How Does Iowa's Supreme Court Decision Impact Same-Sex Marriage Laws?

[Coin]

The http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/10218/the-iowa-supreme-court-decision has just unanimously ruled that the equal protection clause of the state constitution requires marriage equality for same-sex couples. As of April 24 when the ruling takes effect, Iowa will join Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only U.S. states where same-sex marriage is currently considered legal.

This happened just one day after the Vermont state legislature approved a measure that would legalize same-sex marriage there without any judicial prompting (the bill is not law yet, and the Republican governor has pledged to veto, but this may not matter as the bill passed with a veto-proof majority in the Senate and just three or four votes shy of a veto-proof majority in the House); and two days after the http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512045,00.html passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage there.

I am happy with how this month is going so far :)

 

[mgb_phys]

quote from wiki

Iowa's population is among the best-educated and Iowa is one of the safest states.

 

[signerror]

Eh, close enough.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So I guess this means that Iowans can expect a dramatic decrease in gay sex.

 

[turbo]

So I guess this means that Iowans can expect a dramatic decrease in gay sex.

No. Once they are married, the frequency and quality of sex will fall off, based on who forgot to do the laundry or neglected to put the cap back on the toothpaste.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No. Once they are married, the frequency and quality of sex will fall off, based on who forgot to do the laundry or neglected to put the cap back on the toothpaste.

Gotcha! I said "decrease".

 

[turbo]

Gotcha! I said "decrease".

Oops, I missed the humor.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm especially glad to see states beyond New England supporting gay rights. It sets an even stronger precedent to show it's not just a regional trend, but simply the right thing to do nationally.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think that our founding fathers had more faith in human morality than what has turned out to be reality. If only they could have see the future. The Constitution might have been more specific on certain points.

I'm sure Ben Franklin would agree.

 

[OAQfirst]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage

In the meantime, same-sex marriage opponents may try to enact residency requirements for marriage so that gays and lesbians from across the country could not travel to Iowa to wed.

This pisses me off. I'm not gay, so I'd better be able to decide where I get to marry someday! They better be careful how they word their law on this.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is that sarcasm? Post a quote, I'm curious.

Among those who ran away from the intolerant orthodoxy of Boston was Franklin. He ended up in Philadelphia, a place unlike much of the world. There were Lutherans and Moravians and Quakers and even Jews, as well as Calvinists, living side by side in what became known as the City of Brotherly Love. Franklin helped formulate the creed that they would all be better off, personally and economically, if they embraced an attitude of tolerance.

...He also wrote parodies that poked fun at Puritan intolerance...

http://www.time.com/time/2003/franklin/bffranklin7.html

And he liked his women.
http://books.google.com/books?id=H1...=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#PPA68,M1

Jefferson, on the other hand, produced children with his slave, Sally Hemings.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...The Founding Fathers also operated in a strikingly similar media climate - the 1790s was perhaps the last time the media poured forth so many sex scandals before a relative silence that would endure well into the mid-20th century. And the 1790s was not so unusual for the 18th century. Despite what you may have learned in school, people actually had sex in the colonial era -- and more importantly they talked and wrote about it. And not just about women. Sex was an important part of masculinity...

...The shocking engraving -- a rarity in early American newspapers -- depicted one Freemason penetrating another with a wooden peg commonly used in ship-building. It enraged the Freemasons, who subsequently boycotted the newspaper and lobbied the government to punish the printer...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/12/INGTTM5DU41.DTL

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is nothing new under the sun. Don't live with your head in the clouds.

 

[Count Iblis]

Looks like Europe http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6200005.stm" when it comes to debating these sorts of issues in a rational way.

 

[Hootenanny]

Well, I will give you that it was a rather ridiculous and possibly inconsiderate analogy to draw, however, on forums like these, just saying "I don't agree with gay marriage" wouldn't really get your point across effectively would it?

Why not?

