GAY MARRIAGE LEGALIZED BY HEDONISTIC COASTAL STATE... Iowa?

[_bcspace]

What are you guys going to do when another prop 8 passes in Iowa? The lesson learned is something I've known for decades now. We need a constitutional ammendment to preserve the eternal concept of marriage among the people.

[_JAK]

What are you guys going to do when another prop 8 passes in Iowa? The lesson learned is something I've known for decades now. We need a constitutional ammendment to preserve the eternal concept of marriage among the people.

No such “constitutional amendment” is going to be passed. Second, marriage is not a particularly stable condition.

See Divorce Rate


JAK

[_JohnStuartMill]

What are you guys going to do when another prop 8 passes in Iowa?

Uhhh.... we wait for 15 years, until all the old fogeys are dead, and the younger generation votes in favor of gay marriage by a substantial majority? Yeah, that's the ticket!

You guys are getting your asses kicked on the gay marriage issue. Gay marriage wasn't even on the radar 25 years ago; 9 years ago, it got the support of 40% of Californians, and last year, it lost by less than 5%. Add another few years of young people turning 18 and old bigots dying off, and California will clearly have a majority in favor of equality. The rest of the nation is trending the same way.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/ ... riage.html

[_bcspace]

No such “constitutional amendment” is going to be passed.

How do you know? Could be accomplished state by state ala California.

Second, marriage is not a particularly stable condition.

I don;t think that speaks to marriage in an of itself, but the pressures on marriage these days. If I recall correctly, the divorce rate among homosexuals (Europe) is 2.5 times higher than heterosexual couples.

In addition, this really isn't a good argument for you. If marriage is so unstable then why aspire to it?

[_Calculus Crusader]

I prefer 'judicial activism,' judicial oligarchy,' and 'legislating from the bench.'

Do you have a reason for this preference, or do you just have a taste for unfounded characterizations?

My reason is that I find the terms properly descriptive.

I like Napoleon but not Hitler. Neither helps your case, though.

Irrelevant and conclusory statements -- brilliant argumentation!

I was hard pressed to counter your argumentum ad Hitlerum.

Oh no!!!

Whenever some buffoon says something like that I say "I can't be bothered with the noxious mediocrities of today. What makes you think I concern myself with the noxious mediocrities of the future?"

I'm just saying that you're not going to like being the equivalent of a racist yokel when 2060 rolls around.

What else has your seer stone revealed to you Joe?

[_JAK]

No such “constitutional amendment” is going to be passed.

How do you know? Could be accomplished state by state ala California.

Second, marriage is not a particularly stable condition.

I don;t think that speaks to marriage in an of itself, but the pressures on marriage these days. If I recall correctly, the divorce rate among homosexuals (Europe) is 2.5 times higher than heterosexual couples.

In addition, this really isn't a good argument for you. If marriage is so unstable then why aspire to it?

bcspace,

One thing which is significant is that this legislation occurred in Iowa, not the west coast or the east coast of the USA. Both coasts tend to be more tolerant than the center of the USA. Second, this is from deep in the heartland of the US where a conservative, Republican governor appointed the judge who made the ruling. “This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage?" Justice Mark S. Cady asked. Third, the process of state-by-state process for constitutional revision is lengthy.

See this.

Also read:

“Now three states require full marriage for gays, and Vermont is on the brink of becoming the first state where gay marriage would be made legal by lawmakers, rather than the courts — a significant milestone. The Vermont House passed a law allowing gay marriage on Friday, and the Senate is expected to follow suit on Monday. Gov. Jim Douglas has promised to veto it, but an override fight will quickly follow, probably by next week.” (Scroll down in the Time article for this quotation.)

Fourth, this was a unanimous ruling according to the DesMoines Register. DesMoines Register

Some history in Iowa:

This issue here is not that marriage is stable (as I observed it is not), but rather that denial of marriage based exclusively on gender is contrary to most state constitutions and to the Constitution of the United States.

While you cited no evidence for you statistics regarding divorce rate for homosexuals in Europe, it’s irrelevant to the issue here. Homosexual unions have much to do with legal issues – right of survivorship, right to make health decisions for a partner who is incapable of making those decisions for him/her self, etc.

Hence, the issue is freedom to exercise choices under the law. Absent marriage, many homosexual couples have chosen co-habitation without the benefit of law and the right to speak for a partner. With legalization of same-sex marriage, these couples will have the same rights under the law as opposite-sex couples.

JAK

[_marg]

[

Hence, the issue is freedom to exercise choices under the law. Absent marriage, many homosexual couples have chosen co-habitation without the benefit of law and the right to speak for a partner. With legalization of same-sex marriage, these couples will have the same rights under the law as opposite-sex couples.

If the issue boils down to legal rights of people in partnerships, then it would seem polygamous marriages and even polyandry ones should as well be legal based on that criteria. I'd be interested to hear from you as well as JohnStuartMill, what your positions are regarding legalizing polygamous marriages.

[_JohnStuartMill]

My reason is that I find the terms properly descriptive.

That's nice. Why do you find the terms properly descriptive?

I was hard pressed to counter your argumentum ad Hitlerum.

Well, you'll be happy to know that you still have the opportunity to do so.

What else has your seer stone revealed to you Joe?

Seer stone? No -- unless that's another name for "statistics and sensible extrapolation". I thought you liked math?

[_JohnStuartMill]

Marg, I have no problem with legalizing polygamous marriages, so long as they're properly consensual.

[_marg]

Marg, I have no problem with legalizing polygamous marriages, so long as they're properly consensual.

And how could that be ensured? That's not the case in current polygamous communities which essentially raise females ill prepared for any other lifestyle.