Also from the free republic site:


How long will Americans who love God and one of His best creations, the original US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, remain passive to the corruption of America? How long will we citizens stand by while the left socializes the economy and society? How long will we tolerate their massive spending and debt which makes us and our unborn children paupers?

Where is the outrage and push back? There were dozens of court challenges and debates back in the 1930's when Roosevelt expanded executive power, none now? Is it because we know the courts are corrupt? If so, what other means will we use to regain our shining city on a hill?

I kinda want to say it is only gay if you push back

colon_pow: keep it up.
keep pushing to change society.
change it till nobody would have a problem if the gays were out cornholing in the streets, in a parade.
just like sodom and gomorrah.

how'd that work out for ya?

How does one "gomorrah" someone?

/knows how to sodomize

detfrost1: you breeders

I wish

ExJerseyGirl: But no one has been playing the "you'll force my priest/pastor to marry people when they don't believe in gay marriage" card. I think the ridiculousness of that argument has shut it down (at least out loud.)

No. I know. I wanted to head it off before it started. I'm pretty sure I've heard that argument as recently as Prop 8. And as you say, it's ridiculous.

*sigh*

austrianett: Also from the free republic site:


How long will Americans who love God and one of His best creations, the original US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, remain passive to the corruption of America? How long will we citizens stand by while the left socializes the economy and society? How long will we tolerate their massive spending and debt which makes us and our unborn children paupers?

Where is the outrage and push back? There were dozens of court challenges and debates back in the 1930's when Roosevelt expanded executive power, none now? Is it because we know the courts are corrupt? If so, what other means will we use to regain our shining city on a hill?

I kinda want to say it is only gay if you push back

Ahhhh... conservative butthurt is endlessly amusing, is it not?

Random thought: What if gay marriage saved America?

It along with other changes (legalization and taxation of cannabis being another controversial step) has the potential to promote job creation and a boost to the economy through taxation and spending. What would Phelps say about that?

The suggestion is cringe-worthy I admit, but still worth a thought? No?

Discuss.



//The ottoman empire was neither an ottoman nor an empire.

vygramul: If only Iowans didn't improperly refer to bags as sacks, they would actually get my respect.

They do that in Missouri, too.

Oh wait.

Hippycritical: /knows how to sodomize

How YOU doin'?

Hippycritical: colon_pow: keep it up.
keep pushing to change society.
change it till nobody would have a problem if the gays were out cornholing in the streets, in a parade.
just like sodom and gomorrah.

how'd that work out for ya?

How does one "gomorrah" someone?

/knows how to sodomize

I did it once, but I was drunk, so I don't remember.

titwrench: Davenport= the new San Francisco?

If so, please tell them to come round up our bums and bring them to corn country. You can't have the ghey without droves of homeless crackheads pooping in your front yards. Please? You can probably turn them into fertilizer when the fundies overturn the court's decision. GO IOWA!!!! Yer fabulous.

Almet: Hippycritical: colon_pow: keep it up.
keep pushing to change society.
change it till nobody would have a problem if the gays were out cornholing in the streets, in a parade.
just like sodom and gomorrah.

how'd that work out for ya?

How does one "gomorrah" someone?

/knows how to sodomize

I did it once, but I was drunk, so I don't remember.

gomorrah is what the doctor says you got

nomofobia: It along with other changes (legalization and taxation of cannabis being another controversial step) has the potential to promote job creation and a boost to the economy through taxation and spending. What would Phelps say about that?

Well, I don't think I could go for only taxing homosexual marriage. That would be shockingly unequal.

But the gays for SURE would have the wedding business booming. Can you imagine the exquisitely tasteful, yet mind-blowingly expensive weddings?



/As a country, surely you at least agree on the joy of pissing off Phelps? I mean, wouldn't homosexual marriage in all the states be worth it JUST to see his head explode?

ursomniac: Lord_Baull: I will never understand what gives the right for someone to tell someone else who they can marry.

Ah - but even worse, they don't extend THAT right to everyone either!

I would LOVE to be on a panel that had the ability to tell heterosexual couples they couldn't get married. After all, if citizens have the "right" to prohibit equality vis a vis marriage, then shouldn't that right be applied to all potential marriages?

Perhaps we should have a community panel that determines if the marriages are sanctified enough? We could pick random people to serve on it, like with jury duty.