In any case, such a statement would not have been tolerated if it where made about any other group of people. For example, if someone where to make a similar comment regarding interracial marriages, there would have been an outcry. Equally, if someone had compared interracial sex to bestiality would you have been so quick to jump to their defence?

 

[turbo]

This thread is going way off-topic. The issue under consideration is if gay couples can receive legal recognition of their relationships and qualify for things some married people seem to take for granted. Little things like joint-ownership of property, the ability to have belongings, real estate, and financial accounts roll seamlessly to the survivor instead of having to endure probate and will-challenges from disaffected relatives, and the ability to enjoy benefits normally extended to spouses, like family health insurance coverage, more favorable taxation rates, etc.

The arguments against gay marriage often take the form of "where will this lead?" and "what will happen to our society?" Let's see... fairness and equity for people in same-sex relationships, abolition of legal penalties (restricted rights, restricted access to legal protections) against people in same-sex relationships... I could go on, but you get the point. The world is not going to cease to exist if gay people get the same rights that the rest of us take for granted. At worst, some moral absolutists will have to seek treatment for depression after their attempts to derail a long-overdue recognition of the value of the lives of homosexuals fail to overturn the court's decision.

 

[Count Iblis]

At worst, some moral absolutists will have to seek treatment for depression...

Or, they could ask for asylum in Saudi Arabia...

 

[binzing]

Woo, good!

 

[turbo]

Or, they could ask for asylum in Saudi Arabia...

 

[NBAJam100]

In any case, such a statement would not have been tolerated if it where made about any other group of people. For example, if someone where to make a similar comment regarding interracial marriages, there would have been an outcry. Equally, if someone had compared interracial sex to bestiality would you have been so quick to jump to their defence?

Your point being...? The whole issue here is that some people feel gay marriage is immoral... Apparently by today's standards its not so outlandish to speak out against it. Similarly, some people still feel interracial marriage is wrong. Are their opinions correct? Neither yes or no, an opinion is an opinion. Does the vast majority always agree with someones opinion? No. Are opinions always moral/reasonable/sensible? No. They are opinions nonetheless.

I was not standing up for what D said to clear things up (because apparently there is some misunderstanding). I was respecting his right to an opinion as opposed to (What I felt was blindly) bashing him like some people did. Were his words very very harsh look back, yes they were.

To Cristo-

"Of course, that might be just my liberal [sic] part of the world."
- good use of unnecessary non-liberal bashing.

"Regardless, as I said above, the argument is pretty moot, since gay sex is not the issue being discussed here! "

-I still don't understand your logic of thinking the statement didnt apply at all to the argument. Its NOT about specifics, its about where we draw the line between immoral and moral...

 

[NBAJam100]

The arguments against gay marriage often take the form of "where will this lead?" and "what will happen to our society?" Let's see... fairness and equity for people in same-sex relationships, abolition of legal penalties (restricted rights, restricted access to legal protections) against people in same-sex relationships... I could go on, but you get the point. The world is not going to cease to exist if gay people get the same rights that the rest of us take for granted. At worst, some moral absolutists will have to seek treatment for depression after their attempts to derail a long-overdue recognition of the value of the lives of homosexuals fail to overturn the court's decision.

Turbo, thank you for the breathe of fresh air . All good points.

 

[siddharth]

Your point being...? The whole issue here is that some people feel gay marriage is immoral... Apparently by today's standards its not so outlandish to speak out against it. Similarly, some people still feel interracial marriage is wrong. Are their opinions correct? Neither yes or no, an opinion is an opinion.

Um... no. Not all opinions have equal value.

Some are based on logical reasoning and rationality, and some are based on flawed reasoning, which are clearly incorrect.

 

[Hootenanny]

Um... no. Not all opinions have equal value.

Some are based on logical reasoning and rationality, and some are based on flawed reasoning, which are clearly incorrect.

My point exactly. Well said siddharth!

