• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

Kandahar said:
Men are ONLY prohibited from marrying men. They can marry any other gender they want. So how is that different? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

That is dumbest post on this thread so far, and that's saying something.
 
TheNextEra said:
Says the bible thumper, I love it.

You don 't matter Jerry.

Your whole argument is based on emotion. God says no is your forte.
Click to expand...

WTF is that?

I do NOTHING to actively oppose gay-marriage.

Try giving some substance to your argument. You might begin by reading the SCOTUS decisions you are referring to.
 
TheNextEra said:
Sure it does. Did you choose to be heterosexual or were you just NATURALLY attracted to the opposite sex?
Click to expand...
???
Who said I was heterosexual to begin with?


Kandahar said:
That seems pretty straightforward. It doesn't really take a great deal of interpretation in this case.
Click to expand...
Read the Courts decision and you will see that it isn't that straight forward, but full of interpretation.


TheNextEra said:
The main arguments from Anti-Gay Marriage proponents are this:
#1: ...

#2: ...

#3: ...


Bottom line, is there is no reason for gay marriage to be illegal.
Click to expand...
Main? Hardly.
Those are not the only arguments either.

Bottom line, there is no reason for the usurpation of the term 'marriage' and the establishment of a new right in doing so.


I find it funny that the homosexual community wants to be respected, but in turn, show great disrespect in their attempted efforts to get there.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
Except that you are making a false argument. The reason for the IASC ruling had nothing to do with the "government reasons for supporting marriage" if that were the sole basis, marriage would only be granted to couples with intent to procreate, ergo homosexuals would be ineligible based on biology.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. A government reason for supporting marriage is to assist in the rearing of children. No mention of procreation. Since couples that choose not to have children can adopt and follow through with this standard, homosexual couples can do the same. This is the argument that, eventually, in my view, will win the day for gay marriage.

Of course we can go around that with adoptions and turkey baster kids, but that's not the point.
Click to expand...

It is completely the point since the government's support for marriage is based on child rearing, not on child procreation.

Two men and a woman wish to be married. They point out that the two men can earn enough to raise their two children the three have, and the woman can stay home and take care of the children better then any two of them could.

Thus the government need is met. And since the courts have determined two men may marry, for fairness, what basis have you for denying three?

See how easy that was?
Click to expand...

Please show some evidence that polygamous marriage rears children as healthy and able to function as children of hetero- and homosexual marriage. There is plenty of data on both of those. I do not see why the government should support something unless there is some data showing it is helpful.

Also, child-rearing is not the only reason that the government sanctions marriage, though it is the most prominent. Family stability and social stability are also important components. This is where polygamy falls short.

But, you see, this entire, "if we allow homosexual marriage, polygamy is next" argument is extraordinarily weak, considering that the similarities between the two do not exist. Allow me to explain from both an individual and a societal standpoint. And Jerry. This may be the post you have been waiting for. ;)

First. let us take a look at the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The striking difference is obvious. Homosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the same sex, whereas heterosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the opposite sex. Why would a heterosexual woman want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Why would a homosexual man want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Clearly, from an individual standpoint, this is a, if not the main reason for one wanting to marry a specific other. Love, attraction, emotion. Now, this does not justify gay marriage being validated, and, in fact is a weak argument that I never make. Love, attraction, and emotion does not benefit the state, which is why marriage exists. However, polygamy does not fit well in the criteria that I have identified. There is no polygamous sexual orientation. Polygamy is, typically, a heterosexual orientation, covered already. However, being that there is no polygamous sexual orientation, using this, a mainstay of the individual reason for marriage, will not work or apply. Therefore, polygamy from an individual standpoint, does not meet the same criteria for marriage as do homosexuals or heterosexuals. Lack of orientation.

