Iowa District Court Rules Gay Marriage Legal

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Soulforged]

Marriage between persons of the same sex is logically imposible. To avoid legal nitpicking and problems with semantics this should simply be called civil union, the Church will never allow it anyway, so... And civil union as far as I know is legalized between homosexuals on many states across America.

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

Marriege presuposes the ability to have children, wich in turn supposes the union of different gamets to form a chromosomatic union. It's physically imposible for two people of the same sex to do that, of course it's always possible that an heterosexual couple also has the same problem, but in principle it's possible on the latter case. Therefore there could be a father and a MOTHER, without that, there's no proper marriage. So the discrimination between these cases is right, the Church has all the right in the world to discriminate like that if they want, and homosexuals don't really need the "holy" institution of marriage to be together and share their goods. Not sure why they would want it though.

[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.

[HoreTore]

Since I'm pissing everybody off, I must be doing something right

I wouldn't say that, as I agree with you... Might want to rethink your position now

Edit: Just to explain further, I believe that the legal stuff concerning marriage should be robbed of the "marriage" word and given a new name, like "civil union" or whatever. Then those who wish it can seek out a church/mosque/big stone in the woods/whatever and get it "religiously official", and then use the appropriate term for it(marriage), but that seremony carries no legal status(at least not outside that religious group). The owners of the church/mosque/big stone in the woods/whatever gets complete freedom regarding who they allow in their religious ceremony.

[Fragony]

Edit: Just to explain further, I believe that the legal stuff concerning marriage should be robbed of the "marriage" word and given a new name, like "civil union" or whatever. Then those who wish it can seek out a church/mosque/big stone in the woods/whatever and get it "religiously official", and then use the appropriate term for it(marriage), but that seremony carries no legal status(at least not outside that religious group). The owners of the church/mosque/big stone in the woods/whatever gets complete freedom regarding who they allow in their religious ceremony.

Sounds like a plan to me.

[Ser Clegane]

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)

I am actually with you (and probably with Andres and Fragony here). If you give gay people a "civil union" that grants them the same rights and priviledges as a heterosexual marriage I would not have any problem with that - and I would be willing to bet money that a large majority of gay people would fully agree as well (after all, most people will call their status "married" anyway).

I'll grant you - there would be people who would insist on even the term being exactly the same - these would be the same people who just for the sake of principle also inisist that abortion should be legal up to the moment of birth - a vocal minority that should not be allowed to take control of the issue, IMHO.

Marriege presuposes the ability to have children

Why?

the Church has all the right in the world to discriminate like that if they want, and homosexuals don't really need the "holy" institution of marriage to be together and share their goods. Not sure why they would want it though.

I agree that the religeous component of marriage is for the respective religion to decide - this has nothing to do with the main point of the discussion in this thread though.
I would fully agree with you that a church should not be forced by law to sanction gay marriage.

[Fragony]

Not all rights, no right to adopt a child for example, just the fiscal stuff.

[HoreTore]

Not all rights, no right to adopt a child for example, just the fiscal stuff.

I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

[Fragony]

I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

In our countries perhaps, acceptance for these things is much higher. In a society like america? No way, if you think of the child first still see no reason? Let the grown up people handle that particular battle. Maybe later when the dust has settled.

[HoreTore]

In our countries perhaps, acceptance for these things is much higher. In a society like america? No way, if you think of the child first still see no reason? Let the grown up people handle that particular battle. Maybe later when the dust has settled.

That would need an individual examination of what is best for the child in each particular case. I see no reason for a general ban. And just so you know, the entire US ain't that socially conservative, for example I'd imagine a gay couple living in a 5-million dollar apartment in NYC would be more than able parents for the child, and I doubt it would've been harassed more than any other child.

[Fragony]

A right and a possibility are two different things, a possibility is something you fight for in and a right prevents people for holding you back. Taken as a whole, given that america is a conservative country, fighting for the possibility seems like the way to go for people that really want it.

[HoreTore]

A right and a possibility are two different things, a possibility is something you fight for in and a right prevents people for holding you back. Taken as a whole, given that america is a conservative country, fighting for the possibility seems like the way to go for people that really want it.

Noone has a "right" to adoption. Straight couples have a right to be considered for an adoption. The gays want the same, and I fully support that.

[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]

Noone has a "right" to adoption. Straight couples have a right to be considered for an adoption. The gays want the same, and I fully support that.

