Iowa Judge Votes Against Gay Marriage Ban
A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa's law banning gay marriage.
The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered Polk County Recorder Julie Haggerty to issue marriage licenses to several gay couples.
"It's a moral victory for equal rights," said Des Moines lawyer Dennis Johnson, who represented six gay couples who filed suit after they were denied marriage licenses.
Camilla Taylor, an attorney with Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, said the ruling requires "full equality for all Iowans including gay and lesbian Iowans and their families."
"The Iowa Constitution has lived up to its promises of equality for everyone," she said.
UPDATE: We have our first legally married gay couple in Iowa now!
Judge Hanson is a good friend of mine and this doesn't surprise me one bit. GOOD FOR HIM!!
Mitt Romney is aleady complaining about "activist judges."
Which and/or how many of Mitt's sons are gay?
Let's have a pool.
The judge doesn't have the power to claim the constitutionality of a law from his level. It will be stopped by the next level judge and then go to the state supreme court. Also, the title of the story is in error when it said the judge voted for changing the law, the judge does not vote law.
If changes are going to come they will come from a mandate of the public, not the bench.
let the "activist judge" arguments begin!
David Ehrenstein @ 2:
Huh... wasn't he governor of Mass. when they allowed gay marriage?
It must take a lot of courage to be openly gay in Iowa. Congrats to the plaintiffs!
Bob Hanson is the least "activist" person/judge I know. Just a really, really decent human being. I think that's what is going to get the righties' whities in a bunch. The sheer....decency of it all.
Good for Iowa....and yes, Mitt was gov when marriage was allowed in Mass. ( after this week, maybe the Repukes should think twice about making a stink about gay issues at all)
Your headline is embarrasingly wrong. Judges don't "vote" against legislation. Legislatures do that. They strike legislation down as unconstitutional. By using the word "vote," you're playing right into the hands of those who will say this is improper judicial activism.
Hmmmm...in light of the (not-so) recent revelations about Larry Craig, maybe we should pay close attention to any loud voices that denounce this decisions. There's a good chance that they - whomever they may be - are secretly gay.
So again, I must ask why all the self-loathing, closeted homosexuals turn out to be Republicans? And, which of these Bible-thumping righties is not gay?
[Deleted. Thanks for sharing, but all caps posts are subject to deletion-Sitemonitor]
rain @ 10:
Where are their "sexual activities" on display? Nearly half of all hetero marriages end in divorce. "It's hard enough for straight couples to make a marriage work - and now this" How does a gay couple being allowed to get married make it harder for a hetero couple's marriage to work?
It's your view. But it doesn't make any sense.
rain @ 10:
Yes! You never see hetero couples displaying affection in public! And there is no hetero sex in the movies!
Weaseldog @ 12:
Are they REALLY doing it on your front doorstep? Really? Their "activities" are on display? Really? You see 'them" occasionally holding hands? Or do you see them humping each other on your front lawn?
What a pathetic scared little person you seem to be.
rain @ 10:
You're kidding, right? How is heterosexual behavior NOT dragged to everyone's front door? Come on, we glorify drunken slags like Britney and Paris, we have shows like 'Wife Swap' ... and you're upset because the word 'gay' is mentioned on air?
Do you have proof of this 'gays won't get divorces' excuse you've offered, or is this like 'gays can't be good parents' stupidity? Does granting the right to be married somehow lessen your effort, or require more because someone else gets the same privileges?
what do you expect from someone who types in all caps?
it's an idiotic view... but yes it's your view and you are welcome to it.
the connies must be peeing their pants writing out the "activist judges" talking point in Crayola to give to the rightie talkers. Props to the judge
rain @ 10:
The reason their "sexual preferences are on display" is because many people define gays by their sexuality, not their common bond of humanity. And some gay people flaunt their sexuality---just like some straight people do---but that applies to a minority, not everyone.
