Iowa marriage ban overturned!

[Azrael]

I am very glad you proved me wrong though Azrael. And I mean that.

And thank you for the gracious apology.

I'll explain why I reacted so strongly:-

It's not pathetic or creepy (lol) to challenge someone when you feel they've said something that you don't agree with. It would be a boring world if people never did wouldn't it?

It wasn't the challenge I took issue with, it was the form it took: an inference of "homophobia". I dislike ad hominem comments in general, but especially when they imply that the person has a pathology. An opinion is not just wrong, but sick. It's too close to the thinking that underpinned the nasty Soviet habit of medicalising dissent, and now we have laws against "hate speech", I'm especially wary. It's possible to disagree with gay marriage for moral reasons without being either a bigot or suffering from a phobia of gay people.

I might suspect all sorts of personal things about people from their comments, but I don't post them up here. If I was a bigot or a "homophobe", it would soon become apparent.

And by the by, I also said I supported civil marriage for gay people in my first post! And expressed sympathy for gay couples who had spent decades waiting for marriage. Those are not the actions of someone suffering from a phobia.

 

[MightyAphrodite]

And by the by, I also said I supported civil marriage for gay people in my first post! And expressed sympathy for gay couples who had spent decades waiting for marriage. Those are not the actions of someone suffering from a phobia.

I am going to be frankly honest with you. I was off my rocker last night. That is in no way an excuse, but senses do get blurred.

You're very graceful yourself in explaining your stance and I am glad your mindset is what it is. I was hoping you would be graceful about this rather than looking for a row. I am all for settling things in a peaceful, gracious and savvy manner, and I see that you are as well.

That's sort of rare in this day and age imo. But, it's nice to see it when someone displays it as you have.




And you did not disappoint. Excellent.

 

[Azrael]

I do try.

Do you dislike judges making any rulings at all, or is it just this one that's got your goat?

As I've already said, I disagree with rulings based on "evolving standards". I don't have to agree. The US Supreme Court ruled that felony arrest without a warrant is constitutional, as that was the common law position in 1791. I think arrests should require a warrant, but it was the correct ruling. Likewise, I admire the Miranda rights regime, but I'm forced to agree that there's no constitutional basis for it.

Iowa's constitution might be too difficult to amend, but other states aren't. This could get a national movement going for national constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Didn't President Bush promote something like that? Even if it doesn't happen, it could easily at a state level. So instead of passing a law legalising gay marriage, you have to (re)amend the constitution.

 

[MightyAphrodite]

Another thing that struck me in your post just now....

I might suspect all sorts of personal things about people from their comments, but I don't post them up here. If I was a bigot or a "homophobe", it would soon become apparent.

I guess I have been very naive over my life as in I have always said what I wanted IRL and never really considered the consequences, which i am ashamed a bit to admit, but that is just how it's been for me. This family have had lawyers since I can remember because certain people in my family have a tendency to speak before they think and get locked up for fighting for things they vehemently believe in.

This is how I've seen things all of my life and some habits die hard. Although I don't think that's a habit that should die. Legal threats dont phase me in the least (not saying you made one, just saying they don't phase me because I've seen so much of it over the years )

Anyroad, I'm glad we sorted this in an adult manner and I really am sorry for implying you made a homophobic comment without doing my research first.

You did accomplish more than me seeing I was wrong, I will certainly research such comments from now on before I make a statement or judgment about this sort of thing. You should feel good about that. So, well done.

 

[Azrael]

Well I always like things to end amicably. Thanks for being so good about it.

 

[MightyAphrodite]

Well I always like things to end amicably. Thanks for being so good about it.

So do I Azrael. Thank you too.


(you lot can carry on with the carnage now, Azrael and myself have sorted our differences ....)

 

[Shevek]

I think this is a positive move. I volunteer on BBC radio Manchester's Gay Programme and we will certainly be mentioning it on Monday evening!

 

[spring-peeper]

iirc, gay marriages are not legal over there. Any idea when the UK might get around to doing so?

 

[Azrael]

iirc, gay marriages are not legal over there. Any idea when the UK might get around to doing so?

To my knowledge Civil Partnerships are identical to marriage in all but name. Ideally, I'd like the needless distinction done away with. Problem is that, as the Church of England is established, civil marriage has semi-religious connotations. CofE vicars have registry powers, for example.

