Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Tre on April 03, 2009, 12:00:29 PM
-
Let freedom ring, muthafuckers!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage
DES MOINES, Iowa – Iowa's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state — and first in the nation's heartland — to allow same-sex couples to wed.
Iowa joins only Massachusetts and Connecticut in permitting same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California's high court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.
The Iowa justices upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman.
The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which could take years to ratify.
"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," the Supreme Court wrote.
Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."
To issue any other decision, the justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."
The Iowa attorney general's office said gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses starting April 24, once the ruling is considered final.
Des Moines attorney Dennis Johnson, who represented gay and lesbian couples, said "this is a great day for civil rights in Iowa."
At a news conference announcing the decision, he thanked the plaintiffs and said, "Go get married, live happily ever after, live the American dream."
Plaintiff Kate Varnum, 34, introduced her partner, Trish Varnum, as "my fiance."
"I never thought I'd be able to say that," she said, fighting back tears.
Jason Morgan, 38, said he and his partner, Chuck Swaggerty, adopted two sons, confronted the death of Swaggerty's mother and endured a four-year legal battle as plaintiffs.
"If being together though all of that isn't love and commitment or isn't family or marriage, then I don't know what is," Morgan said. "We are very happy with the decision today and very proud to live in Iowa."
In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.
The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Judge Robert Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.
The case had been working its way through the courts since 2005, when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples in Iowa.
"Today, dreams become reality, families are protected and the Iowa Constitution's promise of equality and fairness has been fulfilled," Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor said.
John Logan, a sociology professor at Brown University, said Iowa's status as a largely rural, Midwest state could enforce an argument that gay marriage is no longer a fringe issue.
"When it was only California and Massachusetts, it could be perceived as extremism on the coasts and not related to core American values.
"But as it extends to states like Iowa, and as attitudes toward gay marriage have evidently changed, then people will look at it as an example of broad acceptance," Logan said.
Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said his office will not ask for the case to be reconsidered.
"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is, and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said.
Gay marriage opponents have no other legal options to appeal the case to the state or federal level because they were not parties to the lawsuit, and there is no federal issue raised in the case, Sarcone said.
Bryan English, spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage, said many Iowans are disappointed with the ruling and do not want courts to decide the issue.
"I would say the mood is one of mourning right now in a lot of ways," English said. He said the group immediately began lobbying legislators "to let the people of Iowa vote" on a constitutional amendment.
"This is an issue that will define (lawmakers') leadership. This is not a side issue."
Iowa has a history of being in the forefront on social issues. It was among the first states to legalize interracial marriage and to allow married women to own property. It was also the first state to admit a woman to the bar to practice law and was a leader in school desegregation.
Todd Pettys, a University of Iowa law professor, said the state's equal protection clause on which Friday's ruling was based is worded slightly differently than the U.S. Constitution. But Iowa's language means almost "exactly the same thing."
Still, he said, it's difficult to predict whether the U.S. Supreme Court would view the issue the same way as the Iowa justices.
Linda McClain, professor at Boston University School of Law, said she doubted Iowa's ruling would be "a realistic blueprint" for the U.S. Supreme Court," particularly considering the court's conservative leadership.
Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat, said state lawmakers were unlikely to consider gay marriage legislation in this legislative session, which is expected to end within weeks.
Gronstal also said he's "not inclined" to propose a constitutional amendment during next year's session.
Iowa's Democratic governor, Chet Culver, said he would review the decision before announcing his views.
-
Let freedom ring, muthafuckers!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage
Isn't the market bad for selling your house right now? :)
-
Isn't the market bad for selling your house right now? :)
L O L!!!!
Can't sell here, but I can still buy there! ;)
-
This thread is fucking gay. ;D
-
I hate gays now because you just included a link. I don't want to fucking open a new page just to read this shit.
-
I hate gays now because you just included a link. I don't want to fucking open a new page just to read this shit.
My bad. I usually include the text of the story, but forgot to this time...I was just soooooo excited!
lol
-
Pretty said that Iowa can be more progressive than Cali heh.
-
My bad. I usually include the text of the story, but forgot to this time...I was just soooooo excited!
lol
And you just couldn't hide it!!
-
finally, Chicago Cubs fans have a place where they can go marry each other!
-
Let freedom ring, muthafuckers!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage
DES MOINES, Iowa – Iowa's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state — and first in the nation's heartland — to allow same-sex couples to wed.
Iowa joins only Massachusetts and Connecticut in permitting same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California's high court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.
The Iowa justices upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman.
The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which could take years to ratify.
"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," the Supreme Court wrote.
Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."
To issue any other decision, the justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."
The Iowa attorney general's office said gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses starting April 24, once the ruling is considered final.
Des Moines attorney Dennis Johnson, who represented gay and lesbian couples, said "this is a great day for civil rights in Iowa."
