Next same-sex marriage battleground: Iowa?

[bradl]

Link (http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10509757)

From back at home...


Iowa court hears arguments on gay marriage
BY ELIZABETH AHLIN
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

DES MOINES, Iowa — Sean and Tim McQuillan rose early this morning, donned new suits, and drove over icy Des Moines streets to hear a group of lawyers debate whether marriages like theirs should be legal.

For the McQuillans, Iowa’s only same-sex married couple, the answer is a simple yes. For others, the answer is no.

The Iowa Supreme Court listened today as attorneys laid out reasons for and against legalizing gay marriage in Iowa.

The results of the hearing won’t be known for weeks, or even months, when the justices return their decision. But the court’s decision undoubtedly will thrust Iowa into the national spotlight over the contentious issue, which has played out state by state since the Massachusetts Supreme Court granted same-sex couples the right to marry in 2004. Connecticut also allows gay marriage.

The hearing was the result of two years of legal wrangling in the case of Varnum v. Brien, a lawsuit brought by six same-sex Iowa couples in December 2005. The couples sued after being denied marriage licenses from Polk County officials in Des Moines.

They won a brief victory in August 2007, when Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson ruled in favor of the couples, calling Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban "unconstitutional and invalid."

The decision stood for just a few hours, but that was enough time for Sean McQuillan, then Sean Fritz, to buy wedding rings, propose to Tim McQuillan, obtain a marriage license, and have a small outdoor ceremony.

More marriage licenses were granted, but no other couples were married before Hanson stayed his ruling pending an appeal by Polk County Attorney John Sarcone.

In a court filing, Sarcone argued that Hanson’s ruling was a mistake.

Iowa’s state law banning gay marriage, the filing reads, does not violate anyone’s civil rights, because same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right. Sarcone also argued that "sexual orientation," unlike race, has never been declared a class needing equal protection by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lawyers representing the same-sex couples, Camilla Taylor and Dennis Johnson, argued in their brief to the court that marriage has consistently been held as a fundamental right, and the State of Iowa has consistently viewed it as a protected right under the right to privacy.


I will be absolutely floored if the court rules in the McQuillan's favour. but if any place in the midwest could do it, it would be Iowa.

BL.

[leekohler]

We can only hope. But quite honestly, I don't see this happening. :(

[CalBoy]

I wouldn't have been one to bet on this, but there are a few factors to consider:

1) 6 of the 7 justices are Democrats, with 5 appointed fairly recently.

2) Iowa's judges ironically might be better shielded from recall efforts than California's judges, so they might not fear as much public backlash.

3) With the Supreme Courts in Massachusets, California, and Connecticut ruling against bans on same-sex marriage, the Iowa Court might feel safer being in good company.

This could potentially be a huge win. If the Iowa Court does find in favor of same-sex marriage, just wait for the domino effect to accelerate (here's looking at Rhode Island, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and maybe even Wisconsin).

[fivepoint]

For more articles relating to this Iowa court case, I'd recommend everyone check out the Des Moines Register (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008812100370).

[és:]

For more articles relating to this Iowa court case, I'd recommend everyone check out the Des Moines Register (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008812100370).

Considering your located in Iowa, do you want to share your feelings?

[SilentPanda]

If this is put to vote I'll be voting for it to be legalized round here.

I don't keep too much tabs on the issue as it doesn't personally affect me (I'm sure it does in some convoluted way but yeah) but I did watch the Daily Show from Tuesday (Dec. 9th) when Huckabee and Stewart were discussing the issue and I thought Stewart made some good points... yeah I get my news from the Daily Show... but it was actually a pretty good discussion between them.

[leekohler]

Thanks for the link, fivepoint. I still don't see this happening.

[fivepoint]

Considering your located in Iowa, do you want to share your feelings?

I've long maintained the position that the government should not be involved in the issue of marriage. Marriage, I think, is a Holy yet inflammatory term which has different meanings for different people. Consequently, people on both sides of the aisle are having a different argument with each other. For the sake of simplicity, I believe that marriage should be a religious-only practice, and the government should only deal with legal unions between both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

The religious right gets up in arms because they take offense to the government they pay taxes to giving 'unnatural', 'unholy', and 'unChristian' couples the same status (MARRIED) as they have, when their beliefs tell them that this should not be the case. They see any progress of the gay movement as a 'redefinition of marriage'. I think this is a very valid argument assuming that the terminology and language of the argument does not change.

The gay movement gets up in arms because they rightfully see it as an issue of freedom and equal rights. They feel that they should have the right to legally unify and share the same benefits as heterosexuals. I think this is obviously correct. Homosexuality is not a choice, and the government has no right to discriminate based on sexual preference.

To me, the language is all wrong, and the government (yet again) is getting it's far-reaching hands where they don't belong again. That being said... I think a lot of people have deeper, more heavily researched thoughts on this topic than my own. This is simply my thought on this very touchy subject. I'd appreciate if you'd refrain from any personal attacks, 'es. Stick to the issues, and let me have my own opinion... even though it might be different from your own.