Now, we move into the societal realm. Government supports marriage for a few reasons. The productive rearing of children is most important. Creating a stable family life is also key: it adds to the positive potential for healthy children, but it also creates healthy adults. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that those who live in a healthy, stable, committed relationship, are happier, healthier, and are more productive members of society. These are all things that benefit the state. Research shows that, regardless of sexual orientation, gay or straight, folks who live in these kinds of committed relationships, do better, and rear children better, than those who do not. This is regardless of sexual orientation. This is the second piece of the argument that will, eventually win the day for gay marriage. Polygamy does not offer the same benefits. And the answer to "why" is simple, and is psychological in nature. Jealousy, rivalry, and inconsistency. Just like my argument that psychology cannot be separated from economics, hence, because of greed, pure forms of both socialism and libertarianism are destined to be complete failures, neither can human psychology be separated from this issue. What is the number one cause of divorce? Adultery. Why? Jealousy and rivalry. In a multi-partner marriage, it would be impossible for their not to be some sort of hierarchy, and even if this is agreed upon, one cannot eliminate one's emotions. With this type of emotional instability at the familial structure's core, a healthy, committed relationship, similar to that of a single partner marriage, could not be obtained. Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children, affecting their functioning. We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.

Lastly, though there is plenty of research that supports both heterosexual and homosexual unions as being beneficial, there is none that supports polygamy.

All of this shows how there is not correlation nor slippery slope from homosexual to polygamous marriage. Polygamy, for the reasons I identified, is not only a very different animal than homosexual marriage, but has none of the similar benefits to the state that the government currently sees marriage as.

Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Actually, it would be much easier for you to list those benefits to the government that plural marriage doesn't offer.

This should be good.
Click to expand...

I asked the question, first. Your move.
 
Slippery Slope said:
You've said this twice now without listing those reasons. So why not list them for us. ;)
Click to expand...

Already done in my lengthy post. Still your move to answer my question. Let's see if you can. :2razz:
 
Wessexman said:
It is completely redefing how the equal protection provision was historically determined, this is the court determining social policy. It is a classic case of judicial activism.
Click to expand...

Exactly how was the the Equal Protection Clause of Iowa historically determined?
 
And, as an aside, to be clear, my position on the gay marriage issue is that the term marriage, a religious term for far longer than the US has existed, should only be a religious term. Government should only authorize civil unions, to both hetero- and homosexual couples. Religious sects, themselves, can decide whether or not to sanction homosexual (or heterosexual, for that matter) marriages. My argument is based, nearly solely, on the benefits to the family, and the human condition. Sexual orientation is not the key factor by any means, and love is, to me, a very weak argument in this.

And I agree with those who said that the gay rights community is going about this all wrong. Focus on the family, and drop the "marriage" term. This could then be resolve, favorably, rather quickly.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Please show some evidence that polygamous marriage rears children as healthy and able to function as children of hetero- and homosexual marriage. There is plenty of data on both of those. I do not see why the government should support something unless there is some data showing it is helpful.
.
Click to expand...

If I remember from our last conversation on the matter there are certainly some who feel the data on homosexuals is both far from plentiful or completely unflawed.

You gave us your intepretation of the data as a whole and I was able to find those reasonably intelligent and qualified who drew different conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
If I remember from our last conversation on the matter there are certainly some who feel the data on homosexuals is both far from plentiful or completely unflawed.

You gave us your intepretation of the data as a whole and I was able to find those reasonably intelligent and qualified who drew different conclusions.
Click to expand...

And if I recall our discussion on this, I rejected your position as did many others, both at DP and plenty that did the research themselves, or those that reviewed the research.

But this is more about the polygamy argument. I'll ask you the same question I have asked others: show us how plural marriage benefits the government and society. Like them or not, there is plenty of research that shows how gay marriage would. In order to make the slippery slope argument, you must show research supporting how polygamy benefits the government and society.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And if I recall our discussion on this, I rejected your position as did many others,
Click to expand...
Yes you did, others weren't invovled. One or two people on that thread took your intepretation at face value but didn't discuss it or show they'd come to their own similar conclusion.