Prejudice and judgment are not "old fashioned", they are inappropriate in any time or age. Feel free to leave future generations a valuable gift by unconditionally accepting others for their positive contributions to the human condition.
rain @ 10:
If you don't like gay sex at your front door, stop subscribing to all of those gay sex magazines.
Funny thing is one of the Celtic "heavens" Tir Inna M Ban was a land of women. Whether this was like the Islamic 70 virgins, or like a Paradise Island of Lesbos, I dunno.
Why would anyone want 70 virgins, who each and every one of the said every night, "Not tonight, I have a haddock" ?
Now Larry Craig can marry someone who shares his sexual orientation!
kac90b @ 13:
Dude, where do you live, where lot's of people are having sex in your front yard? Are you sure that you don't have bad vision and live next to a goat ranch?
rain @ 10:
Someone took a trip to crazy land.
Patthemokey @ 3:
You're incorrect. The judge does have the authority to determine constitutionality of any law that comes before him. It is just not precedent for any other cases. It's only after appeal and being upheld by the appellate court that it becomes precedent for the state. He could be upheld or overturned or the ruling could be on hold until the appeal process is completed, but until then, his ruling is in effect for his district.
WOW..!! and this great evolutionary step is from IOWA. I think this is great, maybe the Judges are starting to realize that most people don't really care about other peoples bedrooms or what their proclivities may be.
All the Christian Right seems to get bogged down in their "many Rules" (10 commandments etc.) and completely ignor the one main rule we should all strive to live by....
Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You.
I feel sorry for the poor bloke who wrote that above, whose marriage must be weak if he is afraid what someone else does places his marriage in danger.
I guess rain would have felt the same way when marriage between different races became socially acceptable and, in some places, legal. Ahh, alas, bigotry and idiocy have no end.
I'm sick of these fascists and Nazis. If they hate this country so much, why don't they just leave it? We'd be MUCH better off.
Marriage is a red herring, distracting us from the real issue here...
Gays need marriage to secure the same rights as married couples, but those rights should never have been limited to married couples in the first place.
Access to healthcare? People shouldn't have to get married to have access to healthcare! They shouldn't worry that if they're injured or have children that they might lose access to healthcare.
Power of attourney? People should, and do, have the right to designate power of attourney to anyone they wish.
Inheritance? You already have the right do designate an inheritor.
Visitation rights? Denial of such rights is unconstitutional.
None of these rights should be limited to marriage, which is a religious institution. The legal aspects of such a union should never have been lumped with the religious ceremony they accompany.
People should have the right to healthcare, as well as the right to designate any person they choose as a legal partner.
Marriage should be a seperate religious ceremony, administered within the confines of ones chosen religion, in any manner and with any person said religion deems fit. Or, it could just be a BBQ in your backyard.
The "sanctity of marriage" has nothing to do with people's civil rights. We need to stop lumping the two together.
ysbaddaden @ 21:
ha ha--but do they have Guinness? If not, I'll have to try another paradise.
rain @ 10:
[deleted--all caps rant]
LOUD NOISES!
Rain must be trolling, right? I mean, do people that stupid and mean-spirited and flat-out wrong even exist?! As for the sanctity of marriage argument, let's beat the dead horse and point out that people like Larry Craig and Ted Haggard and (to be perfectly fair to the wingnuts) Bill Clinton are all married. If you're really concerned about the sanctity of marriage then you shouldn't let anybody get married.
But, yeah, Rain, you're a pathetic bigot and an embarrassment to our species.
The Jehovah's witnesses are the true threat. At least gay people don't come to my door two at a time trying to convert me.
bmw 528 @ 30:
No but it's fed by many rivers flowing with mead or wine, has a pearl rimmed, blue enameled cauldron that serves a plentiful supply of the food you like best, always one pig that's alive, and one that's on the spit, and after you eat them, they come back to life, the birds of Rhiannon are always singing, and even the stones provide music.