Thanks for the link, fivepoint. I still don't see this happening.

You're welcome.

[leekohler]

I've long maintained the position that the government should not be involved in the issue of marriage. Marriage, I think, is a Holy yet inflammatory term which has different meanings for different people. Consequently, people on both sides of the aisle are having a different argument with each other. For the sake of simplicity, I believe that marriage should be a religious-only practice, and the government should only deal with legal unions between both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

The religious right gets up in arms because they take offense to the government they pay taxes to giving 'unnatural', 'unholy', and 'unChristian' couples the same status (MARRIED) as they have, when their beliefs tell them that this should not be the case. They see any progress of the gay movement as a 'redefinition of marriage'. I think this is a very valid argument assuming that the terminology and language of the argument does not change.

The gay movement gets up in arms because they rightfully see it as an issue of freedom and equal rights. They feel that they should have the right to legally unify and share the same benefits as heterosexuals. I think this is obviously correct. Homosexuality is not a choice, and the government has no right to discriminate based on sexual preference.

To me, the language is all wrong, and the government (yet again) is getting it's far-reaching hands where they don't belong again. That being said... I think a lot of people have deeper, more heavily researched thoughts on this topic than my own. This is simply my thought on this very touchy subject. I'd appreciate if you'd refrain from any personal attacks, 'es. Stick to the issues, and let me have my own opinion... even though it might be different from your own.





You're welcome.

I can agree with all this. If the religious nut cases will feel better, let them have their word. But in the case of the government, the terms and rights have to be the same for everyone. But god luck getting the religious to agree to this. They view it as "the gays trying to take God out of government". Like I've said before, there is no pleasing these people.

On the other hand, what about churches who marry gay couples? Are other churches going to attack them for it? There are already churches that do this.

[SilentPanda]

I can agree with all this. If the religious nut cases will feel better, let them have their word.

I used to want them to have their word but I don't even care about that any more. Even if you do a civil union instead of marriage they will be upset and odds are it will only be called a civil union on legal documents. In common speech marriage will eventually consume civil unions. If the government goes down this route what I think they should do is do a replace all on "marriage" in the books with "civil union" and make a marriage a type of civil union. Then when aliens land and people get civil with them they can make alien wedlock a type of civil union too. (okay that's a stretch (maybe) but that's the drift).

On the other hand, what about churches who marry gay couples? Are other churches going to attack them for it? There are already churches that do this.

I think if it happens this will be quite interesting. The church I had went to I don't really recall gay marriage specifically being talked about. They did usually say "marriage between one man and one woman" but there was never direct mention of gay marriage.

Why I think it will be interesting is I know there are people on both sides of the issue at that church (and I would guess most). It will be interesting to see if churches split or stay together during this. You'll rarely find 2 people in the same church that agree on every aspect of their faith the exact same way (which is true with any large scale idea) so it will be interesting to see if this is divisive whereas some other issues are "we'll just agree to disagree".

[fivepoint]

Glad we see eye-to-eye for the most part, Lee.

Another thing you should consider would be the tone of the debate. If you keep referring to them as "religious nutcases" and they keep referring to you as "liberal hippie homos" than the debate will continue to be drug through the gutter, never elevating to a more intelligent discussion. Name calling only makes each side more belligerent and more convinced of their own argument.

If you're argument is so ignorant and misguided as to consider the people you're arguing with to be all "religious nutcases", and not thoughtful caring people with good Christian values (with a few nutcases in there shouting louder than others) who just don't happen to agree with you on this issue, then I'd suggest you take your argument back to the drawing board.

Just an observation, Lee. In my opinion, you're credibility is severely diminished when you talk like that.

[leekohler]

Glad we see eye-to-eye for the most part, Lee.

Another thing you should consider would be the tone of the debate. If you keep referring to them as "religious nutcases" and they keep referring to you as "liberal hippie homos" than the debate will continue to be drug through the gutter, never elevating to a more intelligent discussion. Name calling only makes each side more belligerent and more convinced of their own argument.

If you're argument is so ignorant and misguided as to consider the people you're arguing with to be all "religious nutcases", and not thoughtful caring people with good Christian values (with a few nutcases in there shouting louder than others) who just don't happen to agree with you on this issue, then I'd suggest you take your argument back to the drawing board.

Just an observation, Lee. In my opinion, you're credibility is severely diminished when you talk like that.

Sorry- but people who refuse to listen to facts are indeed nut cases. If it diminishes my debate, fine. How people can view themselves as "caring" while they ignore facts for love of their religion is beyond me. They are NEVER going to like us fivepoint, NEVER. I don't see any point in trying. I just don't want them trying to take my rights. I don't need or want their approval. This is about equal treatment under the law, not making people like each other.

[synth3tik]

Iowa can be surprising some times. It is a really liberal state considering it is a heavy agricultural state.