You however mistook what I was saying though. I quoted some sites that had a Christian slant who were interpretting the data, as you have a liberal slant, you however seemed to think I was quoting their data , which I was not. You mistakenly compared the Christian site(and there was another but i'm not sure it was Christian.) with the official science bodies doing this research and then stated the Christians re nothing as an authority compared to these. This would have been correct however the Christian site, or at least accredited author on that site, was analogous with these bodies but, they, like you were simply intepreting the data. They were analogous to your role. And no offense, and I do think you are a good poster, but I don't automatically think you are better than any Christian or rightwing source.

both at DP and plenty that did the research themselves, or those that reviewed the research.
Click to expand...
I have not seen this. In that thread at least it was just your interpretation and those I quoted which as I recall included a British Christiant site that had the essay of a qualified in the area or of children or something like that, it's a little hard to remember.

But this is more about the polygamy argument. I'll ask you the same question I have asked others: show us how plural marriage benefits the government and society. Like them or not, there is plenty of research that shows how gay marriage would. In order to make the slippery slope argument, you must show research supporting how polygamy benefits the government and society.
Click to expand...
I don't support polygamy.

Although if you're saying no one can say that if we can allow gay marriage then we'll have to allow polygamy because of the lack of scientific support for polygamy as being beneficial to society then the flaw is in the fact that the gov't or public opinion, or whatever gets these things legalised or not in society, does not necessarily have to base its decision on this scientific data.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Yep seems like judicial activism to me. All bow to the liberal committee on public safety.
Click to expand...

You say that as if it an entirely bad thing. Have good changes brought on in the past not been brought up in a similar way. Its, in fact, part of what state and federal SC's do. Whether or not you agree with their "activism" depends solely on whether or not you share the same views to begin with.
 
Midwest Lib said:
You say that as if it an entirely bad thing. Have good changes brought on in the past not been brought up in a similar way. Its, in fact, part of what state and federal SC's do. Whether or not you agree with their "activism" depends solely on whether or not you share the same views to begin with.
Click to expand...
It is an entirely bad thing. Judicial activism is creating law from the bench, not interpreting existing law. Courts are created to interpret the law. Legislatures are created to create the law.

Legislatures are the expression of the will of the people, not courts.

There is no social good derived from courts pre-empting legislatures. None whatsoever. Whenever this happens, it is to society's detriment.
 
celticlord said:
It is an entirely bad thing. Judicial activism is creating law from the bench, not interpreting existing law. Courts are created to interpret the law. Legislatures are created to create the law.

Legislatures are the expression of the will of the people, not courts.

There is no social good derived from courts pre-empting legislatures. None whatsoever. Whenever this happens, it is to society's detriment.
Click to expand...

I agree with your definition of whats supposed to come from each, but its not a reality. All I'm saying is that good things have come of it, along with the bad (I can't deny that happens) As long as humans have any sort of power, which i assume will be a long time, bias and personal belief are going to be just as a big a part as the letter of the law itself.
 
Last edited:
Midwest Lib said:
I agree with your definition of whats supposed to come from each, but its not a reality.
Click to expand...
So the justification for judicial activism (and legislative indolence) is that they exist?

Midwest Lib said:
All I'm saying is that good things have come of it, along with the bad (I can't deny that happens)
Click to expand...
Here I emphatically disagree. There has been no societal good to come from judicial activism. As there has been no good, there is no defense of judicial activism on the basis of it providing societal good.
 
To easy, Capt'n...
CaptainCourtesy said:
You are incorrect. A government reason for supporting marriage is to assist in the rearing of children. No mention of procreation.
Click to expand...

So often is Loving used to as a legal basis for the gay-marriage argument. However, the logic behind loving does not, in any way, also support gay-marriage.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
....These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man, "fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

It is so ordered.
Click to expand...

Procreation has always gone hand in hand with marriage as both an assumed logical function of marriage in forming a family and with regard to the nature of the civil union.

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).
...But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, farreaching and devastating effects....
Click to expand...

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).
It is also to be observed that while marriage is often termed by text writers and in decisions of courts as a civil contract, generally to indicate that it must be founded upon the agreement of the parties, and does not require any religious ceremony for its solemnization, it is something more than a mere contract. The consent of the parties is, of course, essential to its existence, but when the contract to marry is executed by the marriage, a relation between the parties is created which they cannot change. Other contracts may be modified, restricted, or enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties. Not so with marriage. The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. This view is well expressed by the Supreme Court of Maine in Adams v. Palmer, 51 Me. 481, 483. Said that court, speaking by Chief Justice Appleton:
Click to expand...