Not sure if Ron Woon or Brian Jones is with them though.
Weaseldog @ 22:
Yes. It will be easier for Craig to re-locate after the repug hypocrites get him out of his Senate seat.
BaScOmBe @ 36:
Does his Senate seat have a big hole in the middle?
Iowa Judge *Rules* against gay marriage ban. Its not a vote.
aimai
ysbaddaden @ 35:
I was only with one virgin in my life and it was a very uncomfortable and messy affair. Why are virgins so sought after by religious fanatics?
Che's Lounge @ 34:
Invite them in, Spend hours trying to convert them to Buddhism, then show them your hunting knife collection. They'll never bother you again.
►Runs-With-Dog◄ @ 40:
Maybe I should have asked "Are virgins kind of like Veal?
For the people who claim that they are against gay marriage because homosexuality is 'against god': Do you/they also think that atheists should be barred from marriage?
And if that is not the reason, the secondary reason is always marriage for homosexuals is wrong because they cannot procreate: Do you/they think that marriage should be barred for all infertile couples?
How are they able to continue to keep marriage between homosexuals illegal when there are so many holes in every one of their arguments?
Even if their argument is 'one man, one woman', does that mean that we can bar hermaphrodites from marrying?
There are too many holes for any of these arguments to hold up to constitutional equal rights.
Yay for Iowa! Congratulations to gay people there.
I remember when the fundies were harping about homosexuals wanting "special rights." Looks like the fundies want to keep the "special right" of marriage for themselves.
SonOfLiberty @ 29:
Couldn't agree more. Separation between state and religion should be at all levels, and religious traditions should not mandate what level of rights citizens are entitled to.
Funny how churches and or religious charters are exempt from paying taxes, yet homosexuals do pay taxes and get denied an equal level of protection/rights. Talk about taxation without representation.
Blue Buddha @ 5:
UH. Here we go again. The GOP never lets the facts get in the way.
I welcome IOWA back to the reality based community.
Liberal AND Proud @ 48:
Here in Pennsylvania, we can't even find our way INTO the reality based community.
navyswan @ 43:
Actually, churches have refused to do weddings when one partner is of a different religion, and have annulled marriages, based on infertility. After all, if you aren't fertile and worship correctly, God doesn't love you or want you to marry.
Why can't the wingers understand that the biggest threats to hetero, or ANY marriage, are job-related stress/lack of having a job-related stress, health and health care benefit/financial issues, poverty, lack of access to family planning, etc. Or, what I consider to be the biggest threat to any marriage -- you married the wrong damn person.
Weaseldog @ 50:
At least invading armies, can't safely cross our bridges!
Weaseldog @ 52:
Bah! Wrong thread! Wordpress seems to get confused by Mozilla Tabs on occasion.
Weaseldog @ 50:
I was just wondering. I am an infertile atheist that was married in Alabama. Others should be given the same rights that I have been given. I do not fit the cookie cutter right wing view of marriage, so their view in my opinion is severely flawed.
navyswan @ 43:
I have a John Edwards view on this. I do not support gay marriage at all, but I would never force somebody not to marry, whether they're straight, gay, or bi. As long as you stay away from me (in THAT way), we's all good.
The Champ is out.
I put this on another thread, but this one's better.
An apropos piece of advice for Sen. Larry Craig (who calls his alter ego Jenny).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ue4MPsG-Pc
The judge is a Bad Nasty Naughty Boy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp77t0-3d3s&mode=related&search=
David Ehrenstein @ 2:
and take a poll on which one will get caught at it by:
1) soliciting an underage congressional page boy.
2) paying for a male prostitute and smoking meth with him.
3) soliciting an undercover cop in a public restroom.
Look, let's understand that there are two dynamics at work here.