/sarcasm
//I wish I didn't have to point that out

Free Range Fetus Farmer: /part time Iowan/Wisconsinite

boy that's all sorts of fail... :P
/from Illinois
//not Chicago
///Quad Cities

ExJerseyGirl: I don't think the legal issues are all that easily dealt with

The example you gave is -- if there is more than one party with an interest in the healthcare of an incapacitated person, and they are not of the same mind, they can bring an action to compel or forbid the particular care in question. We already do this anytime it's not clear that a single party has power of attorney for healthcare, like when the patient has multiple children and no current spouse.

Do you have an example of something that's actually complicated, and not already handled by existing legal procedures? I'm not saying authoritatively that such situations don't exist, but I'm having trouble constructing one.

nomofobia:
//The ottoman empire was neither an ottoman nor an empire.

I think the Holy Roman Empire gets the misnomer trifecta, though.

profplump: ExJerseyGirl: I don't think the legal issues are all that easily dealt with

The example you gave is -- if there is more than one party with an interest in the healthcare of an incapacitated person, and they are not of the same mind, they can bring an action to compel or forbid the particular care in question. We already do this anytime it's not clear that a single party has power of attorney for healthcare, like when the patient has multiple children and no current spouse.

Do you have an example of something that's actually complicated, and not already handled by existing legal procedures? I'm not saying authoritatively that such situations don't exist, but I'm having trouble constructing one.

Tax and inheritance laws? Custody issues? I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it is a potentially huge problem that would need to be addressed. I base my comment on being in another thread where a smart lawyer explained it.

profplump: The example you gave is -- if there is more than one party with an interest in the healthcare of an incapacitated person, and they are not of the same mind, they can bring an action to compel or forbid the particular care in question. We already do this anytime it's not clear that a single party has power of attorney for healthcare, like when the patient has multiple children and no current spouse.

Do you have an example of something that's actually complicated, and not already handled by existing legal procedures?

You didn't answer the hypothetical. If there are three spouses, by current statute each are medical proxy of the others. If two disagree about the care of the incapacitated one, we have a conundrum. Your solution - bring a court action to resolve it - violates current statutes. Those statutes would have to be amended. We could not handle this "by existing legal procedures" as you blithely claim.

Furthermore, court actions take time. The purpose of medical proxies are to be able to act quickly. If we were to require all spouses in polygamous marriages to resolve these disputes through the slow court system, yet spouses in monogamous marriages could resolve them instantly, there could be an Equal Protection argument.

But would you like another situation? Three spouses with equal interest in an indivisible item of real property, and no other assets. One wishes to divorce - can they compel sale of the real property, even though they only have a 1/3rd interest? What about if it's 10 spouses and the one compelling only has a 1/10th interest? Under current statutes, this could be required. Is it equitable?

I turned on the talk radio in Iowa (1040 AM) for the first time in a while this morning just to hear the butthurt/wharrrgarbl. I was not dissapointed; the commentators demanded that the state congress suspend trying to pass a budget until they "restore the institution".

I think my favorite part about the whole thing is that the decision was unanimous, and the court's summary nailed it:

In addressing the case before it, the court found one constitutional principle was at the heart of the case-the doctrine of equal protection. Equal protection under the Iowa Constitution "is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." Since territorial times, Iowa has given meaning to this constitutional provision, striking blows to slavery and segregation, and recognizing women's rights. The court found the issue of same-sex marriage comes to it with the same importance as the landmark cases of the past.

vygramul: Right up your alley?

*snert*

We're talking about bowling, right?

ExJerseyGirl: I base my comment on being in another thread where a smart lawyer explained it.

I'm not a lawyer (yet), but I do have a strong interest in constitutional law.

ExJerseyGirl: profplump: ExJerseyGirl: I don't think the legal issues are all that easily dealt with

The example you gave is -- if there is more than one party with an interest in the healthcare of an incapacitated person, and they are not of the same mind, they can bring an action to compel or forbid the particular care in question. We already do this anytime it's not clear that a single party has power of attorney for healthcare, like when the patient has multiple children and no current spouse.

Do you have an example of something that's actually complicated, and not already handled by existing legal procedures? I'm not saying authoritatively that such situations don't exist, but I'm having trouble constructing one.

Tax and inheritance laws? Custody issues? I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it is a potentially huge problem that would need to be addressed. I base my comment on being in another thread where a smart lawyer explained it.

The end result is that every individual relationship would have to be considered and litigated (at great personal and social costs) rather than handled through administration and simple paperwork.

Go Iowa!

/never thought I'd say that
//went to Wisconsin, grew up/live in Illinois...