I hope they can except gay marriage. Unlike California I have friends in Iowa that will be directly affected by this. So I really hope for the best.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Sorry- but people who refuse to listen to facts are indeed nut cases. If it diminishes my debate, fine. How people can view themselves as "caring" while they ignore facts for love of their religion is beyond me. They are NEVER going to like us fivepoint, NEVER. I don't see any point in trying. I just don't want them trying to take my rights. I don't need or want their approval. This is about equal treatment under the law, not making people like each other.

But someday, you're going to need their help to get your equal treatment under the law. And name calling isn't going to help you get that. All it does is make you seem petulant, and not worth listening to. It's an immature, and pointless way to attempt to make yourself heard. But in the end, all it does is turn your intended audience off to what you have to say to them.

I guess it's the old "Golden Rule" coming into play yet again! You've got to be an example of who you represent, it will go a lot farther to help your cause than insulting everyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you, believe me.

For example, I see the need for same sex couples to have equal rights. I have no real issue with civil unions, and I'd like to see the government issue civil unions to same sex couples and opposite sex couples alike. Then those couples can go find a private institution to get "Married" if they like. Nobody can own a word, it's an intangible object. I can just as easily tell you that I'm married to my Nissan, you can't tell me I'm not can you? To me, marriage is just a word, which I can use to describe any relationship.

But when I get on here, and hear all the attacks against my religion, which I hold very close to my heart, and which means so much to me personally. I lose a whole lot of sympathy for the cause.

SLC

[fivepoint]

Iowa can be surprising some times. It is a really liberal state considering it is a heavy agricultural state.

I hope they can except gay marriage. Unlike California I have friends in Iowa that will be directly affected by this. So I really hope for the best.

I wouldn't say it is surprisingly "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination... just more "logical" than some other states. There are (obviously) a whole lot of morons here as well, but as a whole... the state is more politically aware, constitutionally aware, and 'engaged' than comparable states. We have comparably good school systems and a rural agrarian culture that values family, freedom, and common sense.



Sorry- but people who refuse to listen to facts are indeed nut cases. If it diminishes my debate, fine. How people can view themselves as "caring" while they ignore facts for love of their religion is beyond me. They are NEVER going to like us fivepoint, NEVER. I don't see any point in trying. I just don't want them trying to take my rights. I don't need or want their approval. This is about equal treatment under the law, not making people like each other.

I guess that's up to you, Lee. You'll just have to deal with the consequences then.




But someday, you're going to need their help to get your equal treatment under the law. And name calling isn't going to help you get that. All it does is make you seem petulant, and not worth listening to. It's an immature, and pointless way to attempt to make yourself heard. But in the end, all it does is turn your intended audience off to what you have to say to them...

...But when I get on here, and hear all the attacks against my religion, which I hold very close to my heart, and which means so much to me personally. I lose a whole lot of sympathy for the cause.

SLC

+1

[leekohler]

But someday, you're going to need their help to get your equal treatment under the law. And name calling isn't going to help you get that. All it does is make you seem petulant, and not worth listening to. It's an immature, and pointless way to attempt to make yourself heard. But in the end, all it does is turn your intended audience off to what you have to say to them.

I guess it's the old "Golden Rule" coming into play yet again! You've got to be an example of who you represent, it will go a lot farther to help your cause than insulting everyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you, believe me.

For example, I see the need for same sex couples to have equal rights. I have no real issue with civil unions, and I'd like to see the government issue civil unions to same sex couples and opposite sex couples alike. Then those couples can go find a private institution to get "Married" if they like. Nobody can own a word, it's an intangible object. I can just as easily tell you that I'm married to my Nissan, you can't tell me I'm not can you? To me, marriage is just a word, which I can use to describe any relationship.

But when I get on here, and hear all the attacks against my religion, which I hold very close to my heart, and which means so much to me personally. I lose a whole lot of sympathy for the cause.

SLC

So- you guys want me to lie just to get my way? I don't believe in that. The religious right would find themselves a lot less under attack if they would practice what they preach and let others have the same free will and self-determination that they are allowed under the law.


I guess that's up to you, Lee. You'll just have to deal with the consequences then.


I guess I've just seen it tried too many times and fail. We can't afford to be nice anymore, it doesn't work. Banging your head against a brick wall isn't very productive, is it? We will NEVER convince the religious right to "give" us our rights. They will never agree to that, no matter how nice we are. If you think they will, I've got some real nice property in Florida you might find interesting. We will have to win this in the legislatures and courts, just like everyone else who's had to struggle for equality.

[és:]

I've long maintained the position that the government should not be involved in the issue of marriage.

Marriage has wide reaching implications on our societies and the government must have a hand in the legal and social factors.

Marriage, I think, is a Holy yet inflammatory term which has different meanings for different people. Consequently, people on both sides of the aisle are having a different argument with each other. For the sake of simplicity, I believe that marriage should be a religious-only practice [...]

Actually, so do I. I think it's something that needs to be looked at, although I'd probably come to a slightly different conclusion to you, because gays should, in a lot of people's eyes, not be exempt from a religious marriage.