First, the whole "social issue" thing, which is what the right wing focuses on, and is really a question of RELIGION. Homosexuality is a sin for Christian fundamentalists. But, even they know they can't argue religion...they bring it up as a secondary argument. They're primary argument is it is a threat to traditional marriage. Which any rational person knows is a load of hooey. More than half the marriages in this country breakup, and it ain't due to homosexuals marrying.
The REAL issue is MONEY. BENEFITS AND MONEY. Corporations, insurance companies, the federal government don't want same sex marriages codified, because it creates issues of dependents and dependent coverage. YES, alot of companies do make consideration for same sex partnerships. But we can name the companies and the states they operate in. The Federal government is out of it. Why? Think of the strain on Social Security and other social programs. THE government hides behind argument number 1, but money is the real reason they're fighting against it.
navyswan @ 43:
Actually, that is one of the reasons why "civil marriages" were instituted, that and also the pesky fact that for years the loving deep South Christians considered an abomination a white woman marrying a black man (and vice versa) since it must have been written in some obscure passage in some part of the bible -or at least it was interpreted that way-. Incidentally they seemed to be A-OK with the death penalty, go figure. Which I guess that for the most part you can read the bible and bend it to your very own interests, which in turn means that Christians are -with very few exceptions, and god bless their souls for that- full of 100% grade-A manure.
Anyhow, one could also enter the theological debate that according to Christian tradition, which is in turn based on Jewish tradition that assumes an omnipotent creator god. Such an assumption carries with it the implication that only god can create things, which is one of the main reasons why fundie Christians attack evolution, because it implies that man was created by nature through a series of evolutionary events and thus not by direct divine action. And only god can create things/or concepts since nature is controlled by god. Anyhow, that means that nature can not create homosexuality, since only god can create things/concepts. Thus only god could create homosexuality, since man can't create a sexual orientation. Same goes for the concept of bad, if god only created "good and man came up with "bad" that means that god is not omnipotent since man was able to create something god did not come up with. So we are either, in some senses as powerful as god, or god is not really up to snuff.
The Champ @ 56:
By "stay away from me", do you mean not holding hands in public, or kissing in public, or even being in public as a couple? Or what?
And, why would it bother you if a guy hit on you, Champ? Why not take it as a compliment, that someone finds you to be physically attractive? Why get all bugged-out? That's one thing I can't understand - if somebody thinks you're hot stuff, why does that person's sex matter?
Weaseldog @ 22:
YES! someone who shares his sexual orientation!
ysbaddaden @ 38:
Not a hole, but a pole! :lol:
Iowa is corn country, shouldn't they be into cornholing?
Let's introduce Sen Craig to this guy
http://www.downtownvancouver.com/directory/2006-vancouver-pride-parade/l...
rain @ 10:
Take a look at this http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html you knuckle dragging backwater. Notice 7 or the 10 states with the lowest divorce rates or those lee-brul blue states with the number one lowest divorce rate state being gay marriage friendly Massachusetts. You will also note almost all of the 20 states with the highest divorce rates are those anti-gay rights "pro family" conservative red states.
Chew on that for a while and take responsibility for your own failed marriages and stop bashing and blaming gays for your failed relationships. Oh and pray to your Christian God for a little enlightenment while you're at it cave dweller.
rain @ 10:
How many gays/lesbians have come to your "FRONT DOOR" flaunting thier sexuality?
And second, give me some proof that gays are "the only group" that puts their sexual
activities on display? Get a life.
I know people like rain. They tend to take what is hinted at in the media and by others and create it as a "fact" in their own heads. Most of these folks (at least the ones I know) are pretty good people, they just don't question things that they're told to believe, and then they think that by saying something like "call me old fashioned" they will be excused and not expected to back up their assertions. Opinions are like a**holes, though, and we're all entitled to one.
