learned that some of our friends and relatives were gay.  It is very hard to believe that an friend who helped get your car out of a snowdrift at 9:15 pm was a reprobate at 9:45 pm that night.  It's also hard to impute an inferior morality to the people of a gay district when your chance of being murdered, raped or robbed in "all-American" small towns is several times greater.

Third, gays and lesbians who had decided that marriage would make a fine closet (and they'd just get some on the side) repented of their adulteries.  Worse, some gay men did not use protection and their wives got AIDS.  This launched the movement for gay marriage.  

Finally, I do not want to be some lesbian's walkin' closet.  The surest way to keep that from happening is to provide her with a caring lesbian spouse and the horrors of divorce court to keep her and her wife together.

[Abes 0]

Great, Another state to give equal rights to one of the most suppressed minority groups in history, or at least the last 2,000 years or so. It's funny, that (particularly Americans) always drag religion into the conversation when they talk about sexuality, and, if they are Conservatives, they always claim that any religion is against homosexuality. And I keep seeing references to books in the Bible.... Though there ARE many, MANY other religions out there.

But, if you look at the writings of the Messengers, or Prophets, the people who have given a message from God to humanity, there is nothing about which sexuality is the one God says is right. These things always seem to crop up in all the OTHER dross that ends up being bunged into Holy Books..... The Bible is only half Christian, remember, and the Old Testament is actually more or less the Jewish Torah, much of which is not religious at all, but is actually records of laws and social history of various eras in Jewish history. The same thing goes for the Holy Writings in most religions, only the most recent religion, the Bahá'í Faith has the original, unadulterated writings of it's Prophet Founder and it's important figures in it's own history. And looking at the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the Central Baha'i Holy Text, there is absolutely nothing indicating that God thinks gays are living in sin, unless they are not in faithful  monogamous relationships with their spouse.

I personally think that it's about time Conservatives STOPPED using the Bible (or any OTHER Holy Books) as an excuse to not permit people that: they don't like, or who's lifestyles, cultures, (or anything else, for that matter) do not connect with their beliefs; to gain the same rights that they enjoy in their society.

Why is it that anybody who is trying to make people have a wider view of the world always becomes victims of people prejudices?

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: yamaneko

. . .

Second, that conservative America looked in the mirror and didn't like what it saw.  Gays came out of the closet, first by reluctant trickles, then forced out by AIDS infections, and finally by a self-decloseting movement that gathered speed in the early 1990s.  Those of us not disposed to condemn our families and friends willy-nilly learned that some of our friends and relatives were gay.  It is very hard to believe that an friend who helped get your car out of a snowdrift at 9:15 pm was a reprobate at 9:45 pm that night.  It's also hard to impute an inferior morality to the people of a gay district when your chance of being murdered, raped or robbed in "all-American" small towns is several times greater.

Third, gays and lesbians who had decided that marriage would make a fine closet (and they'd just get some on the side) repented of their adulteries.  Worse, some gay men did not use protection and their wives got AIDS.  This launched the movement for gay marriage.  

. . . .quote>

That sums it up very nicely.

Originally posted by: Abes

I personally think that it's about time Conservatives STOPPED using the Bible (or any OTHER Holy Books) as an excuse to not permit people that: they don't like, or who's lifestyles, cultures, (or anything else, for that matter) do not connect with their beliefs; to gain the same rights that they enjoy in their society.  quote>

It's not just American conservatives and it's not just the bible.  Various societies use various holy books to deny rights to parts of its population.

Why is it that anybody who is trying to make people have a wider view of the world always becomes victims of people prejudices?

quote>

Because many people don't want to have a wider view of the world.  They are happy in their own little bubble, wearing blinders or demonizing everything going on outside the bubble.

It does take a bit of doing to "think outside the box" and look at new ideas.   Many people do not want to bother.

[shinderhizzle84 0]

I registered to these forums just so I could post in this thread. That, and I recently found my old Sim City 4 discs and I am downright awful at the game.

