SSM comes in Iowa

[scrappy]

”Same-sex marriage” comes to Iowa:

 

DES MOINES, Iowa -- The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday finding that the state's same-sex-marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making Iowa the third state where marriage is legal.

Please bear in mind that Iowa is a heartland state, not a coastal state like California or Massachusetts. As such, the corny folks of I-O-Way must be wise to the rights of others besides the straights. Is this a sign of things to comes?

[iNow]

One can only hope. Also, for all of you "definition nazis" out there, it looks like SSM has come to Websters Dictionary, too:

 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Main Entry: mar·riage Listen to the pronunciation of marriage

Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry

Date: 14th century

 

1 a

(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

 

b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock

 

c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

 

 

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

 

 

If things continue like they have in Iowa (and what I anticipate will happen in California), I see point 1.a.2 being updated even more, but it's a good start that it's there at all.

[Sisyphus]

I do expect it's a sign of things to come, but I don't think it's necessarily indicative of the attitudes of the corny folks, since it's a court decision and not legislation. It does, however, establish another legal precedent, and hurt the credibility of those who think the legal argument only makes sense to "liberal activist" judges trying to "legislate from the bench." Massachusetts and California are godless dens of sin, sure, but Iowa is part of The Real America!

[Sayonara]

What I find most interesting from the article is this part:

 

Bryan English, spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage, said many Iowans are disappointed with the ruling and don't want the courts to decide the issue.

 

"The issue" being whether or not someone is having their constitutional rights violated.

[scrappy]

One can only hope. Also, for all of you "definition nazis" out there, it looks like SSM has come to Websters Dictionary, too:...

Well, I happen to be one of those "definition nazis." But I'm not as evil as Hitler. If enough people change their minds on the definition of "marriage," and if the supreme courts uphold those changes, then I'm on board like a smiling sailor who just got laid in town—AC or DC matters not to me. All I need to know is whether or not SSM is constitutional, and it seems like we're slowly finding out. (I probably deserve an award for being such a good American!)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

"The issue" being whether or not someone is having their constitutional rights violated.

Yes. Those Iowa family folks obviously do not understand what kind of government they live under.

[iNow]

Looks like Vermont has jumped on board, too.

 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-gay-marriage-vermont,0,2518471.story

Vermont, which invented civil unions, on Tuesday became a pioneer again as the first state to legalize gay marriage through a legislature's vote, suggesting growing popular acceptance of the idea.

[scrappy]

Looks like Vermont has jumped on board, too.

 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-gay-marriage-vermont,0,2518471.story

Vermont, which invented civil unions, on Tuesday became a pioneer again as the first state to legalize gay marriage through a legislature's vote, suggesting growing popular acceptance of the idea.

This brings us one step closer to SPM (same-person marriage), wherein I will be allowed to marry myself...the only person I truly love. (Just kidding here, so don't pass a brain stone over it.)

 

In less than a month the US has doubled its states' acceptance to SSM. Liberalization all over the place! Could the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, and pot be just around the corner?

[Mokele]

In less than a month the US has doubled its states' acceptance to SSM. Liberalization all over the place!

 

Just wait - I know of at least one high-profile court case that's seeking to overturn DOMA. If it succeeds, then gay marriage in any and every state will simply be a matter of a weekend trip to New England. The rest of the country will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

[iNow]

Washington D.C. has now also voluntarily stepped itself into the 21st century alongside Vermont, and they are now lending their support for equal protections under the laws, alignment with our constitution, and elimination of discriminatory laws.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040702200.html

The D.C. Council unanimously voted yesterday to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere, joining a growing number of states to loosen restrictions on the unions.

 

The District's actions came the same day as Vermont became the fourth state to recognize same-sex marriages and a week after the Iowa Supreme Court legalized such unions. The moves generated a sense of momentum and hope among gay activists and anger among some religious and conservative groups.

[john5746]

Could the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, and pot be just around the corner?

 

possibly, but then they would have nothing more to do with same sex marriage than different sex marriage.

[scrappy]

Could the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, and pot be just around the corner?

possibly, but then they would have nothing more to do with same sex marriage than different sex marriage.possibly, but then they would have nothing more to do with same sex marriage than different sex marriage.

Wait a minute; not so fast. If the homosexuals can pull it off then why not the polygamists? If two homosexuals can get married, just like two heterosexuals, then why can't three homosexuals marry each other? Or, for that matter, why can't three heterosexuals get married? It's only a matter of numbers, anyway. Why is two in a marriage any more sacred than three or four...? Could it have something to do with tradition?

[Pangloss]

Why not? How does this make my ten-year marriage to my wife anything less than what it is?