That said, as far as this judgement here in Iowa is concerned, I think (my opinion) that while it could be one more blow to the hyper-concerned-about-making-gays-the-enemy crowd, the story will be used to draw attention away from other very pressing concerns, both in the state of Iowa and the nation. People like the ones I wrote of above will grab onto this story and insist that it is important that the gays not be able to bring it to their front door, and make so much noise it drowns out the issues of the sub-prime liquiditiy issue, the crumbling infrastructure issue, the endless sacrifice of this war of choice in Iraq, the criminal actions of the people in power, and most importantly, the very real erosion of our Rights.
In Sioux (read Sewer) City, our city government actually refused to give minority protections to gays--meaning that if you are gay, or possibly accused of being gay, that you can be fired or evicted, and you (supposedly) have no recourse to the law (I'd like to see that in action, though. I think the courts would have a heyday tearing that up!). Because of the un-likely event of someone actually being fired or evicted due to the very real legal challenge that would be brought, the local law doesn't have a lot for teeth. But we spent months and months on gays and gay rights folks attending every city council meeting and speaking up, trying to convince our city council to add them to the list of protected minorities. Meanwhile, the city government continued to seize the houses of the poor in red-taggings, wasting tons of taxpayer money on junkets to Japan and Washington, and the usual patronage that goes on here. But boy, our local media and those folks who "don't want it on my doorstep" kept the gay rights issue up front.
While I'm all for EVERYONE's Rights, and I think that gay people should be afforded equal rights along with all the rest, I really hate that tactic (best used by Karl Rove) of gay-baiting people like rain to keep the attention on the one issue instead of allowing it's place among all of the issues we are facing. Gays are in the Minority, and while they deserve to be included in the whole, their issues are not going to affect the majority, unless you are one of those people who believe that gays are being foisted upon us, to make us uncomfortable. And if so, they must be stopped. Give the issue it's due gravitas, but PLEAAAAASSSSEEEEE, keep it in perspective.
Had civil partnerships now in UK for three years - last time i looked the world hadn't caved in.
ysbaddaden @ 21:
There's something fishy about your comment. ;)
bill w @ 71:
No douche.
John @ 70:
NO NO...I am NOT gonna make a comment on that! NOOO. I won't, you can't make me! LOLOLOL!
I had a lot of trouble keep the gays from having sex on my doorstep, but then I put up a "Barack Obama" sign in my yard, and they all went away.
I think they were all just Republic Moral Value Senators, and all the stalls at the airport were fully booked.
Oh, and Rain, nice to know you're a bottom? Clearly, you've been taking it up the ..... from your political party of choice for years....
bmw 528 @ 30:
Interesting thing is that multiple prayers in The Egyptian Book of the Dead are pleas for plentiful cakes and beer in the afterlife. Considering that women in the funeral party are bare breasted, what with Twinkies and beer that sounds like my kind of heaven.
The nice thing about being already dead is not having to worry about your cholesterol levels.
I also support gays in the military.
rain @ 10:
I know I'm going to just feed a troll, but this is absolutely ridiculous. Ok, Rain, how many gays and/or lesbians have brought their sexuality to your front door? Seriously, I would love to know. I'll give you a moment to add it up.
While you're doing so, consider two how many heterosexual couples have passed through your door. How many wives had a wedding ring on? How many husbands? How many times did they refer to themselves as a couple? Did they have children? Did they talk about when they met, how they fell in love, what they want in the future?
Shame on you for belittling others. Oh, and I'm still waiting on how many came to your door...?
jafo @ 69:
exactly, but can't you see that it is cause and effect? the very atmosphere created by the denial of equal rights to any minority group is distracting and destructive to society as a whole. that's why the issue is far larger than whether two gay men can join in unholy civil union. it is part of the larger still pervasive problem of the tyranny of the majority against minorities, whether by sexual preference, gender, religion (or lack thereof), national origin or whatever.
the same thought process that causes homosexuals to be perceived as less than full citizens brought down one of the 100 most powerful people in the world this week. whatever the truth behind the "incident," his career will never recover and his family will never be the same.
more on this at my homepage if anyone would care to see.
um, yeah. that's part of the whole point, you dork. marriage (as a state interest) is about property, shared rights, and shared liabilities. divorce is the way of separating a legal partnership, nothing more.
paraphrasing jon stewart:
gay marriage is now mandatory in iwoa (otherwise, why would anyone care?)