I think it is a sensible idea to have a religious marriage and a non-religious 'legal union' (perhaps not a term that I'd use, but for the lack of any suitable alternative we'll go with it - although people should still be able to call themselves 'married') that both hold the exact same legal status. The second, as you suggested, will be for both hetero and homosexual 'unions' - of the non-religious community. However, the problem of religious homosexuals still remains.

My own solution to this would be for the government to fully recognize any non-religious marriage (homo and heterosexual), any heterosexual religious marriage (as it does now) and then, if a church wants to marry them, any religious marriage between same sex partners. As much as I don't think it is right to stop homosexuals having exactly the same rights as heterosexuals, I also don't think it would be right to force churches to go against their beliefs - but if the Church wants to then great.

What I would imagine would happen is that the majority of Homosexual couples would get married the non-religious 'legal union' way, the religious homosexuals can find a Church that will marry them and have a religious ceremony.

The problem is that many Christians wouldn't agree to that. They, as with many other issues, want other people to live by their rules.

The gay movement gets up in arms because they rightfully see it as an issue of freedom and equal rights. They feel that they should have the right to legally unify and share the same benefits as heterosexuals. I think this is obviously correct. Homosexuality is not a choice, and the government has no right to discriminate based on sexual preference.

I think all but the most extreme people accept this point of view. Unfortunately those people often have a lot of power.

This is simply my thought on this very touchy subject.

And I think you, up until this point at least, for sharing them in a mature, intelligent manor.

I'd appreciate if you'd refrain from any personal attacks, 'es.

Just how paranoid are you! After such a thoughtful post, you don't need to be attacked; you bring yourself down, and that's disappointing. I had a post deleted about the way you post, so I won't go into it again. However, you do need to stop the 'woe is me' act, it's getting old.

Stick to the issues, and let me have my own opinion... even though it might be different from your own.


As many people have said to you on this forum - you're more than welcome to your own opinion, it is when you misrepresent facts that a problem arises.

[és:]

But when I get on here, and hear all the attacks against my religion, which I hold very close to my heart, and which means so much to me personally. I lose a whole lot of sympathy for the cause.

SLC


Many people in your religion have a quasi-dogmatic approach to the Bible. They pick out parts that suit their agenda and prejudice, whilst ignoring many other things. It's hypocritical at best.

These are the people that are nutjobs. These are the people I have a problem with.

[leekohler]

Many people in your religion have a quasi-dogmatic approach to the Bible. They pick out parts that suit their agenda and prejudice, whilst ignoring many other things. It's hypocritical at best.

These are the people that are nutjobs. These are the people I have a problem with.

And let's not forget the massive fund raising campaign by said religion to deny people rights in California. If your religion is going to play like that, then it has to accept the inevitable backlash. No one in the gay rights movement is trying to close a church or deny anyone rights. Let's not confuse who's been attacked here. And they somehow want me to to be sympathetic to their cause?

[CalBoy]

I've long maintained the position that the government should not be involved in the issue of marriage. Marriage, I think, is a Holy yet inflammatory term which has different meanings for different people.

I know you're a libertarian, so you have a stronger apathy towards government, but I've discussed this with many people on this board: marriage is not originally religious in nature.

It began as a civil contract that helped people leverage property (which back in the day included daughters and wives) and build strategic alliances.

Even throughout the Middle Ages, very few people relative to the whole population actually "got married" in the sense we know of it today. By far peasants had their marriages recognized by common law, which automatically "married" them after 7 years of cohabitation.

The more modern tradition of going to a church and having a priest involved with the ceremony really begins in the late 13th Century when young Italian couples began to see a priest on their way to the magistrate. That evolved over time into the priest performing the whole ceremony.

Now, leave that aside and consider the logistical problems with having civil unions for everyone. You'd be right in saying that civil unions for gay couples would be much easier to achieve electorally (we might even be able to pass such legislation at the Federal level within 2 years-optimistic but doable).

The problem lies in taking away marriage from straight couples. It's a very unpopular proposition. Straight couples like to say they're "married." It wouldn't fly over well if you had to say, "will you civil union me?" Thus we'd have a separate but equal situation emerge, since legislatures would hesitate much less to grant civil unions to gay couples, but would never vote to take away marriage from everyone else. It would be too politically unpopular.

How do we resolve this dilemma? To me the answer is to grant marriage to gay and straight couples. Much better and easier to extend the term to 5% of people than to rob 95% of their term.

Oh, btw, thanks for the link. :)
But someday, you're going to need their help to get your equal treatment under the law.

You do catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

The problem is, we've left the honey out for 20 years. I think we've pretty much caught as many flies as we can now. It's the bees that are coming for our honey now, and we're not going to be afraid to call them as such. ;)

[és:]

And let's not forget the massive fund raising campaign by said religion to deny people rights in California. If you're religion is going to play like that, then it has to accept the inevitable backlash. No one in the gay rights movement is trying to close a church or deny anyone rights. Let's not confuse who's been attacked here. And they somehow want me to to be sympathetic to their cause?

I think you're right. Nutjobs is an accurate term for some of these people. I've got no problem with anybody that wants to practice a religion and have a belief system, it is when they use it to effect other people - it pisses me off.