***
Anti-GM logic is genius in it's simplicity: Homosexuality does not produce relationships which can procreate in and of themselves, therefore while gays retain the right to freely associate and cohabitate with whomever they wish, the state has no compelling interest in such relationships.

The state need not ban or specifically criminalize same-sex relationships. It simply may choose not to recognize such relationships any more then it recognizes other casual relationship such as boy/girlfriend.

=====
Yes, some unsubstantiated number of gay couples are raising children, but so are various other types of couples (such as a grand parent and a single mom, siblings, an older sibling of the child, etc). Just as I do not support these exceptions to alter the rule, neither do I support gays raising children to alter the institution of marriage.
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
So the justification for judicial activism (and legislative indolence) is that they exist?
Click to expand...

It's not justification or disapproval. Its just the simple truth that it exists. Human nature insists upon it. As long as one has opinions this will continue to be a truth.

Here I emphatically disagree. There has been no societal good to come from judicial activism. As there has been no good, there is no defense of judicial activism on the basis of it providing societal good.
Click to expand...

This will be an agree to disagree situation. I believe that good has come of it, this subject being my first example. So there is no confusion, I am not for or against judicial activism, simply because the way it exists will continue to exist. Which way it will lean depends on the place and time, but I am thankful, due to personal beliefs that this SC ruled this way, as I hope it will set a standard that other states will follow. I'm sure that if some of your beliefs were upheld, you wouldn't be upset, even if it happened in a way you didn't entirely believe in.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
To easy, Capt'n...


So often is Loving used to as a legal basis for the gay-marriage argument. However, the logic behind loving does not, in any way, also support gay-marriage.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes


Procreation has always gone hand in hand with marriage as both an assumed logical function of marriage in forming a family and with regard to the nature of the civil union.

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).


Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).


***
Anti-GM logic is genius in it's simplicity: Homosexuality does not produce relationships which can procreate in and of themselves, therefore while gays retain the right to freely associate and cohabitate with whomever they wish, the state has no compelling interest in such relationships.

The state need not ban or specifically criminalize same-sex relationships. It simply may choose not to recognize such relationships any more then it recognizes other casual relationship such as boy/girlfriend.

=====
Yes, some unsubstantiated number of gay couples are raising children, but so are various other types of couples (such as a grand parent and a single mom, siblings, an older sibling of the child, etc). Just as I do not support these exceptions to alter the rule, neither do I support gays raising children to alter the institution of marriage.
Click to expand...

Too easy Jerry. Procreation as a reason for the state to have a compelling interest in marriage is negated by the fact that obtaining a marriage license is not contingent on the agreement to have children. If it were, since marriage is a contract, if a couple decided to not procreate, the marriage license would be void. This does not occur. Adoption is also a piece that indicates that child-rearing, not procreation is the component that is being addressed. Child-rearing is one of the reasons the state has a compelling interest in marriage, but not the only one. Health and creating a stable society are also reasons. These things are accomplished by both hetero-sexual and homo-sexual marriages.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Too easy Jerry.
Click to expand...

I hear ya ;)

CaptainCourtesy said:
Procreation as a reason for the state to have a compelling interest in marriage is negated by the fact that obtaining a marriage license is not contingent on the agreement to have children. If it were, since marriage is a contract, if a couple decided to not procreate, the marriage license would be void. This does not occur. Adoption is also a piece that indicates that child-rearing, not procreation is the component that is being addressed. Child-rearing is one of the reasons the state has a compelling interest in marriage, but not the only one. Health and creating a stable society are also reasons. These things are accomplished by both hetero-sexual and homo-sexual marriages.
Click to expand...

The entire point of my post was to refute your premise:
CaptainCourtesy said:
You are incorrect. A government reason for supporting marriage is to assist in the rearing of children. No mention of procreation.
Click to expand...