Weaseldog @ 50:
"it is part of the larger still pervasive problem of the tyranny of the majority against minorities"...
Good post, but I will argue, these folks ain't even the Majority, just a fanatical band of zealots, who focus on a few issues THEY define as moral, and, because the REAL power in the Republic Party, the Corporate Elite, use them at the ballot box, they get to keep THEIR narrow defination of Morality front and center.
Still, it's a generational victory at best.
These were the same people, or their forebearers, that screamed about inter-racial marriage a generation or so ago.
They used the same bibilical and psuedo socialogical non-sequitar arguments then, and they are just as hollow and ludicrious today.
I had a salesman that worked for me, born and raised in the deep south, RR to the core, who gave me ALL the standard BS arguements, and in the end, I told him, it's just a matter of time before this is a non-issue, just as inter-racial marriage basically is today.
Yes, Dirk, I am aware of minority rights--and I totally agree that when anyone is reduced or left out, we all are. However, while I support the idea that gay issues should be given the gravitas they deserve--just like people of color, women, children, and religious freedom (for example)--I have a grave feeling that this issue will be used to distract us from everything else going on right now.
As far as the most powerful 100--they can kiss my ass. I don't care what happens to them any more than they care about what happens to me.
Imagine that!
Freedom and equality in America.
What a concept.
One of these days we'll even have a real democracy with transparent voting processes not controlled by private corporations.
Every quote of "this must not be allowed to stand" or "we'll find a way to change this" is from a republican. Those ass-wipes really know what's important.
Forget about Iraq, the outsourcing of manufacturing and technical skills, the falling dollar, the falling housing market, health care issues and a collapsing infrastructure .
Just worry about gay marriage.
i stand corrected. i should have said "theoretical" majority. the silent majority is neither.
i guess - but i'm a multi tasker. i'm pretty sure we could handle both this and iraq and katrina and the other assaults on the constitution. how about we spend all of our paris hilton/lindsey lohan time on minority rights, and our brangelina/owen wilson time on illegal wars?
as far as the big 100, my point is that the mere existance of the issue affects every level of our lives.
i was very happy to read the part of judge hanson's decision that made that connection.
WashStateBlue @ 82:
That is an excellent point, and dead on right.
Someone commented that the people who protest the loudest about this may very well be closeted themselves. So actually this is a trap to entice the next Foley/Haggart/Craig to reveal himself through his protestations.
Keep an eye on the responses to this and then check the backgrounds of those who over-compensate in their anti-gay rhetoric!
The 60s civil rights movement took place during Vietnam. Were blacks supposed to wait patently and uncomplainingly while their civil rights were put on the back-burner until the war was ended? They'd waited long enough, and gays have waited long enough. I've waited my entire life, I've grown old waiting. I'm sick of waiting, I'm a tax-paying American citizen and I want my full legal rights dammit!
Hate to keep on this with you, Dirk, especially since I basically agree with you on the issues. It's just that you seem to be minimizing the idea that the so called "gay agenda" has been used so successfully so many times before to draw attention away from other issues by the very people who coined the phrase "gay agenda".
Yeah, we can multi-task it. The problem is that this is kinda deja-vu. I don't know that this particular item may have been intended to be thrust on the national scene, but in Iowa it takes a couple of years for the "coastal trends" to be in vogue here. Iowa (unfortunately) has a gay fight brewing just under the surface, and this ruling will really allow the people who want to use the "gay agenda" to distract and as a false platform from which to push through their draconian ideals for ALL minorities.