[leekohler]

I


You do catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

The problem is, we've left the honey out for 20 years. I think we've pretty much caught as many flies as we can now. It's the bees that are coming for our honey now, and we're not going to be afraid to call them as such. ;)

Exactly. We've convinced as many on the religious side as possible at this point. We actually have a lot of churches on our side. I don't believe we're going to get any more at this point. The lines have been drawn and choices have been made. We will have equal rights, it's just a matter of time. More and more people are for us. And as I pointed out before, 8% of those who voted for Prop 8 now wish they hadn't. We're going to win, and we'll win it without the religious right.

[SLC Flyfishing]

So- you guys want me to lie just to get my way? I don't believe in that. The religious right would find themselves a lot less under attack if they would practice what they preach and let others have the same free will and self-determination that they are allowed under the law.

No Lee, I would never ask you to lie about anything. If you can't be sincerely respectful then that's that I suppose. Just don't be so surprised when nobody wants to listen to you. That's all I'm trying to say.

SLC

[leekohler]

No Lee, I would never ask you to lie about anything. If you can't be sincerely respectful then that's that I suppose. Just don't be so surprised when nobody wants to listen to you. That's all I'm trying to say.

SLC

Again, how am I supposed to respect people who won't acknowledge facts? How exactly am I supposed to do that? How am I supposed to be respectful of people who are trying desperately to deny people like me our rights? Would you? I doubt it. Respect is something earned, not automatically deserved.

And it seems that plenty of people want to hear what we have to say. Judging from the change of heart of 8% of the voters in CA who voted for Prop 8, I'd say we're being heard just fine.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Again, how am I supposed to respect people who won't acknowledge facts? How exactly am I supposed to do that? How am I supposed to be respectful of people who are trying desperately to deny people like me our rights? Would you? I doubt it. Respect is something earned, not automatically deserved.

And it seems that plenty of people want to hear what we have to say. Judging from the change of heart of 8% of the voters in CA who voted for Prop 8, I'd say we're being heard just fine.

When 80% change their minds while you disrespect them and their beliefs, then we'll talk. As of now 92% are sticking to their choice, so I'd say that you're not doing as good a job being heard as you'd like to believe.


SLC

[leekohler]

When 80% change their minds while you disrespect them and their beliefs, then we'll talk.

SLC

8% is more than enough to reverse that vote. If the Supreme Court let's it stand (which I highly doubt) it'll be voted down next election. It's a done deal, and we'll be fighting harder next time.

If the church wants respect, it needs to be earned. It has not earned my respect, it's done just the opposite.

[SLC Flyfishing]

I think you'll find that it's not as cut and dry as that. People will say that they changed their minds. Especially when pressured to do so. Or when faced with the fear of retaliation for voting their conscience.

Maybe some have decided they feel differently, but I'll bet it's not the 8% you'd like to believe that you now have in the bag!

SLC

[leekohler]

I think you'll find that it's not as cut and dry as that. People will say that they changed their minds. Especially when pressured to do so. Or when faced with the fear of retaliation for voting their conscience.

Maybe some have decided they feel differently, but I'll bet it's not the 8% you'd like to believe that you now have in the bag!

SLC

Umm..I'm only quoting the statistics. I didn't make that up.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Umm..I'm only quoting the statistics. I didn't make that up.

I know, I've seen them too. All I'm saying is, people tend to vascilate when asked these types of questions. Maybe only half who said they'd vote differently really would if given the chance. Maybe 15% of folks would change their votes if given the chance. I don't really know, but I do know that statistics can be (and often are) interpreted to fit any conclusion desired. And a lot of what you seem to be banking on could be people who feel pressured into replying a certain way. You really don't know.

And this all ties back into what I said earlier. You'll likely have a lot of success in changing minds if you treat people with respect.

Think about it!

SLC

[CalBoy]

No Lee, I would never ask you to lie about anything. If you can't be sincerely respectful then that's that I suppose. Just don't be so surprised when nobody wants to listen to you. That's all I'm trying to say.

Like Lee and I have both mentioned, we've done this already for quite some time. Gay rights didn't appear for the first time in 2004; it's been an ongoing struggle that has employed a wide variety of tactics, and by far most of them have tried to kiss up to established powers like churches.

The time for that is clearly at its end. Churches are not going to be moved much more at this point because we are a political pariah. Whereas before some churches were willing to bring us in despite our immense unpopularity, the times have shifted to the point where churches aren't really shifting their stances at all. Now we electrify their congregations to do 3 things:

1) Vote against the gays

2) Vote against women's rights

3) Vote Republican

Given this reality, we now have to fight back with the same veracity with which we have been attacked.
When 80% change their minds while you disrespect them and their beliefs, then we'll talk. As of now 92% are sticking to their choice, so I'd say that you're not doing as good a job being heard as you'd like to believe.

80% is a very large number. Even the decision in Loving v Virginia didn't have majority support until 1992 (25 years after it was handed down).

I'd bet that more than 20% of the population to this day has problems with interracial relationships.

