Iowa third state to legalize gay marriage.

[Hugh_Hoy]

I find that gross too, but not my business what they do in their own homes. Doesn't affect me, nor society, in any way.

 

Your reasoning is just a rationalization. Window-dressing. Whether you find it humourous or not, it is bigotry, Hugh.

 

Cheers,

SD

 

I don't give a shit what they do in their own homes either. I think you're not following my point, don't understand it, or just being stubborn. "Bigotry" isn't part of my opinion that "marriage" should be reserved to hetero relationships. 'nuf said.

 

 

HH

 

[..]

But Hugh, it is indeed. Your "argument" holds no legal water. Let's look at the Iowa decision, which covers it well.

 

[color:purple]13. Our responsibility, however, is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time.

 

15. How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage?

 

18. For purposes of Iowaâ??s marriage laws, which are designed to bring a sense of order to the legal relationships of committed couples and their families in myriad ways, plaintiffs are similarly situated in every important respect, but for their sexual orientation. As indicated above, this distinction cannot defeat the application of equal protection analysis through the application of the similarly situated concept because, under this circular approach, all distinctions would evade equal protection review.

 

63. The reason for the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage left unspoken by the County: religious opposition to same-sex marriage. [...]The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law.

 

68. Other courts have allowed their state legislatures to create parallel civil institutions for same-sex couples. See Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196, 221 (N.J. 2006); Baker v. State, 744 A.2d 864, 887 (Vt. 1999).

 

Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution.[/color]

 

Enuff said. And I'd love to hear you sputter and call these guys "activist liberal judges." They're predominately GOPers, in a state that elected Huckabee in the primary. Their statement at p13 shows that they know how wildly and inaccurately its decision will be criticized, and has proudly and loudly defended its decision in the opinion itself.

 

Cheers,

SD

[Old Hippie]

Bigotry is always a bad thing' date=' and the only reason to oppose marriage for *everyone* is bigotry. No matter how you try to dress it up.D[/quote']

 

It's obvious u don't know the definition of "bigotry". Choose a few on-dictionaries and look it up. Then tell me the same thing. I oppose the term "marriage" referring to pairings/relationships between same-sex couples for reasons other than believing that guys sucking eachothers cocks and putting them in eachother's assholes is gross and perverted. I've explained my position on this before in at least one other thread. To call my position bigoted is very amusing.

 

HH

 

 

 

 

Yes, but quite a few people find interracial relationships/marriages disgusting and perverted, immoral etc...they even had laws against it, some people claimed a religious/biblical reason for this same as they do for gays.

 

This isn't about sex for these guys as much as it is having the same legal rights for their relationships as heterosexuals do for theirs. Hence, the equal rights/recognition argument. Makes sense when you look at it.

 

 

[Flashermac]

Iowa, huh. How about marriages with sheep and other farm animals? Is incest still illegal? Can father marry his daughter if they both are wiling? Was Oedipus a victim of bigotry?

 

 

 

 

 

[..]

Animal marriage? What a stupid argument Frash. In no way related, just ignorant.

 

Incest is illegal for public health reasons (mutated children). Much better reason than "oooh, they do icky stuff in the bedroom." But you know what, if the couple are consenting adults, I really do not care. They'll weed themselves out of the gene pool soon enough.

 

Cheers,

SD

[Hugh_Hoy]

Oedipus? U remember that song by the late Tom Lehrer? Dave White and I had some chuckles recalling some of his tunes. (Lehrer was a mathmatics associate prof at Harvard when he became popular for doing "ditties" at the local clubs/pubs; cut some records and a "concert" series. Anyway, one of his "songs" (stealing a Broadway show music) went something like:

 

There was a man named Oedipus Rex

You may have heard about his odd complex,

cuz he loved his mother.

 

Now he loved his mother like no other;

his daughter was his sister...and his son was his brother...

Still, in all, you have to admit..he sure knew who a boy's best friend is.

 

When he found out what he had done, he tore his eyes out one by one. A tragic end to a loyal son...who loooooved his mother.

 

So, now be sweet and gentle, now and then have a chat; buy her flowers or some candy or a brand new hat. But maybe u had better let it go at that or you may find yourself like old Oedipus Rex.

 

 

HH

[Hugh_Hoy]

Enuff said. And I'd love to hear you sputter and call these guys "activist liberal judges." They're predominately GOPers, in a state that elected Huckabee in the primary. Their statement at p13 shows that they know how wildly and inaccurately its decision will be criticized, and has proudly and loudly defended its decision in the opinion itself.

 

Cheers,

SD

 

Well, I'm back to sputter. And shaking my head in wonderment over your lack of background and insight into the current makeup of the Iowa Supreme Court. (Once again, caught with your pants down, son.) Just to save you the trouble: Iowa has had Demoncrat governors since 1999. In Iowa, the governor appoints members to the state supreme court. ALL seven members of the current court were appointed since 1999. Do you really think that a Demoncrat governor would appoint even a moderate (much less conservative) to the state supreme court? Come on guy. If you're gonna throw shit against the wall and hope some of it sticks, make sure it has some substance. These guys will probably be getting blow jobs for the next month at "gay pride" celebrations.

 

(What does Huckabee winning the 2008 Republican Primary have to do with this? )

 

HH

 

[Guest lazyphil]

SD, a weido wanting to marry his goat doesn't affect you or society as a whole. fucking a goat is as fucked up as fucking another bloke! (each to their own though, dont you agree?)

[Bangkoktraveler]

Bigotry is always a bad thing' date=' and the only reason to oppose marriage for *everyone* is bigotry. No matter how you try to dress it up.D[/quote']

 

It's obvious u don't know the definition of "bigotry". Choose a few on-dictionaries and look it up. Then tell me the same thing. I oppose the term "marriage" referring to pairings/relationships between same-sex couples for reasons other than believing that guys sucking eachothers cocks and putting them in eachother's assholes is gross and perverted. I've explained my position on this before in at least one other thread. To call my position bigoted is very amusing.

 

HH

 

 

 

Do you know they do that for a fact?

[Guest lazyphil]

er, do they fuck each others earholes?