At a news conference announcing the decision, he thanked the plaintiffs and said, "Go get married, live happily ever after, live the American dream."
Plaintiff Kate Varnum, 34, introduced her partner, Trish Varnum, as "my fiance."
"I never thought I'd be able to say that," she said, fighting back tears.
Jason Morgan, 38, said he and his partner, Chuck Swaggerty, adopted two sons, confronted the death of Swaggerty's mother and endured a four-year legal battle as plaintiffs.
"If being together though all of that isn't love and commitment or isn't family or marriage, then I don't know what is," Morgan said. "We are very happy with the decision today and very proud to live in Iowa."
In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.
The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Judge Robert Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.
The case had been working its way through the courts since 2005, when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples in Iowa.
"Today, dreams become reality, families are protected and the Iowa Constitution's promise of equality and fairness has been fulfilled," Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor said.
John Logan, a sociology professor at Brown University, said Iowa's status as a largely rural, Midwest state could enforce an argument that gay marriage is no longer a fringe issue.
"When it was only California and Massachusetts, it could be perceived as extremism on the coasts and not related to core American values.
"But as it extends to states like Iowa, and as attitudes toward gay marriage have evidently changed, then people will look at it as an example of broad acceptance," Logan said.
Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said his office will not ask for the case to be reconsidered.
"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is, and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said.
Gay marriage opponents have no other legal options to appeal the case to the state or federal level because they were not parties to the lawsuit, and there is no federal issue raised in the case, Sarcone said.
Bryan English, spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage, said many Iowans are disappointed with the ruling and do not want courts to decide the issue.
"I would say the mood is one of mourning right now in a lot of ways," English said. He said the group immediately began lobbying legislators "to let the people of Iowa vote" on a constitutional amendment.
"This is an issue that will define (lawmakers') leadership. This is not a side issue."
Iowa has a history of being in the forefront on social issues. It was among the first states to legalize interracial marriage and to allow married women to own property. It was also the first state to admit a woman to the bar to practice law and was a leader in school desegregation.
Todd Pettys, a University of Iowa law professor, said the state's equal protection clause on which Friday's ruling was based is worded slightly differently than the U.S. Constitution. But Iowa's language means almost "exactly the same thing."
Still, he said, it's difficult to predict whether the U.S. Supreme Court would view the issue the same way as the Iowa justices.
Linda McClain, professor at Boston University School of Law, said she doubted Iowa's ruling would be "a realistic blueprint" for the U.S. Supreme Court," particularly considering the court's conservative leadership.
Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat, said state lawmakers were unlikely to consider gay marriage legislation in this legislative session, which is expected to end within weeks.
Gronstal also said he's "not inclined" to propose a constitutional amendment during next year's session.
Iowa's Democratic governor, Chet Culver, said he would review the decision before announcing his views.
good, seperate but equal wasn't right in 1954 and it isnt right today.
-
good, seperate but equal wasn't right in 1954 and it isnt right today.
Kind of a silly comparison.
-
Kind of a silly comparison.
maybe civil rights are silly 2 u
-
maybe civil rights are silly 2 u
Gays aren't a separate race.
-
Kind of a silly comparison.
Not really, considering that the language used to justify the discrimination is the same now as it was then.
-
what a mess!
-
does this mean if I go to iowa.. I can marry a tranny?
-
there should come a new holocaust for gay people!!!!!!!!!!!
-
The world laughs at the US more and more.......
-
Not really, considering that the language used to justify the discrimination is the same now as it was then.
"Iowa has a history of being in the forefront on social issues. It was among the first states to legalize interracial marriage and to allow married women to own property. It was also the first state to admit a woman to the bar to practice law and was a leader in school desegregation."
the court determined the law banning minorities the right to marry unconstitutional because equality is a guaranteed constitutional right.
-
The world laughs at the US more and more.......
from where, you're shithole country ?
-
from where, you're shithole country ?
Well in this shithole (which is proud to proclaim some of the best quality of life anywhere in the world) we don't let gays marry.......
-
Well in this shithole (which is proud to proclaim some of the best quality of life anywhere in the world) we don't let gays marry.......
it kills you because of our belief in law
-
the country with the most double standards i know.
-
it kills you because of our belief in law
Yes, your crime/murder rates are very impressive......... :)
-
the country with the most double standards i know.
ha coming from a foreigner that sir speaks volumes LOL
-
;D
-
Not really, considering that the language used to justify the discrimination is the same now as it was then.
Every single time someone thinks they're being deprived os something the first thing they do is yell racism. Fat people, gays, women, etc have compared themselves to blacks to advance their own causes and exploited racism under the guise of pointing out unfairness.
It's a big lie that people should be challenged on. People who believe/advance the comparison between blacks and gays are either stupid, lying, or just plain don't understand what the argument is really saying.