I am so glad to hear this is happening. Hopefully it can happen all over the country, eventually.

America's forefathers came here to get freedom of their beliefs from a government who was brutally oppressing them.

Now, gays across America are being oppressed. Why is it any of our rights to tell a person what they can and cannot do? It's the same issue as abortion, really.

If someone wants to have an abortion, that is their right, as an American or democratic citizen to get one.

If a a gay or lesbian couple want to become married, it is their right, as an American or democratic citizen to get one.

And for all of those who argue that it is strictly against the bible, since when does a democratic nation have laws that are influenced by religion?

The whole argument on banning gay marriages via the government is based on the Catholic religion. Not to sound ultra-liberal here, but that isn't the way democracies work.

Theocracies, such as Saudi Arabia and others, are influenced by religion. Are we turning into a radical state who's government is so directly influenced by what they call "Morals" that they are refusing their very own citizens a right to have a say in their own lives? What's next, are we going to be forcing women to hide their faces and force a single religion to our entire people?

It is refreshing to see some an actual intellectual decision come about in a state that is so often perceived as a "hick" or "hillbilly" state. Good for you, Iowa. Hopefully one day, people around the world will not be oppressed by their own governments.

[Boggy1 45]

shinderhizzle84: Fantastic first post, I share your sentiments. Welcome to the community!

I can't wait until over here in the UK we legalize gay marriage; though I do think that it might be best to leave it up to the discretion of the parish. Maybe via a local referendum. Not that I want to get married ..I don't think. A civil partnership would suit me fine.

[chicah 20]

Congratulations, Iowa! The road to equality is long. We're getting there; one state (or country) at a time, but we're getting there.

We were still 6 months ahead of you. Its about time people realize marriage is about LOVE!

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: chicah

Its about time people realize marriage is about LOVE!quote>

 

That's actually a very new viewpoint.  Historically, marriage was about other things:  social standing,  business arrangements, political arrangements, economical survivial, etc.  The idea that married people should love each other is a relatively new way of looking at it.

Even in the best of circumstances today, marriage is a business partnership.  If you don't believe that, go talk to people who are trying to divide their assets during a divorce.   In many cases, breaking up a marriage plunges one, if not both, of them into poverty, or at least into a drastically reduced lifestyle.

As recently as when I was a kid (go ahead and laugh, I don't mind ), the important thing was that a women marry "well", not that she marry someone who loves her and visa versa.   That aspect has eased up a bit now that women have a chance of having some economic independence.

(It still hasn't gone away, though.  A friend of mine was berated by her mother over her choice of husband.  They have the same ethnic background, he is a devout member of the religion she was raised in, he totally loves her, and he has honest, gainful employment but her mother still wasn't happy.  She thought my friend was marrying "beneath herself" because the guy's job is blue collar and her daughter's job is not.)

For centuries, it has been standard practice for some groups of people to have an official spouse, while they have other relationships on the side.  As yamenko mentioned earlier, the AIDS epidemic brought those practices to light.   People are now trying to be more honest about what their relationships are.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: chicah

Its about time people realize marriage is about LOVE!quote>

 

That's actually a very new viewpoint.  Historically, marriage was about other things:  social standing,  business arrangements, political arrangements, economical survivial, etc.  The idea that married people should love each other is a relatively new way of looking at it.quote>

The problem was also that there wa a tendency for parent to want to get their kids married off as soon as they reached adulthood because if they were permitted to become too old without getting married, it would be shameful to the family and they'd have a hard time finding an avaiable partner their age.

Which, of course, meant rushing things. Doesn't matter if you don't love the girl, a man your age ought to be married!

And, well, the average age of (first) marriage has also increased. Though, the other mechanic at work here is that now being married to someone is no longer commonly considered a prerequisite for having sex with them. Hormones used to drive people to get married ASAP. Now they merely drive people to find a boyfriend/girlfiend or even just hook-ups at the bar.