 

[arildno]

Having a public recognition of one's own "significant others" do have implications beyond merely economic concerns.

To take one example:

At the heights of the AIDS epidemic, the rational hospital rules restricting patient access primarily to spouse and family members had a particularly tragic side-effect in that a longtime companion were denied access to their dying lover. Because he could not be considered a "spouse" to the dying man, or that the previously estranged family of the victim did not want him to be there.

Now, as I said, I do think the hospital rules concerning patient access is basically sound.

Thus, I would not like to see the rules gone, and with officially recognized partners, the scenario sketched above will not occur to the extent that it did before.

 

[NBAJam100]

Um... no. Not all opinions have equal value.

Some are based on logical reasoning and rationality, and some are based on flawed reasoning, which are clearly incorrect.

Im not out to start a fire-storm here, but I am going to have to disagree with that statement because everyone defines logic as well as rationality different... What might seem logical and rational to you might be pure gibberish to someone else... You can't just say that something is not logical when it comes to a matter of pure opinion such as this.

If something is a set in stone fact, then yes, there can be a wrong opinion or belief about it, but for open ended things like this, the same can not be said...

flawed reasoning?? Err you reason based on your personal rationality and personal logic when it comes to matters that don't contain fact and are OPINION based... So something could be perfectly reasonable to someone that isn't reasonable to another.

 

[Evo]

Your point being...? The whole issue here is that some people feel gay marriage is immoral... Apparently by today's standards its not so outlandish to speak out against it. -I still don't understand your logic of thinking the statement didnt apply at all to the argument. Its NOT about specifics, its about where we draw the line between immoral and moral...

WOW. So because some people think gay marriage is immoral, it should be illegal? By today's standards, it it ridiculous to speak out against it. It's an outdated, holier than thou, archaic belief which has turned into a phobia for some. How about we decide that their way of thinking is immoral? And it is not about where we draw the line between immoral and moral. That shouldn't be an issue at all.

Your reasoning makes no sense at all. If something is based on emotions instead of facts, then it can't be wrong? Are you serious?

 

[Hootenanny]

Im not out to start a fire-storm here, but I am going to have to disagree with that statement because everyone defines logic as well as rationality different... What might seem logical and rational to you might be pure gibberish to someone else... You can't just say that something is not logical when it comes to a matter of pure opinion such as this.

If something is a set in stone fact, then yes, there can be a wrong opinion or belief about it, but for open ended things like this, the same can not be said...

Yes it can!

For example, a Christian may consider bestiality immoral since the bible forbids it (Leviticus 18:23). A secularist on the other hand may consider bestiality immoral since there is no way an animal can consent to intercourse and thus any act of bestiality is considered rape.

The Christian's reasoning is not logical whereas the secularist's is logical.

I also disagree with your statement that logic is not absolute.

 

[NBAJam100]

WOW. So because some people think gay marriage is immoral, it should be illegal? By today's standards, it it ridiculous to speak out against it. It's an outdated, holier than thou, archaic belief which has turned into a phobia for some. How about we decide that their way of thinking is immoral? And it is not about where we draw the line between immoral and moral. That shouldn't be an issue at all.

WHATTTT? NOT ONCE did i say that gay marriage should be illegal because some people think its immoral. Holy Cow, I said that some people feel that it is immoral, so THEY feel it should be illegal... I am not speaking for anyone here, I am speaking for the meaning of opinion. When you say it shouldn't be an issue at all, that's your opinion. this is my main point... some people feel it IS an issue (and I am not one of them, I am with you on this, trust me). This all started because i felt someone insulted Dr. D when they shouldn't have. Jeez. I am sure some people feel the same way you do in your first sentence except replace immoral with moral, and illegal with legal...

"Your reasoning makes no sense at all. If something is based on emotions instead of facts, then it can't be wrong? Are you serious?"

