[DMRyan]

While I don't disagree with you about the vote Ronnie, I certainly don't think the opinion of a few fire and brimstone conservative blowhards represents the opinions of the majority of the State of Iowa's people.

[iowegian]

Originally Posted by RonnieJonez

When you read these forums, it become apparent the state of Iowa just isn't ready for this. If there's ever a public vote on it, it will easily be overturned.

There are opponents of gay marriage in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont, too. It's no different than anywhere else.

There shouldn't be a public vote. The majority doesn't have the right to take others' rights away. That is called "tyranny by majority", and it is bad. The ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional, 'nuff said. (You are right though, it would definitely fail in a public vote. If this happens, expect a Iowa City separatist movement to pop up...)

[smithy77]

Originally Posted by Stacy From Cali

Um, yeah but it was created with a discussion about being gay in Omaha in mind...not being gay in Iowa. Putting it in Iowa makes no sense.

Stacey, I've noticed a pattern over time and I've done some investigation on this issue. Whenever there is a thread that someone doesn't like (or it isn't going their way, or they're losing an argument), individuals who will remain nameless complain to 'admin' about it and it gets locked or moved. I've seen the complaints to 'admin' by this certain member and he/she generally complains that there is too much 'gay' stuff over at the Omaha forum. Go figure.

[mhouse2001]

Originally Posted by mofford

People always try to come up with some medical or scientific reason for their behavior/choices in life, especially choices that society frowns upon or something they are ashamed of. Anything that takes the blame off themselves and gives them an excuse for their behavior is just par for the course.

Sure, sometimes you have to admit it must be genetic, such as the case with Ross the Intern. But sometimes people exhibit genetic traits for gayness but are not necessarily gay. Richard Simmons, for example, has a wife and son and has never admitted to being gay. Yet we know some of his X and Y's are crossed up.

Nope, I don't buy it, being gay is a lifestyle choice and not something your born with for an undetermined percentage.

The only thing we're buying is your insistence on being irrational. Unless you are gay, you cannot and will not ever KNOW whether someone chooses to be gay. The only thing you can rely on is evidence, all of which is outside yourself. And ALL of the evidence says it is not a choice. It was never a choice for me. I did not wake up one day and say "There's boys..and there's girls... I choose...". No heterosexual person ever was faced with that choice either. You can step down from your lofty (arrogant?) position now because frankly you don't know what you're talking about.

P.S. I have a friend from Omaha and always heard it was a good place for gay people--though that always surprised me. I'm happy for Iowans and I think the poster above who implied that the judges willfully overruled the wishes of the majority doesn't know what s/he's talking about either. The argument boiled down to a constitutional one, not a "we're going to jam this down Iowa's throat because we're activist judges" one. I'm happy that logic and civility are ruling these issues rather than the burning torches of the hateful crowds.

[Go Ne]

Originally Posted by smithy77

Stacey, I've noticed a pattern over time and I've done some investigation on this issue. Whenever there is a thread that someone doesn't like (or it isn't going their way, or they're losing an argument), individuals who will remain nameless complain to 'admin' about it and it gets locked or moved. I've seen the complaints to 'admin' by this certain member and he/she generally complains that there is too much 'gay' stuff over at the Omaha forum. Go figure.

I just complain when someone goes into a thread not even involving a Gay topic and somehow twist it to talk about gay things thusly making it completely off topic, and sometimes ruining the thread completely when it has to be closed for being off topic.

[mattpoulsen]

Iowegian,

The 'nuff said argument when thinking about doctrinal constitutional law does not go very far.

Rights are CONSTANTLY taken away by public or congressional vote! Think of all the prohibitions in society. Further, taking rights away from the minority is sometimes a good thing. How about my right to smoke meth? Or my right to marry my sister? Those, I think all would agree, are rights that were correctly taken away from the minority. So to simply say the majority can't take rights away from the minority is far far too simplistic.

The majority is only prohibited from taking a right away in select circumstances. Until the Supreme Court rules that "gay" marriage is a fundamental right the issue will not be resolved. I suppose there could be a constitutional amendment but I think the Supreme Court route is going to happen much much quicker.

Further, I believe the court's decision is somewhat immune. In order to overturn the courts decision Iowa will have to pass a constitutional amendment. I'm not too savvy with Iowan politics but can they get a super-majority in the Iowa State legislature? A simple straight up vote is not sufficient. They must amend the constitution...NOT just the statute.

[mattpoulsen]

Kldrich,

You have a pretty poor understanding of Constitutional Law. Under your theory, denying blacks the right to vote, segregation in school, and prohibition of interracial marriages would still be allowed!

What if the majority said you only have a right to marry people in your county? Would you be okay with that? You'd still have the right to marry?? What if the majority said you only could vote for a black candidate?? Would you be okay with that?? You'd still have the right to vote. The point is the supreme court is a CHECK on the majority! If you don't understand that then I feel sorry for you.

The "people" can still come back and pass a constitutional amendment if they like. The whole idea is there are a series of checks and balances.

You have this delusional idea that the court is supposed to listen to the majority when making constitutional decisions. Are you kidding me?? That is EXACTLY what we DO NOT want them doing.

[thatguy1]

Can't we just send all gays to the moon in a rocket? You guys cause too much trouble.

Seriously though, why do people give a **** about this? I, for the life of me, cannot understand non-gays who can draw opinions and conclusions to something they know nothing about.

The most common argument I hear is people wanting to "protect the sanctity" of marriage. Protect marriage? Straight people have been trying the hardest to destroy the institution of marriage for decades!

Marry a ****ing dog for all I care, I'm just worried about my spouse and how we live OUR lives. Am I making this seem to simple? In my little head it seems that simple.

[Stacy From Cali]

Yeah I don't get the sanctity of marriage argument either. Historically marriage has been used as a business proposition much more commonly than as anything intrinsically religious. What is so sacred about selling your kid to the highest bidder?

[mattpoulsen]

This scares me to say but I agree with Staci once again. Ha!

I have never understood the "destroying marriage" argument either. Do people really think that if gays, which represent less than 10% of the population, can get married that this will lead all (or even some) heterosexuals to abandon marriage?? Will it cause me to love my wife less?? Will it cause a young man and woman to be less likely to get married?? The logic is ridiculous.

Maybe, as with Burger, I'm making it too simple, but I don't see how gays being married devalues marriage.