[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by 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!

Nope. The concept of separate but equal wasn't good.

When it comes down to it, I'm not sure how the creation of a new form of marriage isn't "separate but equal". Gay people have always had the exact same marital rights that heteros do. No more, no less. You guys are the ones that are suggesting we need to treat them specially..not me.

[RonnieJonez]

Originally Posted by iowegian

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...)

I disagree, those are largely left-wing states and proud of it. Iowa is not like that, although I'm sure the liberals in the state probably are convinced it is now. Iowa City is the only place where this issue won't encounter any resistance, and that's really only centered around the campus.

I doubt they encountered the level of resistance in Massachusetts you will see here in Iowa although I'm sure there were some protests, I don't think it's just the fringe right thats against it, Iowa (Des Moines included) is largely made up of people originally from very small towns, and they just aren't going to accept this type of thing, even if they supported Obama and claim to be for this, in fear of being labeled a bigot. This may actually turn people away from Iowa, or people who are considering moving, this might make the decision easier. As much as I support this ruling, I don't think Iowa is the place for it yet.

Another thing, this is the whole state as well, Des Moines press needs trying to spin it as if it were exclusive to Polk County.

[mattpoulsen]

kdbrich,

The logic you are applying is no different than those who claimed "separate but equal" was appropriate. They argued blacks got the same education and therefore had the same rights.

You keep saying that gays have the same rights as you...well, that depends on how you define the right that "we have."

Is it a right to marry? Is it a right to marry who you want? Is it a right to marry someone of the opposite sex?

To suggest that gay marriage is separate but equal thinking is just plain silly!! If gay marriage were enacted YOU would be free to go have a gay marriage. The analogy is nonsensical.

[mattpoulsen]

Kdrich,

Instead of getting "all legal" about it. I'll make it simple.

As a few of us have asked in previous posts, could you explain how gay marriage devalues heterosexual marriage? I'm not be facetious.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Kdrich,

Instead of getting "all legal" about it. I'll make it simple.

As a few of us have asked in previous posts, could you explain how gay marriage devalues heterosexual marriage? I'm not be facetious.

It changes the definition of marriage. I'm against special legislation changing an institution that has traditionally been an important thing to our society.

You know the slippery-slope argument that can be made from here....so I won't even go into that.

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

kdbrich,

The logic you are applying is no different than those who claimed "separate but equal" was appropriate. They argued blacks got the same education and therefore had the same rights.

You keep saying that gays have the same rights as you...well, that depends on how you define the right that "we have."

Is it a right to marry? Is it a right to marry who you want? Is it a right to marry someone of the opposite sex?

To suggest that gay marriage is separate but equal thinking is just plain silly!! If gay marriage were enacted YOU would be free to go have a gay marriage. The analogy is nonsensical.

How it affects me is irrelevant.

Nobody is talking about prohibiting gay people from marrying. They have the exact same rights I do to marry. I don't like the idea of creating a special class of marriage just to suit a small but vocal group of people.

Again...what is the next small, vocal group that is going to demand a new definition of marriage?

[SurfOmaha]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

baloney. nobody has denied you the right to get married. you just have rules to follow, as do I. we have the same exact rights when it comes to marriage.

The supreme court of Iowa just told the people of Iowa that their opinion doesn't matter and they created new legislation.

Rules to follow like you have to? The only requirements in nebraska are age and gender. There are not even residency requirements!!! Get a clue! Keep your religion at church, thanks! Why should gender matter if they are gay men who want to marry each other. Why is it acceptable to deny two women to marry each other? Homosexuality is not a crime, get over it!!! How does it even affect you? The answer: IT DOES NOT AFFECT YOU!!!! get over it!

[mattpoulsen]

Okay.

How can you be serious about the argument that they have the same right to marry??

It does create a "new right." It extends already existing rights. The argument is the exact same as so many have used to oppress other groups. Its the same argument used southern states to keep interracial marriages from occurring.

Further, you claim not to support legislation to GIVE rights to people?? Really?? The ENTIRE constitution is just such a document! You're not in support of legislation FOR giving rights but its okay to have special legislation to take away rights.

Again, you call it a "slippery slope" but that's the exact question I'm asking. How does it ruin marriage?? How is marriage changed??

[SurfOmaha]

Originally Posted by 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?

And the bigoted right-wing nuts can't even explain how gay marriage threatens there's. Here's an idea for them! Stop having GAY AFFAIRS!!!!

[SurfOmaha]

It changes the definition of marriage. I'm against special legislation changing an institution that has traditionally been an important thing to our society.

Right because the definition of marriage has never been changed before. I bet in the 50's you would be the person thrwoing a black person in jail for wanting to marry a white person. At one time the definition of marriage meant, white only married white and black only married black. Religion dictated it! BUT it was CHANGED!

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Okay.

How can you be serious about the argument that they have the same right to marry??

The marriage laws in Nebraska don't question a person's sexual preference when it comes to obtaining a license.

It does create a "new right." It extends already existing rights. The argument is the exact same as so many have used to oppress other groups. Its the same argument used southern states to keep interracial marriages from occurring.

Nope. A man can marry a woman. Sexual preference is not an issue, nor nor is race.

Further, you claim not to support legislation to GIVE rights to people?? Really?? The ENTIRE constitution is just such a document! You're not in support of legislation FOR giving rights but its okay to have special legislation to take away rights.

Currently, men cannot marry men. Women cannot marry women. Sexual preference is irrelevant. Nobody is denying anyone rights--gay people have the same rights as I do. To allow a special form of marriage for gay people would not be appropriate.

Again, you call it a "slippery slope" but that's the exact question I'm asking. How does it ruin marriage?? How is marriage changed??

Are you prepared to start granting polygamous marriages?

Originally Posted by SurfOmaha

And the bigoted right-wing nuts can't even explain how gay marriage threatens there's. Here's an idea for them! Stop having GAY AFFAIRS!!!!

How about you stop calling people bigots and we'll treat you with respect?

Originally Posted by SurfOmaha

Right because the definition of marriage has never been changed before. I bet in the 50's you would be the person thrwoing a black person in jail for wanting to marry a white person. At one time the definition of marriage meant, white only married white and black only married black. Religion dictated it! BUT it was CHANGED!

Race != sexual preference.