I'm anti bullshit and the only real benefit I can see to gay marriage being legal is not having to hear people bitch about it anymore. Legitimizing gay marriage will definitely have some cultural impact and affect families but it's doubtful the world will end. We really won't know what the effect of redefining marriage/family is for years after the change so there's really no point speculating.
-
Every single time someone thinks they're being deprived os something the first thing they do is yell racism. Fat people, gays, women, etc have compared themselves to blacks to advance their own causes and exploited racism under the guise of pointing out unfairness.
Agreed.
It's a big lie that people should be challenged on. People who believe/advance the comparison between blacks and gays are either stupid, lying, or just plain don't understand what the argument is really saying.
The intellectuals are not equating being gay with being black. The extremist rhetoric gets the small minds worked up (on all sides of the debate), I do agree.
I'm anti bullshit and the only real benefit I can see to gay marriage being legal is not having to hear people bitch about it anymore. Legitimizing gay marriage will definitely have some cultural impact and affect families but it's doubtful the world will end. We really won't know what the effect of redefining marriage/family is for years after the change so there's really no point speculating.
We're Americans, and in America, we don't tax one group at the same rate as another group without affording them the same rights, privileges, and protections as the other group. Well, we're doing it, but it's not a practice that our country stands for.
The fact of the matter is that there are same-gender couples in neighborhoods all around the U.S. and not a single family (not their own) has been affected by this reality. They're just another couple down the street, for crying out loud. I must've asked this question 200 times last year...how does the fact that you have a same-gender couple living next door affect you in any way?
It doesn't.
You get up and go to work every day, the same as they do.
NOW, if you were to get rid of the current tax code and the IRS and move directly to a fair tax...you wouldn't be seeing nearly as much conversation from me and some others on this topic. Marriage isn't my thing, I really don't care about it. The only reason I'm still in the argument is because of the tax issue.
I've written a lot more on this subject, but will close there for now.
FAIR TAX FOR ALL!
-
Agreed.
The intellectuals are not equating being gay with being black. The extremist rhetoric gets the small minds worked up (on all sides of the debate), I do agree.
We're Americans, and in America, we don't tax one group at the same rate as another group without affording them the same rights, privileges, and protections as the other group. Well, we're doing it, but it's not a practice that our country stands for.
The fact of the matter is that there are same-gender couples in neighborhoods all around the U.S. and not a single family (not their own) has been affected by this reality. They're just another couple down the street, for crying out loud. I must've asked this question 200 times last year...how does the fact that you have a same-gender couple living next door affect you in any way?
It doesn't.
You get up and go to work every day, the same as they do.
NOW, if you were to get rid of the current tax code and the IRS and move directly to a fair tax...you wouldn't be seeing nearly as much conversation from me and some others on this topic. Marriage isn't my thing, I really don't care about it. The only reason I'm still in the argument is because of the tax issue.
I've written a lot more on this subject, but will close there for now.
FAIR TAX FOR ALL!
The intellectuals are more guilty on this issue than extremists because they know better.
If you want to address a tax issue, try making a percentage of child support deductible. :)
As far as any 'taxation without representation' argument goes. I'm not certain if that argument holds much water because it assumes every gay person wants to get married and presumes marriage is a right. Marriage is more a cultural norm than a right in my opinion. I'm not certain if changing the culture's definition of marriage to suit a small group makes sense, especially considering how many unmarried couples live together without children that aren't carping about tax benefits.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when gay divorce starts happening among couples who have either adopted, used surrogates, flipped a coin to see who would get knocked up, etc.... Having the exact, same laws applied to same sex couples will leave a lot of hurt feelings. Custodial parent determinations will be very dicey in some cases.
-
Forget Iowa all they want is attention. You never here about that state any other time. Unlike Texas, where I live everybody knows about. It's not our fault Bush chose our state ok ok ok!
-
Forget Iowa all they want is attention. You never here about that state any other time. Unlike Texas, where I live everybody knows about. It's not our fault Bush chose our state ok ok ok!
Iowa isn't satisfied with attention every 4 years.
From caucus to cock-us, I guess. :)
-
IOWA, MEANS Idoits out wandering around.They should change there name to Giowa, for Gay Idiots wandering around.
I am not homophobic, but our founding fathers who wrote our constitution would have never stood for or allowed gay people to get married.I think gays can do what ever they please, but I dont think that marriage is not one of them.
Marriage is a unity between a man and a woman, who can produce children.Gay people cannot produce children so its going against the laws of nature.But god gave us freedom of choice so if people want to love someone that is the same sex as them they have that right.But I dont recognize or think people of the same sex should be allowed to marry legally.
If they want to marry one another, just buy each other rings, and make the vows to each other.Thats is all that really matters.Our founding fathers would have no excepted it ,ever.