And what is this thing you have with the "big 100"? I get the feeling that you want me to feel sorry for that hypocritical scum that voted and campaigned against gay rights, even though he sure seemed to be enjoying the lifestyle. And he's just 1 of the 100.
So, love triumphs after all? Unless the pro-hate appeal wins out.
Amazing that after 2000+ years of bible based "fatwas" god continues to create men that love men and women that love women. Someone's not getting the message.
BRAVO! Kudos to Judge Hanson. It was great seeing some good news on C & L today. And, from America's heartland no less. Too bad there are still the the naysayers like 'rain' to dampen the victory. Frankly I think the gov't should require childbirth licenses. What the fxxk do all those heteros think, popping out all those stupid 'rain' babies, then making me pay taxes to educate them...
Polls have shown opposition to gay marriage is widespread, but dropping fast, and very weak. It actually ranks last among the concerns of voters. Just because a certain tactic worked in the past, doesn't mean it will continue to work. Gays aren't the scapegoat for the GOP that we once were, that's why they've moved onto illegal aliens.
Anyway, gays are too large of a chunk of the Dem voting base to write us off. We're a big enough voting block to swing an election. So I guess you're stuck with us, just like the Dems were stuck defending another unpopular minority, blacks, in the 60s. "We have lost the south for a generation" is what Lyndon Johnson famously said after signing the 1964 civil rights act. But obviously the trade-off was worth it, and now it's time to add "sexual orientation" to the civil rights act.
The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered Polk County Recorder Julie Haggerty to issue marriage licenses to several gay couples.
I've always wondered what happened to her since "Airplane!"
The most important part of fighting homosexuality for repugs and christians is fund raising. All they have to say is "they're invading your neighborhood. Donate now" to get the money flowing.
I wouldn't be surprised if homosexuality doesn't tweak race survival instincts, especially for males, because at one time gays wouldn't have had children. In fact, it might even be part of stopping over population, triggered by overcrowding. Similar to the way pheromones help attract mates.
Now, most people under 40 just don't care and its lifetime as a fund raising topic is almost over. Hopefully this whole sad chapter will just go away.
Polls have shown opposition to gay marriage is widespread, but dropping fast, and very weak. It actually ranks last among the concerns of voters. Just because a certain tactic worked in the past, doesn't mean it will continue to work. Gays aren't the scapegoat for the GOP that we once were, that's why they've moved onto illegal aliens.
Anyway, gays are too large of a chunk of the Dem voting base to write us off. We're a big enough voting block to swing an election. So I guess you're stuck with us, just like the Dems were stuck defending another unpopular minority, blacks, in the 60s. "We have lost the south for a generation" is what Lyndon Johnson famously said after signing the 1964 civil rights act. But obviously the trade-off was worth it, and now it's time to add "sexual orientation" to the civil rights act.
Johnny, while gays are a large block of America in general, they just don't get those numbers here in Iowa. And after all, whether this is national news today, this issue is happening in Iowa. I promise that while the numbers of those willing to speak up are increasing here in the urban areas has really grown, it's still pretty rural in many ways and one is more likely to run into a really agressive homophobe than a supporter. As sad and shameful as that is. The only place I can think of that would be more homophobic is Nebraska.
What I was saying before is just that it may no longer rank highly among voters as a big issue everywhere else, but it does here. And I think we in Iowa have to really be aware of what's coming next from that "family values" crowd that has HUGE influence here.
wouldn’t be surprised if homosexuality doesn’t tweak race survival instincts, especially for males,
Hey, it ain't the gays marriage thing that is going to shove the Southern White RR into a demographic minority, it's the fact the Hispanics are simply outbreeding them?
Southern Babtists just can't compete with your average Catholic for procreation!
I TRUELY do wonder if, somehow they have to undo the Abortion rant, cause just too many Hispanic Babies for this crowd to deal with!
