Iowa District Court Rules Gay Marriage Legal

[Xiahou]

So in an alternate reality, where only same sex marriage was legal, you would joyfully wed a strapping young man. Very open minded of you, I'm sure you'll enjoy your honeymoon

Well, if I lived in a world where homosexual marriage evolved as the norm I probably wouldn't need to worry about it- I most likely wouldn't exist. But I'll humor you.

No, I would not wed a man. I'd go out and make the case that marriage laws as constituted are inadequate. I don't really think I'd have a hard time making the case that the state has an important interest in encouraging couples to remain in stable relationships for the raising of children. You act like it was just random chance that heterosexual marriage is the norm instead of gay marriage- that's plainly not the case.

So you think the rights of minorities should be protected by the majority? History would like to talk to you.

No, I don't. Not sure where I said that. I think everyone should be protected by the same rights.

I know you're going to counter with "gays aren't a minority homosexuality is a choice blah blah"; we've had this discussion before. I do enjoy seeing people make completely irrational claims to cover up whatever biases lie beneath.

I've never made that claim and whether homosexuality is genetic, a choice, or "something else" is irrelevant to my current argument. Classy attempt at calling me a bigot though.

Now that you have seen the light, any other conversion would fall way short and frankly leave me limp. You know your kind of cute when your fired up Xiahou, ever been to MA ?

Fired up? No more than usual.

Never been to MA. Haven't had a reason to yet.

[Crazed Rabbit]

How is this discriminatory? All people (or the right age, etc.) can marry a person of the opposite gender, and no one can marry a person of the same gender.

CR

[Ser Clegane]

How is this discriminatory? All people (or the right age, etc.) can marry a person of the opposite gender, and no one can marry a person of the same gender.

CR

Based on the same logic you could of course also make inter-racial marriages illegal and argue that this would not be discrimination:

"All people are allowed to marry a person of the same skin-color, and no one can marry a person of a different skin-color"

This does not necessarily mean that I consider the right of same-sex marriage to be equal to the right of iner-racial marriage - I just consider your argument (one that I have seen here over and over again) to be very flawed (and actually borderline "cheeky")

[CrossLOPER]

Abolish Marriage!

[rory_20_uk]

Legalising it will not mean people who would otherwise would marry the opposite sex will now become homosexual (except in areas where the pretence of social norms neds to continue).

The ability of homosexual couples to raise children probably has a large overlap with heterosexual couples (and probably greater than single parents).

Mariages used to be there for dynastic purposes, and that use can still be maintained. I fail to see why a few queers shacking up hurts anyone else.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I fail to see why they complain endlessly if they can't get a small piece of paper from the government.

CR

[JimBob]

I fail to see why they complain endlessly if they can't get a small piece of paper from the government.

CR

Because without that paper they have limits on what they can do and get. Including: Social Security, survivor benefits, workman's comp, medicaid, tax benefits, joint bankruptcy filing rights, joint custody of children, visiting rights in hospitals and prisons, next-of-kin status when making medical decisions, domestic violence services, tax-free transfer of property between spouses, permission to make funeral arrangements, spousal privilege in court cases.

So take two couples, exactly the same except for one is heterosexual and one is homo sexual. One member of each of these couples gets in a car accident. The spouse is the straight couple gets to visit in the hospital, make medical decisions if the other is unconscious, etc, etc. The gay couple doesn't get those rights.

Explain to me how that is not descrimintation

Then that should be fixed.

That's what most people want, and what has been enacted in some states. Others have gone whole hog marriage, but the majority do not have anything for gay couples.

[Crazed Rabbit]

But I'm not arguing for restrictions based on race, so please explain how my example would be discrimination.

The statement has the same logic as 'All people can marry someone over the age of consent, and no one can marry someone under the age of consent.'

Crazed Rabbit

[Ser Clegane]

But I'm not arguing for restrictions based on race, so please explain how my example would be discrimination.

I am aware that you are not argueing for restriction based on race and I am sure that you would consider such restrictions to be wrong.

