• 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

Damn activist judges bla bla bla bla. It is all Clintons fault. And they are all probably areeeb radical islamic terrorist lovers who like small boys and eat baby seals.

Did I get all the usual slurs right?
 
HURRAY!! My next door state neighbors got it right!!! Let those conservative hypocrite buttholes here in Nebraska eat that for lunch while they deny NE citizens their rights.

:bravo::2dancing::cheers:
 
Damn activist judges bla bla bla bla. It is all Clintons fault. And they are all probably areeeb radical islamic terrorist lovers who like small boys and eat baby seals.

Did I get all the usual slurs right?

You keft out "Democrap"
 
Another wall has come down...and I think the significance of this is lost to no one. Iowa isn't California or the Northeast...Iowa is the heartland of America.
I anticipate additional right-wing attempts at iniatives and many will succeed, but this is just further evidence that the walls are beginning to crumble and it is just a matter of time.
 
In before the republicrats complain that judges are making laws from the bench.


edit: And good job Iowa! Even better job on the state / city attorneys for not fighting the unanimous decision from their supreme court!
 
Last edited:
Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

Its just a matter of time....America may be slow but eventually injustice is righted and ultimately America stands for fairness with "liberty and justice for ALL".

Yeah right. Handing out the social benefits of marriage which are given to them on the expectation that they are going to have children is not just. The only just solution is to get rid of marriage as a state-sanctioned institution and make all marriages civil unions in the eyes of the state.
 
I'm kinda surprised something like this came out of Iowa. My ideal solution is the repeal of the marriage license, but so long as it exists there is no reason why the contract should be forbidden from same sex couples.
 
And the road to polygamy opens further.

Good news too, there are a lot of hot women I need to work on marrying.
 
And the road to polygamy opens further.

Good news too, there are a lot of hot women I need to work on marrying.

So... wait.

Two ADULT INDIVIDUALS wanting to get married leads to the road of polygamy?

Awesome!
 
So... wait.

Two ADULT INDIVIDUALS wanting to get married leads to the road of polygamy?

Awesome!

Actually, yes. Much of what keeps Marriage Man and a Woman has been struck down, and that is also the basis for polygamy being restricted.

Just pointing that out.
 
Actually, yes. Much of what keeps Marriage Man and a Woman has been struck down, and that is also the basis for polygamy being restricted.

Just pointing that out.

So marriage still being defined as a union between two individuals.

Is a road to polygamy for you?
 
So marriage still being defined as a union between two individuals.

Is a road to polygamy for you?

AHH, the denial is steep thick with this one.

Why was Marriage just between a man and a woman? What stopped it from being between two men?

So what's stopping three men from marrying?

(Here's a hint, the wall you are so proud to knock down, hit the wall of polygamy, and it's cracking)

For your reading consideration:
Will legalization of same-sex marriage lead to the legalization of polygamy? Proponents of same-sex marriage dismiss the question, for if they ever did face it squarely, they would have to admit the truly radical nature of the case for homosexual marriage. The logic of the polygamy question is this--If marriage can now be homosexual as well as heterosexual, why must it be limited to two persons rather than three . . . or several? Proponents of same-sex marriages have dismissed this question as irresponsible, irrelevant, and inflammatory. The question is indeed controversial, but only because it demands to be answered. It is by no means irrelevant.

That fact is underlined by Richard A. Posner in a recent article published in The New Republic. Posner is a judge sitting on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and he also serves as senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. He is one of the nation's most prolific and influential legal scholars, and his opinion on this question cannot be dismissed lightly.

=-=-=

Posner criticizes Gerstmann for basing his case for same-sex marriage on the argument that marriage is a "fundamental right." Such rights cannot be taken away by the state without a compelling reason, and Gerstmann argues that the state does not have any compelling reason to deny same-sex couples the rights of marriage. As Posner explains, "When Gerstmann describes the right to marry as fundamental, he means that any person who wants a marriage license has a strong presumptive right to it regardless of how the person defines marriage." When applied to same-sex marriage, this appears to bolster Gerstmann's case. If marriage is indeed a "fundamental right," the state must offer a compelling argument against the right of homosexuals to marry, and Gerstmann alleges that the government has made no such case.

Posner then leaps upon the great legal crevice created by Gerstmann's argument. When Gerstmann argues that marriage is a fundamental right, asserting that same-sex couples cannot be denied this right, Posner understands this logic to go far beyond Gerstmann's argument. Once marriage is defined as a fundamental right, all persons must be granted that right unless the state offers a genuinely compelling argument that would support its denial. As Posner argues, "He might be a man who wanted to marry his sister (both being sterile), or a very mature twelve-year-old boy (say, a freshman at MIT) who wanted to marry his twelve-year-old girlfriend (say, a freshman at Harvard), or a married man who wanted additional wives so that they might help out his current wife around the house, or a busy professional woman who wanted two husbands, the better to take care of the house and the kids, or a homosexual male who wanted three male spouses." If marriage is a fundamental right, Posner explains, then it is a fundamental right for everyone--not only for heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Feel free to read teh whole thing:
Will Same-Sex Marriage Lead to Polygamy?
 
So marriage still being defined as a union between two individuals.
Is a road to polygamy for you?
If the argument for changing 'man and woman' to 'two individuals' is sound, then the same argument for changing 'two individuals' to 'two or more individuals' is equally sound.
 
If the argument for changing 'man and woman' to 'two individuals' is sound, then the same argument for changing 'two individuals' to 'two or more individuals' is equally sound.

When you make decisions based on emotion, not well considered reasoning... you release that little ass kicker (the law of unintended consequences)
 
When you make decisions based on emotion, not well considered reasoning... you release that little ass kicker (the law of unintended consequences)
:mrgreen:

Why should we allow the truly needy to suffer just because you cannot find a provision for it in the constitution?
This question answers itself...
 
If the argument for changing 'man and woman' to 'two individuals' is sound, then the same argument for changing 'two individuals' to 'two or more individuals' is equally sound.

Erhm, not really.

But that's okay, I suppose the "conservative - preserve everyone's rights" movement will motion "Why not allow people to marry their farm animals?" soon.

Retaining the definition of marriage as a union between two legal and consenting adults in no way leads to the road of polygamy. Though it is kind of funny watching people say it does.


Keeping in mind, that I'm against the government regulating marriage in the first place. It should solely be handled by the religious institutions that created it.
 
Last edited:
Please explain how that is not the case.

Because the definition of marriage isn't being altered in such a fashion that says..

X can marry Y, oh, and they can marry Z too.

It's still how it should have been when it was first created:

A union between two consenting adults.
 
I think we should just abolish marriage altogether and make everybody just form an LLC instead. :mrgreen:
 
Because the definition of marriage isn't being altered in such a fashion that says..
X can marry Y, oh, and they can marry Z too.
It's still how it should have been when it was first created:
A union between two consenting adults.
You haven't explained how the argument for changng 'man and woman' cannot be equally applied to changing 'two'.
 
Back
Top Bottom