[Deleted. Consult the commenting policy and try to make your point without a spittle spraying rant]
NEXT QUESTION:
How long before homophobic Culture Warrior will dispatch his minions to the home of the judge?
Tony Snow is gathering up what dignity he can salvage, and rsesigned
The first gay marriage in Iowa just took place!
Wow... I'm originally from Iowa, and I managed to escape when I was 18. From my personal experience growing up there, this surprises me. But then again, a lot can happen for progress in 20+ years. Yay progress!
BTW, I don't think that rain@19 was trolling. It was a quote from an old (and funny) Onion article.
Wow... I'm originally from Iowa, and I managed to escape when I was 18. From my personal experience growing up there, this surprises me. But then again, a lot can happen for progress in 20+ years. Yay progress!
BTW, I don't think that rain@19 was trolling. It was a quote from an old (and funny) Onion article.
SevenString @ 104:
I'd say he was trolling. Trolling for a wide-mouth bass, if you know what I mean.
I dont see why the government has to butt into marrage at all.
Marc Ford @ 99:
"Real leftie" you sort of epitomize the stupid hetero baby syndrome I mentioned earlier. I'd love to know what your "serious issues" are. You are very clearly clueless. Most political issues have a gay angle and we're sitting in the back of the bus and as you say "last on your list" on most of them. You name it, immigration, the military, SSI, taxes or health care. Gay marriage would be a non-issue if people like you weren't working so damned hard to cut us out of the picture. BTW you seem to be very affected.
catalyst @ 106:
That's a marred argument, but I like your use of the word butt in the context.
dirk gently @ 80:
That would be an upward step for Iowans who are used to breeding with stock.
Pete Bogs @ 4:
I wont be surprised if there isnt another Massachussets in the wings, which will let the republicans to run with the issue on 08.
So they want to get married; hey it's better than getting already being married and getting busted for sexual advances in an airport lavatory! Never mind the gender! And if you think this issue will change by a "mandate (a word I cannot stop giggling over) of the public", consider that your idiot (if I may be so blunt) "public" has had their neurons spoon-fed on control-freak, bullshit, religious dogma since conception. I would much rather leave constitutionality at either the local, state or federal level to a qualified judge than the reactionary and asinine general public, thank you! Take your book of fairy tales and stick it in your ass!
bilhelm-X @ 111:
Correction!
Does htis mean Iowa is coming out of the Dark Ages?
Since we've had legal gay marriage in Canada, no one's life has changed one bit, and people will attest to that. The only difference is, some long-time loving couples are now legally married, and happy. What's all this fear about????
marbotty @ 33:
Your post will probably be deleted for being a rant, in all-caps. The main reason gays want the right to marry, is because they want equal rights with everyone else; not to be treated as second class citizens. If the couple splits, they will indeed require a divorce to separate their assets. Gays would like to also receive, pensions, health-care benefits, shared interested in property holdings, the right to visit a loved one in the hospital (currently not allowed-- not "family") and just so people know they are not freaks, but hard-wired differently, in love, and want to live as law abiding citizens.
Also, my question to you is, How many gays have "done it" on "your doorstep", to date? Probably NONE.
wouldn’t be surprised if homosexuality doesn’t tweak race survival instincts, especially for males,
I don't know who posted this. My only hope is, whatever race you belong to doesn't survive. What a laughably SAD comment.
It is really heartening to see how much you all support equal rights for gay and lesbian folks!
(Of course, it looks like some of the disagreement was weeded out!)
It makes me feel very optimistic about the growth of our society, at least regarding this issue.
We clearly use both passion and reason in out thinking on these issues.
It appears to me that the word 'marriage' is not of religious origin, therefore 'marriage' should refer to a civil, secular union of two people, giving them all civil rights, equally, and let all the religious sects coin their own word and allow that union to be permitted among whomever they wish.
This will separate that which should be separate. They are already separate ceremonies, apart from each other,
this is good news for Larry Craig too!
Comments are closed on this entry