The question is - if your argument proves the point that same-sex marriage is not discriminating - wouldn't the argument I presented be valid as well?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I am aware that you are not argueing for restriction based on race and I am sure that you would consider such restrictions to be wrong.

The question is - if your argument proves the point that same-sex marriage is not discriminating - wouldn't the argument I presented be valid as well?

No. Yours discriminates based on race.

CR

[Ser Clegane]

No. Yours discriminates based on race.

CR

Of course it does - but if you come to that conclusion then it follows that your agriment discriminates based on sexual orientation.

[Xiahou]

The question is - if your argument proves the point that same-sex marriage is not discriminating - wouldn't the argument I presented be valid as well?

First, the long accepted legal and literal definition of marriage has been 1 male - 1 female. Bans enacted on interracial marriage only served deny people a marriage in order to enforce racial discrimination. On the other hand, gay marriage is about redefining what marriage is to accommodate a behavior. Such a change, in itself, could be acceptable if the state collectively decides that is what they want. I wouldn't necessarily support such a measure, but it would be far more palatable than having a judge rewrite marriage to conform to his views- views that currently conflict with that of the people.

The Iowa decision sounds like a clear case of a judge overstepping his bounds. Had he really believed marriage laws were unconstitutionally discriminatory(I dont agree), he should have found them so and left it to the legislature rewrite them instead of, in effect, enacting new law by himself.

Personally, I have felt that same-sex marriage, or at least civil unions were nigh inevitable. But, when the issue is decided in the courts as it is it tends to create a popular backlash. Ironically, this leads to constitutional amendments in addition to a net loss in popular support. In many states this will end up making it take longer for gay marriage proponents to achieve their goals.

[Fragony]

Based on the same logic you could of course also make inter-racial marriages illegal and argue that this would not be discrimination:

"All people are allowed to marry a person of the same skin-color, and no one can marry a person of a different skin-color"

This does not necessarily mean that I consider the right of same-sex marriage to be equal to the right of iner-racial marriage - I just consider your argument (one that I have seen here over and over again) to be very flawed (and actually borderline "cheeky")

And that is little more then a moral apeal. If the law is marriage is between a man and a woman, and if that is wrong, there are ways to change it. It's the judge's work to apply the law not judge the law, otherwise he indeed is just an activist. I still haven't got an answer to my question on how it works over there, but if a homosexual couple has all the benefits a heterosexual couple why exactly marriage, which is between a man and a woman. sure they love eachother and all that stuff, but I find it very egocentric to put your sexual preference above the believes of others(if it is that, again no answer to me question yet).

[Ser Clegane]

And that is little more then a moral apeal.

It was not meant as a moral appeal - it should not even be seen as an argument pro same-sex marriage.
To make it very clear - it is also not(!) my intention to imply that anybody who is against same-sex marriage is probably also a closet-racist.

My point is, you might have your reasons to be against same-sex marriage - but please state your real reasons - the argument I responded to is a bogus argument as the logic behind it would indeed allow for almost any discriminatory legislation to be justified.

[Fragony]

My point is, you might have your reasons to be against same-sex marriage - but please state your real reasons - the argument I responded to is a bogus argument as the logic behind it would indeed allow for almost any discriminatory legislation to be justified.

Already gave it, it is simple, marriage is between a man and a woman. If you want the same thing as a gay person fine but call it something else.

[Andres]

Why does the law need to call it "marriage"?

Leave marriage in the sphere of religion and develop a law system with basically the same set of rules as in the current "legal marriage", applicable on anybody who decides to live together and wants to make it official.

So you have the legal benefits of a marriage, with the exception that the term 'marriage' is no longer a legal term. And you can still marry for a priest or woever represents your particular religion in that matter afterwards.

--> the state organises a legal "cohabitation right" or whatever you want to call it: you have all the consequences (legal benefits and drawbacks, hehe) of what we currently know as marriage;
--> marriage with the religious or cultural connotation: doesn't have anything to do with the government or the state and frankly, it's none of the governments' business either, keep that in the religious sphere.

[Fragony]

Why does the law need to call it "marriage"?