But of course, they should be able to give the kids a solid enviroment to have a great youth, judge a gay couple by the same standards and you better be very picky. Gut says no, but I have no arguments to say no, but a bit much too fast perhaps, and given the blitzkrieg ways of gay right activists and their leap of faith mentality, some restraint please.

ah well I am of, happy weekend all!

[HoreTore]

But of course, they should be able to give the kids a solid enviroment to have a great youth, judge a gay couple by the same standards and you better be very picky. Gut says no, but I have no arguments to say no, but a bit much too fast perhaps, and given the blitzkrieg ways of gay right activists and their leap of faith mentality, some restraint please.

I believe one should ALWAYS be very picky when selecting parents for children in need of adoption. But I don't see any reason for a big, general NO for any particular group in society without even looking into the individuals seeking to adopt children. For example, certain religious churches/sects has my gut saying no. But how can my gut decide that couple X seeking adoptions are bad parents, just because they belong to church Y? The answer is that it can't. That can only be established by taking a closer look at couple X. A general no to them without even checking them out would be discriminating, and that's a bad thing.

[Lemur]

For those who believe that this is a strictly modern issue: Gay unions were sanctioned in medieval Europe.

Gay Unions Sanctioned in Medieval Europe

Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer
Mon Aug 27, 12:00 PM ET

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.

Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.

If accurate, the results indicate socially sanctioned same-sex unions are nothing new, nor were they taboo in the past.

“Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize," Tulchin writes in the September issue of the Journal of Modern History. "And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures.”

For example, he found legal contracts from late medieval France that referred to the term "affrèrement," roughly translated as brotherment. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe, Tulchin said.

In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained.

The same type of legal contract of the time also could provide the foundation for a variety of non-nuclear households, including arrangements in which two or more biological brothers inherited the family home from their parents and would continue to live together, Tulchin said.

But non-relatives also used the contracts. In cases that involved single, unrelated men, Tulchin argues, these contracts provide “considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships."

The ins-and-outs of the medieval relationships are tricky at best to figure out.

"I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been," Tulchin said. "It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that.”

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's a disingenuous title, and the 'proof' is basically a load of crap, Lemur, and I think you know it.

All that one researcher found was evidence of two men living in the same house. Lots of men today are roommates in apartments or at college; it would be equally absurd to think that means they are gay. It's equivalent to seeing a apartment contract, seeing that two men are the cosigners, and assuming they are gay.

Explain to me how that is not descrimintation

That doesn't take a general overthrow of marriage to achieve, nor does it take allowing gays to marry. Case in point: WA or NH.

A homosexual couple is not related to marriage, and that's just the facts.
One can give to them the hospital visitation and other rights, but there's no need to give them the title of marriage.

CR

[Lemur]

All that one researcher found was evidence of two men living in the same house.

Not exactly ...

In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Read it again, CR.

but there's no need to give them the title of marriage.

But why wouldn't you? "we don't need to" is not an explanation.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Not exactly ...

Perhaps you should have read on:

It's equivalent to seeing a apartment contract, seeing that two men are the cosigners, and assuming they are gay.

EDIT:

But why wouldn't you?

Because Marriage has between about a man and a woman. It's a about a man and a woman coming together because they love each other, and to provide for the raising of children. Yes, not all couples have kids, that's irrelevant to the intention of marriage.

Gay marriage would cheapen the idea and tradition of marriage, and cheapen and degrade the bonds of family and marriage.

CR

[Odin]

One can give to them the hospital visitation and other rights, but there's no need to give them the title of marriage.

CR

There is a need too if we want them to have equal rights. How about we remove the term marriage from the tax code so anyone who lives with someone for, I dont know 5 years? can file a joint return.

Under current laws you cannot file a joint return unless you are married, therefore there is a tangiable right which is denied 1 group due to the law not recognizing the legality of thier union.

if homosexual couples can get all the same benefits, and taxations I can get I'll go away satisfied. We can call it chicken spit instead of marriage for all I care, the point is "marriage" as a term has taken on legal implications (tax law) and thats where the hangup is.

Again, adjust the tax codes to accomedate "civil unions" on the federal level and Im game, short of that they are still procluded from the benefits I get.

[HoreTore]

Under current laws you cannot file a joint return unless you are married, therefore there is a tangiable right which is denied 1 group due to the law not recognizing the legality of thier union.

Better make that 2 groups, there are a lot of people who for personal reason do not want to marry(either at all or just not again), but they still wish to live with their partner for the rest of their lives(my father and his partner, for example).

[Ice]

Update: Check my first post. Gay marriage is now banned again.

[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