-
The reality is that states shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place. But, since they are, let's transition everything to 'civil unions' (or domestic partnerships, whatever) and leave 'marriage' to the religious institutions and the people they control.
-
The reality is that states shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place. But, since they are, let's transition everything to 'civil unions' (or domestic partnerships, whatever) and leave 'marriage' to the religious institutions and the people they control.
Marriage is a state issue.
-
Marriage is a state issue.
But most of the rhetoric on the issue has come from churches and only a few of them have any sense.
-
The intellectuals are more guilty on this issue than extremists because they know better.
If you want to address a tax issue, try making a percentage of child support deductible. :)
As far as any 'taxation without representation' argument goes. I'm not certain if that argument holds much water because it assumes every gay person wants to get married and presumes marriage is a right. Marriage is more a cultural norm than a right in my opinion. I'm not certain if changing the culture's definition of marriage to suit a small group makes sense, especially considering how many unmarried couples live together without children that aren't carping about tax benefits.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when gay divorce starts happening among couples who have either adopted, used surrogates, flipped a coin to see who would get knocked up, etc.... Having the exact, same laws applied to same sex couples will leave a lot of hurt feelings. Custodial parent determinations will be very dicey in some cases.
LOL @ know better!
The argument does not presume that every gay person wants to get married any more than the current laws presume that every person - gay or not - wants to get married.
Each adult should have the right to enter a committed (for lack of a better term, because this could spark a million tangential debates) relationship with another consenting adult. It's the government that established that couples who unite in 'marriage' would receive financial incentives for doing so.
Taking it a step further, I'm even fine with that couple choosing to accept additional consenting adults into the relationship. If the state then says, "We're not going to allow multi-marriage families to adopt children", it would probably be a long time before I'd be willing to join that fight.
BUT, on the issue of two-parent couples adopting, there's only one common sensical answer - children are much better off in a stable, loving home than they are in the care of state or private agencies.
It's 100% bullshit for certain groups (many of them religious) to argue that children are better off in group homes than they would be in a home with two fathers or two mothers. 'Protecting the children', my ass.
Custody cases are already complicated and the standard rules have long been antiquated, which is why the advocacy movement for the rights of fathers is growing. Custody issues will not be any more or less complicated with same-gender couples than they are now. If we're talking about more-than-two-parent families, yes, I would agree with your position, but not with just two parents.
-
LOL @ know better!
The argument does not presume that every gay person wants to get married any more than the current laws presume that every person - gay or not - wants to get married.
Each adult should have the right to enter a committed (for lack of a better term, because this could spark a million tangential debates) relationship with another consenting adult. It's the government that established that couples who unite in 'marriage' would receive financial incentives for doing so.
Taking it a step further, I'm even fine with that couple choosing to accept additional consenting adults into the relationship. If the state then says, "We're not going to allow multi-marriage families to adopt children", it would probably be a long time before I'd be willing to join that fight.
BUT, on the issue of two-parent couples adopting, there's only one common sensical answer - children are much better off in a stable, loving home than they are in the care of state or private agencies.
It's 100% bullshit for certain groups (many of them religious) to argue that children are better off in group homes than they would be in a home with two fathers or two mothers. 'Protecting the children', my ass.
Custody cases are already complicated and the standard rules have long been antiquated, which is why the advocacy movement for the rights of fathers is growing. Custody issues will not be any more or less complicated with same-gender couples than they are now. If we're talking about more-than-two-parent families, yes, I would agree with your position, but not with just two parents.
When an 'intellectual' uses "there was a time when blacks couldn't marry whites" or some other race associated nonsense there are counting on the listener's brain to shut off. Someone foolish will hear it and assume disagreeing means they're racist even though gays aren't a separate race. But the biggest trick is playing to the majority's own racist thoughts because the true meaning of that statement always comes back to "How can you let blacks have more rights than us?". :)
Since courts always assume children are better served staying with the mother, it'll be interesting to see how the social experiment works out.
-
being gay is a horrible, horrible choice...
-
being gay is a horrible, horrible choice...
It's not a choice.
-
prior to 1850 the only public school was boston latin. that's when they started the racket of public education and in the 1890's local governments began taxing for school assessed rates. that shit needs to stop. if you want fairness and reform dont make taxpayer educate your little monsters. THAT'S WELFARE
-
prior to 1850 the only public school was boston latin. that's when they started the racket of public education and in the 1890's local governments began taxing for school assessed rates. that shit needs to stop. if you want fairness and reform dont make taxpayer educate your little monsters. THAT'S WELFARE
Interesting...
-
prior to 1850 the only public school was boston latin. that's when they started the racket of public education and in the 1890's local governments began taxing for school assessed rates. that shit needs to stop. if you want fairness and reform dont make taxpayer educate your little monsters. THAT'S WELFARE
A more educated populace is a more productive populace.