If you use such high thresholds, no one will ever be able to claim victory.

For gay rights (like any other minority), a strong minority of support is pretty much good enough. We're never going to get what we need from a president, governor, legislature, or Congress. Our legal relief comes from the courts because the courts decide what is legally right, not what is politically popular.

Besides, of the 92% who aren't changing their minds, 48% voted with us. Not good odds if you're on the opposing team.
I think you'll find that it's not as cut and dry as that. People will say that they changed their minds. Especially when pressured to do so. Or when faced with the fear of retaliation for voting their conscience.

Maybe some have decided they feel differently, but I'll bet it's not the 8% you'd like to believe that you now have in the bag!

Even if your social desirability thesis is correct (which recent polls have shown to be increasingly untrue), the simple fact that young voters are so overwhelmingly behind us is a sign that this fight will be over in 10 years, and we will be the victors.

In California, the vote against Prop 8 by the youth vote (between 18 and 29) was 69%. Even younger voters (those between 18 and 22) are even more in favor of gay rights.

On this issue, churches cannot win by the simple fact that attrition is against them, and even organizations as powerful as churches can do nothing to stop the inevitable march of time. ;)

[és:]

No Lee, I would never ask you to lie about anything. If you can't be sincerely respectful then that's that I suppose. Just don't be so surprised when nobody wants to listen to you. That's all I'm trying to say.

SLC

You have to earn respect, SLC.

[SilentPanda]

You have to earn respect, SLC.

In some cases you do. But I think in this case unless one were to already be on your side, you're predisposed to not wanting to respect them. You should at least give each new person you talk to the benefit of the doubt and not start them at a level of disrespect. It's certainly a heated issue but starting your argument on either side looking down on somebody removes your argument and only has people focus on your name calling. There's no need to shower them with adoration either but at least start at a neutral level with a new person. It's much easier to show your level of respect to them going down then to take back the negative after the fact.

[leekohler]

In some cases you do. But I think in this case unless one were to already be on your side, you're predisposed to not wanting to respect them. You should at least give each new person you talk to the benefit of the doubt and not start them at a level of disrespect. It's certainly a heated issue but starting your argument on either side looking down on somebody removes your argument and only has people focus on your name calling. There's no need to shower them with adoration either but at least start at a neutral level with a new person. It's much easier to show your level of respect to them going down then to take back the negative after the fact.

Individuals, yes. The church as an organization, no.

[SLC Flyfishing]

You have to earn respect, SLC.

I agree and that goes for both sides of this issue. Though Lee has made it known (to me at least) that Gays are not interested in earning my respect, nor that of the members of my church.

SLC

[leekohler]

I agree and that goes for both sides of this issue. Though Lee has made it known (to me at least) that Gays are not interested in earning my respect.

SLC

Neither is the church interested in earning mine.

And how exactly have I not respected you? have I called you some sort of name? No. I've discussed things with you quite rationally.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Neither is the church interested in earning mine.

And how exactly have I not respected you? have I called you some sort of name? No. I've discussed things with you quite rationally.

Well......

I can agree with all this. If the religious nut cases will feel better, let them have their word.


Sound familiar? I know you'd like to paint us all with the same broad brush. I didn't have to look far for that!

SLC

[leekohler]

Well......



Sound familiar? I know you'd like to paint us all with the same broad brush. I didn't have to look far for that!

SLC

How does that apply to all religious people? It doesn't. If you wish to take it that way, I can't tell you not to. I even stated in this thread that we have many churches on our side. We do. There are a lot of religious people who support us. I never said there weren't. It's you who are trying to paint me with a broad brush.

[és:]

I agree and that goes for both sides of this issue.


No, it doesn't. The people that I'm talking about are disrespected because of their vile actions. Gays are disrespected for their sexuality - something completely different.

[SLC Flyfishing]

How does that apply to all religious people? It doesn't. If you wish to take it that way, I can't tell you not to. I even stated in this thread that we have many churches on our side. We do. There are a lot of religious people who support us. I never said there weren't. It's you who are trying to paint me with a broad brush.

But what you did do is imply that anyone who isn't on your side of this issue is a religious nut job. I happen to not be on your side at the moment, so your comments were in a way, directed straight at me.

SLC

[CalBoy]

But what you did do is imply that anyone who isn't on your side of this issue is a religious nut job. I happen to not be on your side at the moment, so your comments were in a way, directed straight at me.

Can I take a page out of the Mormon Church's book and say that Lee isn't against you, but what you believe?

Some other posters who posit that you can lovingly take away a right also support the logic that such insults aren't directed at anyone.

So which is it?

[leekohler]

But what you did do is imply that anyone who isn't on your side of this issue is a religious nut job. I happen to not be on your side at the moment, so your comments were in a way, directed straight at me.

SLC

Please explain to me what you are against. Because honestly SLC, I have nothing against you at all. The facts from every other country that allows it and indeed Massachusetts point toward one thing, equal marriage rights are a good thing for society. And really, once the facts are in your corner, what do you call people who refuse to acknowledge the facts? I don't know about you, but facts are facts. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge reality is usually called...what is it again?