It could be fixed without disestablishmentarianism. ( ) The churches in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland aren't established, so the situation isn't consistent across the kingdom. I'd say priests of all faiths and denominations should be given registry powers, and the freedom to choose who they marry. (This would apply to divorcees as well as gay people.) Then amalgamate Civil Partnership and civil marriage.

 

[spring-peeper]

Vermont joins the list

BOSTON (Reuters) - Vermont lawmakers on Tuesday overrode a veto from the governor in passing a bill that would allow same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the state to become the fourth in the nation where gay marriage is legal.

The Vermont House of Representatives passed the bill by a 100-49 vote after it cleared the state Senate 23-5 earlier in the day. In Vermont, a bill needs two-thirds support in each chamber to override a veto.

Vermont's vote comes just four days after Iowa's Supreme Court struck down a decade-old law that barred gays from marrying to make that state the first in the U.S. heartland to allow same-sex marriages.

Vermont's gay marriage legislation looked in peril after a vote Thursday in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives that failed to garner enough support clear a veto threat from Republican Governor Jim Douglas.

California briefly recognized gay marriage until voters banned it in a referendum last year.

Vermont, which became the first state in the country to allow full civil unions for same-sex couples in 2000, joins New England neighbors Connecticut and Massachusetts in allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Lawmakers in New Hampshire and Maine are also considering bills to allow gay marriage, putting New England at the heart of a divisive national debate over the issue.

link

 

[TomPaine]

It's good news. A member of my family is gay and was able to marry his partner here, however the biggest hurdle is yet to come. As far as I am aware the Federal government still does not recognise gay marriage with regards to immigration.
Which pretty much means gay Americans have to live abroad if their partner can't get a visa to enter the US through another means.

 

[Azrael]

Vermont joins the list

I support Vermont's move wholeheartedly. Unlike the court-rulings in Massachusetts, Iowa and Connecticut, it was done legislatively, and is stronger as a result.

The federal Defence of Marriage Act, 1996, is a disgrace, and needs repealing. Unfortunately Pres. Obama is against gay marriage (although in favour of civil unions), citing his Christianity, but who knows, with enough pressure from his party, he might yield on this.

So far the federal courts have "declined to review" whether DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Given the rulings from state courts, it's not inconceivable that it could eventually be struck down.

 

[TomPaine]

Azrael> However the flaw in what you are discussing above is that when you have state politicians who are beholden to money from the Christian right and right wing voters, then the chances of equality being granted to gay couples become slimer. It's no difference in the long run (if not as extreme) then the behaviour espoused by some politicans in the 60's towards blacks.
That took a civil rights movement to change. If you believe homosexuality to be natrual biological process then to ban homosexuals from having the same rights as you is no different to banning somebody because of the levels of melanin in their skin.

 

[Azrael]

That took a civil rights movement to change. If you believe homosexuality to be natrual biological process then to ban homosexuals from having the same rights as you is no different to banning somebody because of the levels of melanin in their skin.

I agree. In addition to Supreme Court judgments, the civil rights movement effected legislative change. And black Americans had fewer rights than gay Americans. To my knowledge, no gay American has been prevented from voting on account of his sexuality.

Better to confront and remedy the flaws in representative government than to bypass them with the courts. Ultimately this won't settle the issue: it'll leave it festering for decades, and create a rearguard action that could well undo everything you've fought for.

 

[TomPaine]

To my knowledge, no gay American has been prevented from voting on account of his sexuality.

No but gay Americans with foreign partners are effectively exiled with regards to residing in the country unless they decide to jack their relationship in and move back on their own.

 

[Azrael]

As I said, it's a disgrace. The questions are, should it be removed by any means necessary, and will doing so by the courts backfire in the long run?

Believe me, I'd love to say "strike it down". But if I support ends-justify-means thinking for this, I'm on a slippery slope. Where does it stop?

 

[Balbi]

Which is why the Iowa court doesn't affect the whole country. Checks and balances. Long arguments and scrutiny.

 

[spring-peeper]

It's good news. A member of my family is gay and was able to marry his partner here, however the biggest hurdle is yet to come. As far as I am aware the Federal government still does not recognise gay marriage with regards to immigration.
Which pretty much means gay Americans have to live abroad if their partner can't get a visa to enter the US through another means.

I thought there was a (possible) way around it, and I think I found it.

New York and New Mexico recognize same-sex marriages solemnized elsewhere. On May 5, the District of Columbia is expected to join them. All in all, about a third of Americans now live in states that offer some recognition of same-sex couples.

source

Maybe they could apply for citizenship from one of those states???