Roy_G_Biv: Somacandra: I submitted this idea with a better headline and a better website describing God's punishment for Iowa' decision, to be unleashed on the state Saturday night. (new window)

God already gave Iowa a little preview last year. The punishment was pretty well confined to the blue areas of the state.

Any God who would choose to punish his children with death is not a God I will ever choose to follow.

phixxation: Any God who would choose to punish his children with death is not a God I will ever choose to follow.

He didn't punish them with death. He punished them with ... moldy drywall!

/muahahaha!

Hang On Voltaire: Because marriage is an institution between a man and a woman at it's core. I have no problem with civil unions I just have a problem with society deciding to redefine marriage

Marriage is something that a lot of churches recognize as a holy vocation. Honestly I think that for taxation, for property rights, for inheritance situations, for that contractual agreement between two people marriage should perhaps not be the word that is used. I think that Civil Unions should be what all people have, including heterosexual couples. If that couple then wants to get the "marriage in the church they can, but as far as a legal protection they should have all of those rights that should be in place for homosexual couples.

/Bi
//Works in Iowa

Roy_G_Biv: Somacandra: I submitted this idea with a better headline and a better website describing God's punishment for Iowa' decision, to be unleashed on the state Saturday night. (new window)

God already gave Iowa a little preview last year. The punishment was pretty well confined to the blue areas of the state.

Mr. Phelps?

So much for the will of the people. Doesn't matter anyhow, they'll probably pass an amendment reversing this in the next statewide election.

McManus_brothers: So much for the will of the people. Doesn't matter anyhow, they'll probably pass an amendment reversing this in the next statewide election.

You obviously know nothing about iowa law my breeding brother.
now go make more crotch fruit, that I will end up having to have my tax dollars go to feed and educate.

Hooray for Iowa!

:D

titwrench: Davenport= the new San Francisco?

how about:

Iowa City=the new San Francisco

Davenport=Detroit or maybe D.C.

Jormungandr: MisterLoki: From Freeperville (new window)

"This is scary. Unlike Massachusetts, Iowa is an agricultural breadbasket. Watch crop yields plumett now. God takes His revenge in many ways. Just ask those people burned out of their homes (or had their crops dry up from drought) in California. Russia's crop yields plummeted too, once she became an atheistic nation in 1922."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Good god those people are more retarded than 99% of all the farkers I've ever seen.

I've been trying to post in that thread for some time, but they revoked my posting privilege without even telling me. I guess those people just want an echo chamber there. My post was not offensive, even-handed, and wasn't strongly worded.... I guess hearing views that don't prescribe to their universe isn't kosher.

ExJerseyGirl: Tax and inheritance laws? Custody issues? I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it is a potentially huge problem that would need to be addressed. I base my comment on being in another thread where a smart lawyer explained it.

Custody issues? Because with monogamy people only ever get married to the person they create children with, so there's never a third party involved in custody fights? We already grant special rights to the biological parents regardless of the marital status, and we regularly deal with the case where someone other than the biological parent is married to one of the biological parents and later divorces; depending on the state and the circumstances all three people may have a valid claim for custody. I don't see how adding another person to the marriage makes things any different.

Tax laws? Why can't I just be married filing jointly/individually? We give certain tax breaks to married couples; we could, if we were so inclined, extend additional breaks to marriages with more partners. But honestly if you're all living together and more than two of you are working you can probably afford to pay individual tax rates, at least on incomes beyond the first two.

Inheritance laws? That one seems pretty straightforward too. In any case with right of survivorship -- joint accounts and the like -- the remaining spouses inherit the property. In the case of community property without right of survivorship the surviving spouses will inherit at least 66% of the estate, rather than the usual 50%, putting them in a better position and not hurting anyone else (other than other, non-spouse potential inheritors). And again, we already have a system in place for dealing with disputes.

I'm not saying no issue exists, but a lot of these seem pretty trivial -- we have a very flexible, robust legal system with respect to property law, and it's not too shabby with respect to family law either.

McManus_brothers: So much for the will of the people. Doesn't matter anyhow, they'll probably pass an amendment reversing this in the next statewide election.

FFS!!!! How much have you forgotten from your Civics/Social Studies/American History class??? When it comes to laws that have been passed and their constitutionality, the will of the people doesn't enter into it. It is the COURT that makes the determination if the law is constitutional or not when applied. You think that minorities or women would have the any civil rights to speak of if it were up to the "will of the people"? GAH!

bravian: Hosebeatings: boobsrgood: Iowa? Seriously? Isn't that one of the holes on the bible belt?