And herein lies the problem from your POV. We have done more reasoning and pleading and being "nice" for long enough. We now have it down to those who like us, and those who don't. Your church as an organization directly attacked us, and yet you stand here and say we should be "nice". I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Your church attacked us, and we're going to attack back. You would do no different, and don't pretend you would. If gays were out to vote Mormon rights away what would you do? Sit back and say, "OK, you voted our rights away and that's OK." Really? You would say that? Because I would fight for your rights as an American. It's too bad you don't see fit to return the favor.

[és:]

In some cases you do. But I think in this case unless one were to already be on your side, you're predisposed to not wanting to respect them. You should at least give each new person you talk to the benefit of the doubt and not start them at a level of disrespect. It's certainly a heated issue but starting your argument on either side looking down on somebody removes your argument and only has people focus on your name calling. There's no need to shower them with adoration either but at least start at a neutral level with a new person. It's much easier to show your level of respect to them going down then to take back the negative after the fact.

I'm not saying treat everyone with disrespect. I'm saying people need to earn respect. Everybody starts off with a 0 on the respect scale. Doing things that some extreme religious right do gets you into the minus scale very quickly

[SLC Flyfishing]

I'm not saying treat everyone with disrespect. I'm saying people need to earn respect. Everybody starts off with a 0 on the respect scale. Doing things that some extreme religious right do gets you into the minus scale very quickly

That's fine if that's your point of view. But you've got to realize that name calling and other childishness gets you and yours on the negative side of the scale just as quickly. And then the debate goes nowhere.

Religious people have beliefs which are just as strong and important to them as the beliefs etc of non-religious people. In order to have a meaningful conversation in which one side can persuade the other to see things their way, respect for the beliefs of the other side must be shown.

You start by showing that you understand where the other side is coming from, demonstrate that you understand why they might feel that way. Then explain why you feel the way you do, and why you think they should too. But it must be done with a respectful tone.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding between us es, I guess when I say respect needs to be given, I should say that respect needs to be shown. I can't expect you to respect my beliefs, they seem to be completely opposite to yours. But I don't think it's unrealistic to expect that you show respect when we have a conversation. At least giving me the common courtesy of not trying to belittle me for what I believe. If you don't, then all you've succeeded in doing was to convince me that it's not worth my time to discuss the issue with you.

It's really that simple.

SLC

SLC

[SLC Flyfishing]

Can I take a page out of the Mormon Church's book and say that Lee isn't against you, but what you believe?

See now that's something I can relate to. If you are honestly being sincere about that, then that's the first step in us understanding each other's POV. Just take that notion and apply it in reverse and you'll know exactly where I'm coming from w/respect to this issue as well. I know you're all great people, I just happen to believe that Homosexual sex is a sin. Notice I don't say homosexuality, just the act of homosexual sex. That's why I have no issue with homosexuals as people, some of the nicest and most fun people I have had the privilege of knowing were homosexuals, but the act is what I don't agree with. I don't suppose that you knowing this helps any, but that's where I stand right now.

SLC

[leekohler]

See now that's something I can relate to. If you are honestly being sincere about that, then that's the first step in us understanding each other's POV. Just take that notion and apply it in reverse and you'll know exactly where I'm coming from w/respect to this issue as well. I know you're all great people, I just happen to believe that Homosexual sex is a sin. Notice I don't say homosexuality, just the act of homosexual sex. That's why I have no issue with homosexuals as people, some of the nicest and most fun people I have had the privilege of knowing were homosexuals, but the act is what I don't agree with. I don't suppose that you knowing this helps any, but that's where I stand right now.

SLC

Then don't support laws that take away our rights. It's really quite simple. We haven't done that to you. You may live your life as you see fit. We deserve the same. I don't like your beliefs, but I'm not out to pass laws against you.

[apsterling]

The only thing that could even be close to construed as negative about homosexuality is that no reproduction occurs. Even then, nowadays its indirectly possible.

I'm personally all for same-sex marriage, it doesn't affect me, but it's directly effecting a few of my friends, and I don't understand the logic behind taking their rights. It's not like they're the scourge of the land, these are some of the nicest people I've ever met, having their rights taken, just the same as any other group who's ever been deprived their rights.

If you're not in support of rights, at least don't be a detriment to giving this wonderful group of people theirs.

[Blue Velvet]

I just happen to believe that Homosexual sex is a sin.

So? What do your beliefs have to do with the law? If others want to live by your beliefs they'd join you in your church.

Would you want your personal life to be governed by other's religious beliefs? I suspect not.

[CalBoy]

I don't suppose that you knowing this helps any, but that's where I stand right now.

Your stance is littered with logically fallacious reasoning.

To say that you have no qualms with homosexuals but to have a problem with homosexual activity is like saying you don't have a problem with cars, as long as people don't drive them.

A close personal relationship with sexual intimacy is a primary desire for most people in this world. To deny that to someone (the legal aspects of it) based on your narrow views is completely ridiculous.