 

 

 

 

(I mean, assuming she never finds out about the lamp post!) (grin)

[Mokele]

Why shouldn't poly people get married?

[john5746]

Wait a minute; not so fast. If the homosexuals can pull it off then why not the polygamists? If two homosexuals can get married, just like two heterosexuals, then why can't three homosexuals marry each other? Or, for that matter, why can't three heterosexuals get married? It's only a matter of numbers, anyway. Why is two in a marriage any more sacred than three or four...? Could it have something to do with tradition?

 

I happen to be against polygamy, for various reasons, but the main one being a legal nightmare. If 100 people decide to be married, it really does dilute the purpose. In any case, polygamy exists with or without same sex marriage. Just as interracial marriage doesn't lead to humans marrying animals, same sex marriage has nothing to do with the number of people.

 

I would define marriage as a bond between two adults. If that gets changed to be between multiple adults, it will not be because of gay people or black people or atheists. Calling something sacred instead of providing reason just leaves it open for eventual question and/or ridicule.

[scrappy]

I happen to be against polygamy, for various reasons, but the main one being a legal nightmare. If 100 people decide to be married, it really does dilute the purpose. In any case, polygamy exists with or without same sex marriage. Just as interracial marriage doesn't lead to humans marrying animals, same sex marriage has nothing to do with the number of people.

 

I would define marriage as a bond between two adults. If that gets changed to be between multiple adults, it will not be because of gay people or black people or atheists. Calling something sacred instead of providing reason just leaves it open for eventual question and/or ridicule.

Is there a better reason for allowing two men to get married than there is for allowing one man and two women to get married?

[john5746]

Is there a better reason for allowing two men to get married than there is for allowing one man and two women to get married?

 

With the exception of the ability to create children, two men is equivalent to a man and woman marriage. They can adopt and not all hetero couplings can or will result in procreation, but in general this is the only difference.

 

With polygamy, we have more than two people. This results in more complications as to property rights, taxation, children, etc. Maybe it isn't too difficult with 3,4,5. I just think we should keep the number at 2.

So, with same sex marriage we don't have any more legal complications than currently, but with polygamy we do. Also, I'm not sure that people are born polygamists genetically and must live this way to feel happy.

[padren]

Why shouldn't poly people get married?

 

I have no problem with the premise, but the execution in at least one subset of Mormonism causes some concern for me. First being the marrying of girls as young as 12 to husbands in their 30s and 40s, and second our welfare system is really not calibrated to handle the size of families that come out of those relationships in that culture.

Back when Tom Green (not that one, the one in Utah) was on 20/20 or some show many years back defending polygamy, and he was upset he had to legally divorce each wife before marrying the next, even though they all lived together. I have no problem with polygamy, but while he was defending the practice and what a great father he was - each but his most recent wife was literally collecting "deadbeat dad" welfare intended for women who are left by husbands and don't pay child support.

 

I wholly support social services to help people when they get knocked off their feet, but not when they need it for their "business as usual" ideal of living.

 

So I really have no problem with polygamy, but I do have concerns that in practice it could create unexpectedly high burdens on tax payers unless adjusted. Not saying I know that would happen, it's just a concern.

[iNow]

The best argument came from John. People are born homosexual, they don't choose it. However, people DO choose polygamy, so therein lies the key difference.

[scrappy]

I'm not sure that people are born polygamists genetically and must live this way to feel happy.

If you are suggesting that gays are born "genetically" to be gay you would need some proof for that. For far, I know of no such proven genetic predisposition for gay-ness.

[Mokele]

If you are suggesting that gays are born "genetically" to be gay you would need some proof for that. For far, I know of no such proven genetic predisposition for gay-ness

 

Hershberger, Scott L. 2001. Biological Factors in the Development of Sexual Orientation. Pp. 27-51 in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities and Youth: Psychological Perspectives, edited by Anthony R. D’Augelli and Charlotte J. Patterson. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Quoted in Bearman and Bruckner, 2002.

 

Bailey JM, Dunne MP, Martin NG (March 2000). "Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample". J Pers Soc Psychol 78 (3): 524–36. PMID 10743878

 

Hu S, Pattatucci AM, Patterson C, et al (November 1995). "Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females". Nat. Genet. 11 (3): 248–56. doi:10.1038/ng1195-248. PMID 7581447.

 

Mustanski BS, Dupree MG, Nievergelt CM, Bocklandt S, Schork NJ, Hamer DH (March 2005). "A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation" (PDF). Hum. Genet. 116 (4): 272–8. doi:10.1007/s00439-004-1241-4. PMID 15645181. http://mypage.iu.edu/~bmustans/Mustanski_etal_2005.pdf

 

 

 

Also, "born" is irrelevant. If that was the sole criterion, we could dispense with freedom of religion, since nobody is 'born Christian'.

