Next same-sex marriage battleground: Iowa?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bradl, Dec 10, 2008.

  1. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #1
    Link

    From back at home...

    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.
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    We can only hope. But quite honestly, I don't see this happening. :(
     
  3. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #3
    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).
     
  4. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #4
    For more articles relating to this Iowa court case, I'd recommend everyone check out the Des Moines Register.
     
  5. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #5
    Considering your located in Iowa, do you want to share your feelings?
     
  6. SilentPanda Moderator emeritus

    SilentPanda

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Bamboo Forest
    #6
    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.
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    Thanks for the link, fivepoint. I still don't see this happening.
     
  8. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #8
    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.
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    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.
     
  10. SilentPanda Moderator emeritus

    SilentPanda

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Bamboo Forest
    #10
    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).

    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".
     
  11. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #11
    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.
     
  12. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #12
    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.
     
  13. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #13
    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.
     
  14. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #14
    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
     
  15. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #15
    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.



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




    +1
     
  16. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    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 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.
     
  17. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #17
    Marriage has wide reaching implications on our societies and the government must have a hand in the legal and social factors.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.
     
  18. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #18

    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.
     
  19. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    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?
     
  20. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #20
    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. :)
    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. ;)
     
  21. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #21
    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.
     
  22. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    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.
     
  23. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #23
    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
     
  24. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #24
    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.
     
  25. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #25
    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
     

Share This Page