This was an all out random assault on me.. I did not once support any of the above stated beliefs of gay people being immoral. All i was saying was that to the individual, opinion cannot be wrong because to me opinion is THEIR belief or thoughts on a subject... So how can their own thoughts on an issue be wrong (in their eyes)?Evo, id appreciate it if you would read over my other posts before attacking me like that. Everything i said above makes perfect sense... SOME PEOPLE feel that it is immoral, so THEY feel it shouldn't be legal... Did i once claim that because they feel it is immoral it should be illegal? No, i was expressing an opinion which is felt by some people (once again, don't assault me if you read this, that's not my opinion). When you say it shouldn't be an issue at all, then what is the issue? Apparently there is some issue or there wouldn't be a huge legal argument over it. Was i claiming to be speaking for one side of the "issue," no.

 

[rootX]

[PLAIN]http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/party/party0038.gif[ATTACH=full]196664[/ATTACH][/URL]

[PLAIN]http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/jumping/jumping0041.gif[ATTACH=full]196665[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]196666[/ATTACH][/URL]


[PLAIN]http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/party/party0011.gif[ATTACH=full]196667[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]196668[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]196669[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]196670[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]196671[/ATTACH][/URL]

[PLAIN]http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/party/party0016.gif[ATTACH=full]196672[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]196673[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]196674[/ATTACH][/URL]

[PLAIN]http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/party/party0007.gif[ATTACH=full]196675[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]196676[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]196677[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]196678[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]196679[/ATTACH][/URL]
.

[PLAIN]http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/character/character0093.gif[ATTACH=full]196690[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]196691[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]196692[/ATTACH]

​

I don't understand what worse could happen if two gays are married legally?

 

[siddharth]

Im not out to start a fire-storm here, but I am going to have to disagree with that statement because everyone defines logic as well as rationality different... What might seem logical and rational to you might be pure gibberish to someone else... You can't just say that something is not logical when it comes to a matter of pure opinion such as this.

It's not a matter of pure opinion. Many of the claims put forward by those opposing gay marriage can be refuted objectively by empirical evidence.

For example, where's the logic, or the empirical evidence, that gay marriage will lead to bestiality? It's a nonsense argument.

If something is a set in stone fact, then yes, there can be a wrong opinion or belief about it, but for open ended things like this, the same can not be said...

flawed reasoning?? Err you reason based on your personal rationality and personal logic when it comes to matters that don't contain fact and are OPINION based... So something could be perfectly reasonable to someone that isn't reasonable to another.

I disagree. People can logically debate based on principles which we consider universal, like the declaration of human rights and equality.

For example, if someone says that those committing homosexual acts should be stoned to death, should we treat that opinion with equal value or respect? (espicially in the context of framing a law? answer: no)

Just because people hold opinions, does not mean we should automatically respect or value them. I think that we must critically evaluate those opinions to a standard of ethics using reason.

 

[NBAJam100]

Yes it can!

For example, a Christian may consider bestiality immoral since the bible forbids it (Leviticus 18:23). A secularist on the other hand may consider bestiality immoral since there is no way an animal can consent to intercourse and thus any act of bestiality is considered rape.

The Christian's reasoning is not logical whereas the secularist's is logical.

I also disagree with your statement that logic is not absolute.

Are you claiming that the christian opinion is not logical because the bible is possibly not true, or is not absolute in meaning? If so, isn't someones belief in the bible/god opinion? So how can it be not logical if they believe the bible is true? By their logic, it makes perfect sense.

It that's not the case, sorry, i might be missing what you are getting at here.

 

[OAQfirst]

I don't understand what worse could happen if two gays are married legally?

Then the definition and meaning of marriage will have to be changed and that would mean the tragic rewrite of all our dictionaries.

We will also have to let trioecious relationships enjoy legal status, legalize polygamy, bestiality, recognize the legal status of furries, let the muppets marry, and allow the blind to drive.

Your mushroom cloud must also be allowed to marry other mushroom clouds.