You'd think that this giving people more time to find someone they truly love to marry would prevent divorce, but it doesn't - because people don't take relationships seriously anymore and also because divorce, too, has become acceptable, an people are now willing to let marriages fail because they consider it a viable option if things turn sour. And it snowballs, because having parents get divorced sets that example for the kids.

I could never comprehend how, after loving someone so much to marry them, you could possibly then end up hating them and divorcing them - but then, the number of relatives I have that have gotten divorced in the past is, at least as far back as anyone can remember, zero. So it's a concept I was never exposed to at a young age beyond having my parents explain it to me. It was alien. I knew about it, but I didn't know it.

I remember the moment it first really hit home to me just what divorce was. I was in fourth grade. There was a bit of a class discussion on what we all typically did when we got home from school. One kid mentioned that if it was Friday, he'd start packing up to go to his father's house for the weekend. I'd already known that this kid's parents were divorced (he was a friend of sorts), but it had never really sunk in just what the consequences of that were. He could only ever be with one parent at a time, and he was constantly packing up and moving back and forth between the two. I could only imagine how horrible that must be to have to go through.

Even in the best of circumstances today, marriage is a business partnership.  If you don't believe that, go talk to people who are trying to divide their assets during a divorce.   In many cases, breaking up a marriage plunges one, if not both, of them into poverty, or at least into a drastically reduced lifestyle.quote>

Well, the point of a relationship is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Whether that be financially, socially, or emotionally.

[Abes 0]

The view that marriage is about love is NOT a new viewpoint. It is actually a very OLD viewpoint, but for a long time, people have been playing with it, and have mutilated marriage to try to serve their own ends.

SkiGeek, I KNOW that throughout history, various Holy Books have been "interpereted" in one way or another to try and deny rights to parts of the population, in almost every country. I also know it is not just American conservatism that creates this, but Americans (and the rest of the world too, for that matter) must start trying to (finally) put an end to this and all the other inequalities in our societies.

But I want to single out America here for a second, whether we, as citizens of the world agree with it or not, much of the rest of the world still looks to the United States of America as being the most adanced country on earth, from a social standpoint, but when we start to actually find out what America is like, we discover that it is not at all what we imagined.

And yes, SkiGeek, you are right, these small minded idiots ARE in their own little bubbles, happy to believe that they must be in the right. I know it takes a lot of effort to get these people to understand that theirs is not the only way, but I think that it might just be a good idea to try and educate the population about diversity.

Thank goodness I was taught from a young age to love and respect others for who they are, that the world opens up to you when you take the effort to understand things that are not in your background. I was born in Australia, and today I live in the People's Republic of China, I have embraced the differnces here, and the differences in my Chinese friends, and it has made me so happy to live here and be a part of the society. If I was one of those narrow minded idiots with blinders on to everything outside my little bubble, I'd still be delivering pizzas in Brisbane, Australia......

P.S: I love China, but I also am very fond of America, I don't want to offend any Americans, I'm just trying to point out that nobody's perfect, and I think we all have a lot to learn from one another.

[Scooter27 3]

WHAT?! *Grabs Proton Cannon then leaves*

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Scooter27

WHAT?! *Grabs Proton Cannon then leaves*quote>

That is an example of an inappropriate bump of an old thread.

It's fine to bump an old thread if you have something productive to add to the conversation.

This was not appropriate, no matter how you look at it.

[MattShizzle 11]

It's another example of certain Christians who want the US to be a theocracy. The Buybull is not an appropriate source of legislation. It includes such bits of wisdom as the death penalty for children who are disobedient, doing any work on the sabbath, women who are raped in certain situations (and being forced to marry their rapist in others.)

And as others pointed out not every Christian even agrees with this and there are plenty of us who aren't Christians - Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc - along with Atheists such as myself.

[DCMetro34 577]

It's Iowa's law, they can technically do what they want on a state level. Some people want this as a choice, I'm fine with those who do.