Leave marriage in the sphere of religion and develop a law system with basically the same set of rules as in the current "legal marriage", applicable on anybody who decides to live together and wants to make it official.

^--------- That was what I meant but Andres does it better.

[Don Corleone]

Why are Andres and Fragony so anti-homosexual?

Everytime I point out here in the Backroom that Civil Unions are a perfect solution to the legal vs. moral question, and its what we have done here in New Hampshire, I get told that I hate gay people and I'm a Homophobe. (To be fair, I also get told by conservatives that I've folded on the issue. Since I'm pissing everybody off, I must be doing something right) The argument (and I've heard it more times than I care to count) is that as long as something, anything exists that straight people can do that gay people can't (like 'get married', as opposed to having civil union) then there is no equality.

Translation: This week: marriage licenses. Next week: Removing any church from its tax exempt status as a recognized religion because it discriminates if it won't perform gay weddings.

[Odin]

Why does the law need to call it "marriage"?

Leave marriage in the sphere of religion and develop a law system with basically the same set of rules as in the current "legal marriage", applicable on anybody who decides to live together and wants to make it official.

So you have the legal benefits of a marriage, with the exception that the term 'marriage' is no longer a legal term. And you can still marry for a priest or woever represents your particular religion in that matter afterwards.

--> the state organises a legal "cohabitation right" or whatever you want to call it: you have all the consequences (legal benefits and drawbacks, hehe) of what we currently know as marriage;
--> marriage with the religious or cultural connotation: doesn't have anything to do with the government or the state and frankly, it's none of the governments' business either, keep that in the religious sphere.

The problem is Marriage is the legal term used on matters that are governed by federal law (taxes, and estate payouts).

The problem is that religious assumption has leaked into legal terminology as the basis of law. I seperate the two, as religion isnt high on my priority list. As a practical matter anything less then marriage in the eyes of various federal and state laws limit the access of rights.

So let them marry, get the liscense and give them all the benefits afforded me and my wife, whats the big deal? The constitution dosent say marriage is exclusive to a man and a woman, thats ideology, and one not based on a logical approach for the social times we live in.

@Don: I think NH has a great system and its fair. It covers the legal end and honestly it negates my arguments. However it dosent address the social inequity of the distinction it gives, and while its a minor aspect of the overall issue, its still valid.

Homosexuals in NH are not recognized as a married couple. NH, in my view, took the easy way out and enacted a good law that ignores the social context of the implications of percieved (or not?) discrimination against a minority group of the public.

[seireikhaan]

Why does the law need to call it "marriage"?

Leave marriage in the sphere of religion and develop a law system with basically the same set of rules as in the current "legal marriage", applicable on anybody who decides to live together and wants to make it official.

So you have the legal benefits of a marriage, with the exception that the term 'marriage' is no longer a legal term. And you can still marry for a priest or woever represents your particular religion in that matter afterwards.

--> the state organises a legal "cohabitation right" or whatever you want to call it: you have all the consequences (legal benefits and drawbacks, hehe) of what we currently know as marriage;
--> marriage with the religious or cultural connotation: doesn't have anything to do with the government or the state and frankly, it's none of the governments' business either, keep that in the religious sphere.

Just one thing here, Andres: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then isn't it a duck? You're basically saying "we'll give you this other title and it'll let you do all the things of marriage, but it won't actually be marriage".

[Andres]

Just one thing here, Andres: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then isn't it a duck? You're basically saying "we'll give you this other title and it'll let you do all the things of marriage, but it won't actually be marriage".

If calling it "civil union" or "legal cohabitation" makes everybody happy, why not

[HoreTore]

Just one thing here, Andres: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then isn't it a duck? You're basically saying "we'll give you this other title and it'll let you do all the things of marriage, but it won't actually be marriage".

Why not give EVERYONE that title as far as the state is concerned, and then let any other titles be decided by the religious group they belong to?

That would mean also mean that if a gay group starts The Big Gay Church of America, they're free to get people married...

But to the state, it won't matter at all what its called. Just as it should be, IMO.