No mention of procreation, you said. No mention at all.

Clearly procreation is an expected function of marriage. While a few exceptions have been granted to protect children and families from falling through the cracks (exceptions such as adoption), those exceptions prove the rule. Exceptions such as adoption in no way separate procreation from marriage.

In this way gay-marriage seeks to redefine what the institution of marriage is, and therefore even what your own marriage is. While you are free to give your personal marriage various meanings, all such meanings are additions and amendments to the institution.

***
The modern gay-marriage movement is not based on the family. It is based on the assertion of personal rights.

Marriage is not about the assertion of personal rights.
 
"In this way gay-marriage seeks to redefine what the institution of marriage is, and therefore even what your own marriage is. While you are free to give your personal marriage various meanings, all such meanings are additions and amendments to the institution."

Why is this a bad thing? Is it so wrong for things to be improved upon to better fit the mold that is today's society?
 
Midwest Lib said:
"In this way gay-marriage seeks to redefine what the institution of marriage is, and therefore even what your own marriage is. While you are free to give your personal marriage various meanings, all such meanings are additions and amendments to the institution."

Why is this a bad thing? Is it so wrong for things to be improved upon to better fit the mold that is today's society?
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with redefining social institutions--so long as it is not done in a courtroom. Courts are the arbiters of the law, not arbiters of justice.
 
Midwest Lib said:
Why is this a bad thing? Is it so wrong for things to be improved upon to better fit the mold that is today's society?
Click to expand...

I have no issue with gay-marriage in a vacuum (I have and could again make the religious argument in favor of gay-marriage and I can do it without misrepresenting scripture).

In context to what the modern gay-marriage movement is today, what their arguments and rationales are, gay-marriage is not an improvement.

The modern gay-marriage movement supports and advances hyper-individualism, which is poison to social bonds.

The modern gay-marriage movement seeks to reduce marriage from "form and maintain the family" to "legitimization of sexual behaviors".
 
Jerry said:
The modern gay-marriage movement supports and advances hyper-individualism, which is poison to social bonds.
Click to expand...

How so? It seems to me that allowing them to get married would ENHANCE their social bonds. Is marriage not the ultimate social bond?

Jerry said:
The modern gay-marriage movement seeks to reduce marriage from "form and maintain the family" to "legitimization of sexual behaviors".
Click to expand...

Again, how so? They aren't asking for the state to give them its blessing to screw each other in the ass. They're just asking for the same property rights, visitation rights, and next-of-kin rights under common law that everyone else has.
 
Midwest Lib said:
This will be an agree to disagree situation. I believe that good has come of it, this subject being my first example. So there is no confusion, I am not for or against judicial activism, simply because the way it exists will continue to exist. Which way it will lean depends on the place and time, but I am thankful, due to personal beliefs that this SC ruled this way, as I hope it will set a standard that other states will follow. I'm sure that if some of your beliefs were upheld, you wouldn't be upset, even if it happened in a way you didn't entirely believe in.
Click to expand...
The Iowa Court screwed the pooch by indulging in a specious and overreaching reading of their constitution. Such legislation from the bench imposes an arbitrary definition of marriage that may or may not be at odds with the definitions used in the larger society--and may be at odds with the religious views of individuals.

Such judicial overreach does not end "discrimination" (if indeed discrimination existed, which is doubtful), but merely shifts discrimination's target.

Is there a meaningful resolution to such questions? I certainly hope so. My preferred resolution would be an ending to government regulation of marriage, so that individual views on marriage are never more than a matter of opinion. That is not the state of law today, and the Iowa court's ruling has amplified that situation; it has not reduced it, and it most definitely has not negated it. The Iowa court could not hope to remedy that particular legal defect, for such a remedy is found in the legislative process, not the judicial process.

Are laws defining marriage as being solely between a male and a female just? Perhaps, perhaps not--it is a worthy question. What is beyond question is the judicial reality that courts are not arbiters of justice, but only of law. A court that seeks to do justice only does violence to itself and to the role of courts in civic society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom