Gay marriage now legal in Iowa

[dolfan]

Rambo, what's the reaction there with your friends/family?

[RamboPreacher]

bah

[beckrl]

good reaction

[Pastor Gary]

Can we charter a plane and send all Hawaii's gay activists who want to get married over to Iowa? I hear you love SPAM there also, so they could adjust.

[valley]

I have yet to read the opinion, but if I had to guess, the decision of the Court might be based on cases such as Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 1967), McLaughlin v. Florida (379 U.S. 184, 85 S.Ct. 283, 1964), Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2474, 156 L.Ed.2d 508, 2003) , etc. Some of the decision of the US Supreme Court in the above listed cases one may or may not agree with, but they establish certain principles which guide the Court until it says otherwise. Remember, the root of Roe v. Wade is found in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510, 1965) where the Court held that married individuals have a right to privacy concerning their reproductive habits (specifically in Griswold birth control devices).

[Pastor Gary]

I have yet to read the opinion, but if I had to guess, the decision of the Court might be based on cases such as Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 1967), McLaughlin v. Florida (379 U.S. 184, 85 S.Ct. 283, 1964), Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2474, 156 L.Ed.2d 508, 2003) , etc. Some of the decision of the US Supreme Court in the above listed cases one may or may not agree with, but they establish certain principles which guide the Court until it says otherwise. Remember, the root of Roe v. Wade is found in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510, 1965) where the Court held that married individuals have a right to privacy concerning their reproductive habits (specifically in Griswold birth control devices).

...all of which conveniently dodge the essential question of the fundamental right of society to define marriage for the common good and the right of society to a public, secular morality that could, at democratic option, preclude same-sex marriage as not in the best interests of society as a whole.

[RamboPreacher]

how do you define marriage?
as opposed to "civil union"?

I do NOT believe they are the same thing. marriage is a spiritual/religious (tri-union covenant between God, a man and a woman); civil union is a legality/contractual bilateral arrangement.

a couple cents thrown out for discussion.

[Pastor Gary]

how do you define marriage?
as opposed to "civil union"?

I do NOT believe they are the same thing. marriage is a spiritual/religious (tri-union covenant between God, a man and a woman); civil union is a legality/contractual bilateral arrangement.

Frankly -- on a civic level I am not interested in legislating who can "sleep with" (have sex with) whom, in regards to consenting adults; I am, however, against society sanctioning and putting its imprimatur upon same-sex partnerships as if they were the moral equivalent of one-man+one-woman Biblical marriage.

Reciprocal benefits contract? fine.
Designated partnership arrangement? Go for it.

Make it fair, though... any one human can pick any other human, regardless of relationship, to be their designated beneficiary... brother, mother, neighbor, friend, lover, boss, co-worker, cousin, random stranger...

[RamboPreacher]

how do you define marriage?
as opposed to "civil union"?

I do NOT believe they are the same thing. marriage is a spiritual/religious (tri-union covenant between God, a man and a woman); civil union is a legality/contractual bilateral arrangement.

Frankly -- on a civic level I am not interested in legislating who can "sleep with" (have sex with) whom, in regards to consenting adults; I am, however, against society sanctioning and putting its imprimatur upon same-sex partnerships as if they were the moral equivalent of one-man+one-woman Biblical marriage.

Reciprocal benefits contract? fine.
Designated partnership arrangement? Go for it.

Make it fair, though... any one human can pick any other human, regardless of relationship, to be their designated beneficiary... brother, mother, neighbor, friend, lover, boss, co-worker, cousin, random stranger...

zactly, zactly.

a concern is the slippery slope that "might be" in reference to Governmental powers being pressed to the religious community. More specifically that I see it has a direction that COULD lead to someone like king osboma declaring that Christian Churches MUST perform "marriages" for same-sex couples ("or else" - maybe lose 501c3, etc...)

[Messianic Believer]

amen! amen! Pastor Gary. Might as well legalize polygamy and and other perverted sort of "union". We are not just on a slippery slope, but are sliding down it at breakneck speed toward something we may not want to run into.

I too believe it will not be wrong with these rulings before the gov't legislates that churches with 501c3 status be required to perform these "legal" marriages or risk prosecution. Something close to this already exists in our neighbor to the north where preaching against homosexuality is consiered a hate crime and can and will be prosecuted.