 

[NBAJam100]

It's not a matter of pure opinion. Many of the claims put forward by those opposing gay marriage can be refuted objectively by empirical evidence.

For example, where's the logic, or the empirical evidence, that gay marriage will lead to bestiality? It's a nonsense argument.

I would argue that what deems this a nonsense argument? (once again, so I don't get railed, this isn't my belief, I am playing devils advocate.) The nonsensical aspect of it is determined by what? Your beliefs? Social standards/norms? Who says that those are logical?

To your second statement- Who says that our universal standards are logical? They might seem logical to the general public and the vast majority of people, but does that really make them logical? My main point being, on an individual level, some people feel things are logical that others arent. Obviously, we will go with the masses when it comes to determining what is "logical" (by convention). But logic is something that is essentially determined by the individual.

"Just because people hold opinions, does not mean we should automatically respect or value them. I think that we must critically evaluate those opinions to a standard of ethics using reason."

Very true. My argument was for opinions alone. Each person has an individual opinion (that to the individual isn't wrong because opinions can't be wrong). Certain opinions can be widely accepted and are "correct" but really opinion comes down to individual. That is my main point. The people who feel gay marriage is immoral feel that their opinion is logical and correct (and is not in fact wrong because it is theirs.) Is it widely accepted? possibly not. But is it wrong, No. I just don't feel opinions can be wrong. Should we go by individual opinion? No!

 

[Hootenanny]

Are you claiming that the christian opinion is not logical because the bible is possibly not true, or is not absolute in meaning? If so, isn't someones belief in the bible/god opinion? So how can it be not logical if they believe the bible is true? By their logic, it makes perfect sense.

It that's not the case, sorry, i might be missing what you are getting at here.

Whether the bible is "true" is irrelevant here. My point is that the basis of a Christian's argument boils down to "because I read it in a book", which is not a logical argument.

Again, you use the phrase "their logic". There is no such thing as "their logic", "our logic" or "my logic". Logic is an absolute: "Logic is the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference".

I would like to emphasise at this point that I am not singling out the Christian faith for any reason in particular, I am doing so purely as an example. I do not intend to offend any Christians or followers of other faiths.

 

[Evo]

WHATTTT? NOT ONCE did i say that gay marriage should be illegal because some people think its immoral. Holy Cow, I said that some people feel that it is immoral, so THEY feel it should be illegal... I am not speaking for anyone here, I am speaking for the meaning of opinion. When you say it shouldn't be an issue at all, that's your opinion. this is my main point... some people feel it IS an issue (and I am not one of them, I am with you on this, trust me). This all started because i felt someone insulted Dr. D when they shouldn't have. Jeez. I am sure some people feel the same way you do in your first sentence except replace immoral with moral, and illegal with legal...

"Your reasoning makes no sense at all. If something is based on emotions instead of facts, then it can't be wrong? Are you serious?"

This was an all out random assault on me.. I did not once support any of the above stated beliefs of gay people being immoral. Evo, id appreciate it if you would read over my other posts before attacking me like that. Everything i said above makes perfect sense... SOME PEOPLE feel that it is immoral, so THEY feel it shouldn't be legal... Did i once claim that because they feel it is immoral it should be illegal? No, i was expressing an opinion which is felt by some people (once again, don't assault me if you read this, that's not my opinion). When you say it shouldn't be an issue at all, then what is the issue? Apparently there is some issue or there wouldn't be a huge legal argument over it. Was i claiming to be speaking for one side of the "issue," no.

I did read several of your posts and they all seem to be saying that a group of people have the right to impose their beliefs on others when it is not an issue that causes harm to others. That kind of thinking is wrong and it's about time that we put an end to it.

Also, you stated that only something "written in stone" can be considered right or wrong. I couldn't disagree more.

I apologize if you think I was too harsh, but based on your previous statements, your post above seems to counter what you said previously.