Take it from another point of view: your right to practice a religion, which is by far much more of a choice than sexuality is for anyone, is very well protected by the law. Why do we accord so much protection for a choice, but look so negatively towards something that cannot be controlled?

If you want to know my true opinion of you, it's that you think that homosexual behavior is a choice. Your beliefs tell you that homosexual sex is morally wrong, and you can't come to terms with the fact that a sizable percentage of the population develops this way.

In that light, you're choosing the word of a text of dubious accuracy over the live testimony of millions of your peers around the nation and around the globe. That to me, is nutty.

[SLC Flyfishing]

If you want to know my true opinion of you, it's that you think that homosexual behavior is a choice. Your beliefs tell you that homosexual sex is morally wrong, and you can't come to terms with the fact that a sizable percentage of the population develops this way.

In that light, you're choosing the word of a text of dubious accuracy over the live testimony of millions of your peers around the nation and around the globe. That to me, is nutty.


Good to know where you and I stand Calboy, I guess I'm done discussing things with you then?

SLC

[leekohler]

Good to know where you and I stand Calboy, I guess I'm done discussing things with you then?

SLC

And that's exactly the problem. When reason doesn't work, what's left? Do you kind of see our point now? We're not going to go around begging for acceptance anymore, because clearly, it's gotten to the point where that approach has accomplished as much as it's going to. When you try to convince people who have beliefs that fly in the face of fact, yet they still hold onto them and think others should live by them too, there's not much to be done about that.

[CalBoy]

Good to know where you and I stand Calboy, I guess I'm done discussing things with you then?

Quite frankly, there's no room for discussion if you are going to hold onto the belief that gay people choose their sexual attractions. If you can't move beyond that despite the mounting evidence in front of you, what more is there to discuss?

[és:]

That's fine if that's your point of view. But you've got to realize that name calling and other childishness gets you and yours on the negative side of the scale just as quickly. And then the debate goes nowhere.

As has been explain to you, we're talking about a specific type of person. These people are clearly nutjobs.

In order to have a meaningful conversation in which one side can persuade the other to see things their way, respect for the beliefs of the other side must be shown.

The type of person we are talking about doesn't respect homosexuals, nor see the other side of things. Homosexuality is an abomination...

I can't expect you to respect my beliefs, they seem to be completely opposite to yours.

I've got no problem with you believing whatever you want. I do have a problem with you wanting to enforce your belief onto others. I do have a problem with the quasi-dogmatic approach from the pious Christian right that use one part of the bible to discriminate, whilst ignoring other parts that they don't want to follow.

But I don't think it's unrealistic to expect that you show respect when we have a conversation. At least giving me the common courtesy of not trying to belittle me for what I believe.

Show me where I've done this. Right now.

I'll repeat: I've no problem with you believing whatever you like. I'd fight for your right to believe what you like. However, you want other people to live by your beliefs. You want other people's civil rights to be curtailed because of your belief.

If you don't, then all you've succeeded in doing was to convince me that it's not worth my time to discuss the issue with you.

It's really that simple.


That is because all you've got to back your argument up with is a couple of lines in a book that was written by goodness knows who, goodness knows when.

It really is that simple.

[leekohler]

As has been explain to you, we're talking about a specific type of person. These people are clearly nutjobs.



The type of person we are talking about doesn't respect homosexuals, nor see the other side of things. Homosexuality is an abomination...



I've got no problem with you believing whatever you want. I do have a problem with you wanting to enforce your belief onto others. I do have a problem with the quasi-dogmatic approach from the pious Christian right that use one part of the bible to discriminate, whilst ignoring other parts that they don't want to follow.



Show me where I've done this. Right now.

I'll repeat: I've no problem with you believing whatever you like. I'd fight for your right to believe what you like. However, you want other people to live by your beliefs. You want other people's civil rights to be curtailed because of your belief.



That is because all you've got to back your argument up with is a couple of lines in a book that was written by goodness knows who, goodness knows when.

It really is that simple.

Hence why "being nice" and "showing respect" have done as much as they can. This is why we have to fight the legal battle now and get loud. If people think their beliefs should dictate how others live, no matter what the evidence shows, the time for discussion has come to an end. SLC, and people like him, have made up their minds and are not going to change, no matter how "nice" we are. I see no reason to keep banging our heads against a brick wall.

[és:]

Hence why "being nice" and "showing respect" have done as much as they can. This is why we have to fight the legal battle now and get loud. If people think their beliefs should dictate how others live, no matter what the evidence shows, the time for discussion has come to an end. SLC, and people like him, have made up their minds and are not going to change, no matter how "nice" we are. I see no reason to keep banging our heads against a brick wall.

I agree. I'm not gay but this still effects my civil liberties and the civil liberties of my friends. When this nonsense and struggle is over, they will move onto something else. It was the blacks before (and the bible has no problem with slavery), it's the gays now and whoever it may be that is next in line; we'll stick up for them, too. Ironically, it will probably be the Christians that are next in line - the other religions are taking a battering, it can't be too long before Christians are the ones in the crosshairs.