That's what I was thinking. How in Hell did Iowa of all places beat Minnesota to it? Minnesota is so far to the left Stalin calls us a bunch of bleeding-heart fairy pinkos.

Minnesota Supreme Court was the first state to rule that marriage was between a man and a woman. In the 70s. We are pursuing the matter in the legislature since our chance in the Supreme Court is zero.

That amazes me. This joint is almost as left-leaning as California.

Not saying it isn't true, but it's still amazing, considering how things work 'round these parts.

austrianett: Honestly I think that for taxation, for property rights, for inheritance situations, for that contractual agreement between two people marriage should perhaps not be the word that is used. I think that Civil Unions should be what all people have, including heterosexual couples. If that couple then wants to get the "marriage in the church they can, but as far as a legal protection they should have all of those rights that should be in place for homosexual couples.

What Floyd said - churches perform weddings and enter people into wedlock.

Furthermore, marriage is not equal to civil unions within the collective conscience of our society. Marriage is sacred, with a long tradition and positive affirmation by society. Civil unions are some new-fangled shiat invented so that the gays can get tax benefits. Obviously, they're not equal - not that many people have a problem with letting gays have civil unions (~20%) while a lot of people have a problem with letting gays get married. Therefore, there is a substantive difference between the state of "marriage" and "civil union".

"So what of it?" you say. "It would still be equal, but just everyone would get civil unions."
"Well, fark that," sez I.

I'm married. If the courts or legislature were to strip me and my wife of the state of being "married", something recognized in a multi-millennial history, and replace it with some half-assed "civil union" thing, they would be depriving us of a substantive right without due process. This is unconstitutional.

In summary, with Equal Protection, you can't give gays civil unions and heteros marriages... and with Due Process, you can't give everyone civil unions. The only answer is that marriage has to be available to everyone. And the churches can have wedlock.

McManus_brothers: So much for the will of the people. Doesn't matter anyhow, they'll probably pass an amendment reversing this in the next statewide election.

Thus proving the old adage, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner."

profplump: And again, we already have a system in place for dealing with disputes.

... that is statutorily inconsistent with what you propose. See my earlier reply.

FloydA: austrianett:

Marriage is something that a lot of churches recognize as a holy vocation.

My feeling is that a wedding is a religious ritual. The government has no business getting involved in that issue.

Marriage is a property contract, and churches have no business getting involved in that.

Yes, I agree. Churches are not the sole proprietors of the term 'marriage'. Ultimately, the ENGLISH word just means a close union and can be used in other contexts. Shall we say 'a civil union of Heaven and Hell' rather than 'a marriage of Heaven and Hell'? Of course not, because that's ridiculous.

You cannot CLAIM a word in the English language and say that others cannot use it. Under what authority does a church claim it, anyway? The bible wasn't written in English. In translating, a word from our language that means 'a close union' was used for the translation. And they can claim the word until they're blue in the face. I can claim that the name Jennifer should only be applied to redheaded cranky she-devils. That doesn't mean anyone should pay attention. If those churches think that only religious weddings are 'marriages', then they don't have to recognize other marriages. I doubt anyone involved in the other marriages will care. But they don't get to dictate terms to EVERYONE.

It's 2009 people. Gay people want to get married. MARRIED. Not 'civil unioned'. You're right, it's not just about the benefits. It's about having equal status and recognition in society that their union is JUST as legitimate as a heterosexual couples'. Which it is. If you don't like it, DON'T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME GENDER. That's the extent to which it affects you.

jekxrb: You cannot CLAIM a word in the English language and say that others cannot use it.

fireclown: TheSilverOne: I will no longer mock Iowa for smelling like cow manure.

That's pig manure, city boy. And we can now all agree that flyover country is not full of intolerant bigots.

Yeah, I guess Wyoming is kind of out of the way to be a traditional flyover state.

Jster422: I can't wait to hear about this from my uber-conservative 'family values' coworker. He's from Iowa.

He also has a lot of concerns about the message being sent by t.v. shows featuring single moms.

He's just got a lot of concerns in general, come to think of it.

It's a lot easier to worry about other peoples' problems than to deal with your own.

grotto_man: Another court decides to impose law against the will of the people. Wonderful. Nice way to screw over democracy, Supreme Court of Iowa.

May I introduce you to Brown v Topeka Board of Education, Loving v Virginia, and I could make more introductions.