[scrappy]

Hershberger, Scott L. 2001. Biological Factors in the Development of Sexual Orientation. Pp. 27-51 in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities and Youth: Psychological Perspectives, edited by Anthony R. D’Augelli and Charlotte J. Patterson. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Quoted in Bearman and Bruckner, 2002.

 

Bailey JM, Dunne MP, Martin NG (March 2000). "Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample". J Pers Soc Psychol 78 (3): 524–36. PMID 10743878

 

Hu S, Pattatucci AM, Patterson C, et al (November 1995). "Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females". Nat. Genet. 11 (3): 248–56. doi:10.1038/ng1195-248. PMID 7581447.

 

Mustanski BS, Dupree MG, Nievergelt CM, Bocklandt S, Schork NJ, Hamer DH (March 2005). "A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation" (PDF). Hum. Genet. 116 (4): 272–8. doi:10.1007/s00439-004-1241-4. PMID 15645181. http://mypage.iu.edu/~bmustans/Mustanski_etal_2005.pdf

 

 

 

Also, "born" is irrelevant. If that was the sole criterion, we could dispense with freedom of religion, since nobody is 'born Christian'.

Mokele, before I go to the trouble of accessing and reading these articles, which I'm not so eager to do, can you assure me that they provide empirical proof that gay-ness is genetically predisposed?

[Mokele]

Proof, no. Evidence, yes. At the moment, we don't fully understand the mechanisms of sexual orientation. A full study of the evidence generally supports the idea that sexual orientation involves genes, in-utero environment, early childhood, epigenetic factors and possibly pheremones.

 

More to the point, however, there is a massive preponderance of evidence showing that, regardless of exact cause, sexual orientation is set in stone long before puberty, and actual change is impossible.

 

 

However, as I pointed out, the choice issue is a total non-sequitur. We choose religions (or lack thereof), choose political parties, choose our jobs, etc, and yet none are an acceptable basis for discrimination.

[Sayonara]

Is there a better reason for allowing two men to get married than there is for allowing one man and two women to get married?

Are the two groups in competition?

 

I don't see why anyone should have a problem with polygamists watching the success of same sex marriage movements and thinking to themselves "we should try to get the same rights". Not having a problem with that is a completely different matter to advocating or supporting the acquisition of those rights.

[scrappy]

Are the two groups in competition?

 

I don't see why anyone should have a problem with polygamists watching the success of same sex marriage movements and thinking to themselves "we should try to get the same rights". Not having a problem with that is a completely different matter to advocating or supporting the acquisition of those rights.

Once the same-sexers get their full marriage rights they won’t want to share it with the polygamists. They’ll claim they don’t want the polygamists degrading the meaning of their marriages.

 

Where will it end? This business of marriage is a very fluffy affair. (But the traditional marriage institution is already so badly self-screwed that I’d say all arguable value systems are up for grabs.)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Proof, no. Evidence, yes. At the moment, we don't fully understand the mechanisms of sexual orientation...

 

However, as I pointed out, the choice issue is a total non-sequitur. We choose religions (or lack thereof), choose political parties, choose our jobs, etc, and yet none are an acceptable basis for discrimination.

Well, this matter of choice is asserted by the GLBT community, not by the heteros. They claim that nature made them gay, etc. I'm OK with that. I even suspect genetic origins to their sexual orientations.

 

But I must point out that when gay-ness is completely understood there'll be remedies for reversing it, or switching it around any way you like, and that all sexuality, in the future, will be purely a matter of choice.

Edited April 9, 2009 by scrappy
Consecutive posts merged.

[john5746]

Once the same-sexers get their full marriage rights they won’t want to share it with the polygamists. They’ll claim they don’t want the polygamists degrading the meaning of their marriages.

 

I doubt they will be more inclined than dif-sexers will be. Do you think a homosexual couple MUST support polygamy? Why?

 

 

Where will it end? This business of marriage is a very fluffy affair. (But the traditional marriage institution is already so badly self-screwed that I’d say all arguable value systems are up for grabs.)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Well, this matter of choice is asserted by the GLBT community, not by the heteros. They claim that nature made them gay, etc. I'm OK with that. I even suspect genetic origins to their sexual orientations.

 

forget I mentioned genetics. Like Mokele said, it isn't a justification. Its a difference I think, but not a justification. What do you think about the legal issues? Don't you think polygamy brings about more legal mess than a couple?

 

But I must point out that when gay-ness is completely understood there'll be remedies for reversing it, or switching it around any way you like, and that all sexuality, in the future, will be purely a matter of choice.

 

Yay!! by then, we should all be blond and blue-eyed.