One more reason besides snow and cold to NOT move to Iowa.

[valley]

I have yet to read the opinion, but if I had to guess, the decision of the Court might be based on cases such as Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 1967), McLaughlin v. Florida (379 U.S. 184, 85 S.Ct. 283, 1964), Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2474, 156 L.Ed.2d 508, 2003) , etc. Some of the decision of the US Supreme Court in the above listed cases one may or may not agree with, but they establish certain principles which guide the Court until it says otherwise. Remember, the root of Roe v. Wade is found in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510, 1965) where the Court held that married individuals have a right to privacy concerning their reproductive habits (specifically in Griswold birth control devices).

...all of which conveniently dodge the essential question of the fundamental right of society to define marriage for the common good and the right of society to a public, secular morality that could, at democratic option, preclude same-sex marriage as not in the best interests of society as a whole.

You have in essence stumbled upon what Robert Bork called the Madisonian Dilemma. Absolutely, society, or in a democracy, the majority, has a right to set standards, but at what point does the majority have the right to take certain liberties from the minority, and vice verca? Does the majority have the right to limit the minority's pursuit of happiness? Is the majority always correct?

There are times when the courts must protect the individual liberties of people against the majority's will to set standards. This is especially the case if the secular moral standards are in some way unconstitutional, as one could see in Loving v. Virginia. This case revolved around a Virginia law that said individuals of different races could not marry. The Supreme Court held that marriage is a fundamental part of the pursuit of happiness, and as such could not be denied to individuals on such grounds as ethnicity. With Lawrence saying that laws cannot specifically target homosexuals, it is not a stretch to place sexual orientation into the Court's ruling in Loving.

I am guessing the next step in Iowa would be an amendment to their constitution, similar to the issue in California. However, the issue has still not been addressed by the US Supreme Court. It should be interesting how all of this plays out in the years to come.

[Mike Vande]

You can bet this will not be the last word on the topic. This will inevitably wind up before the Supreme Court, unless they refuse to hear the case, and they just about can't refuse. There are too many groups that disagree with the ruling to let it go unchallenged.

[TW]

You can bet this will not be the last word on the topic. This will inevitably wind up before the Supreme Court, unless they refuse to hear the case, and they just about can't refuse. There are too many groups that disagree with the ruling to let it go unchallenged.

Mike,
You are correct that this issue will eventually have to be heard by the Supreme Court. However, it will not be this Iowa case that will be heard.

The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which couldn't get on the ballot until 2012 at the earliest.

From:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD97BM4000

Carefully worded Constitutional Amendments will be the best way to turn back the tide of "gay rights" nonsense.


TW

[bibleguy]

Homosexuals have long since cried foul on the marriage issue, saying that they are victims of discrimination. Not true, all people -- even homosexuals -- have the equal right to choose someone of the opposite sex and marry ... no discrimination.

If they ever argue, "We were made for each other," well that is the acknowledging of a Maker. The electric plug and socket were made for each other. The bolt and the nut were made for each other. The USB slot and the thumb drive were made for each other. Even a cursory glance will negate the "made for each other" argument.

Some of my Russian Christian friends moved to South Carolina after Massachusetts allowed homo-wedlock. I told them that there was nowhere in America they could run, that it would spread.

Amazing to me that, while blue-state Vermont (the first state to legalize 'civil unions') is preparing to legalize the perverted 'marriage,' mid-west, flyover Iowa outpaced them. This should be an eye-opener to everyone.

The courts continue to run amock, legislating the bench and subverting the will of the people.

[dolfan]

The SCOTUS won't hear this case. It was expressly decided on state constitutional law under Iowa's constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States can not hear state law questions unless the issues also implicate federal law or constitutional issues, and even then it must be to the point that the state law issue (if a case involves a mix of federal and state law issues) cannot adequately support the lower court's judgment (in other words, the case MUST rely on federal law in order to have been decided; if state law is enough to support the judgment, then even the presence of a federal question will not allow the Court to grant certiorari to bring the case before it).

I read the Iowa case, most of it, and while I disagree with its reasoning (highly political rationale), it goes out of its way to stand on state constitutional law because they certainly knew it would be appealed and possibly taken up otherwise. This is very, very smart on their part.