Archive for Saturday, April 4, 2009

Iowa legalizes gay marriage

April 4, 2009

Advertisement

— Iowa’s Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state — and first in the nation’s heartland — to allow same-sex couples to wed.

Iowa joins only Massachusetts and Connecticut in permitting same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California’s high court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.

The Iowa justices upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman.

The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which could take years to ratify.

“We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective,” the Supreme Court wrote.

Iowa lawmakers have “excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.”

To issue any other decision, the justices said, “would be an abdication of our constitutional duty.”

The Iowa attorney general’s office said gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses starting April 24, once the ruling is considered final.

Des Moines attorney Dennis Johnson, who represented gay and lesbian couples, said “this is a great day for civil rights in Iowa.”

At a news conference announcing the decision, he thanked the plaintiffs and said, “Go get married, live happily ever after, live the American dream.”

Plaintiff Kate Varnum, 34, introduced her partner, Trish Varnum, as “my fiance.”

“I never thought I’d be able to say that,” she said, fighting back tears.

Jason Morgan, 38, said he and his partner, Chuck Swaggerty, adopted two sons, confronted the death of Swaggerty’s mother and endured a four-year legal battle as plaintiffs.

“If being together though all of that isn’t love and commitment or isn’t family or marriage, then I don’t know what is,” Morgan said. “We are very happy with the decision today and very proud to live in Iowa.”

In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.

The Polk County attorney’s office claimed that Judge Robert Hanson’s ruling violated the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.

The case had been working its way through the courts since 2005, when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples in Iowa.

“Today, dreams become reality, families are protected and the Iowa Constitution’s promise of equality and fairness has been fulfilled,” Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor said.

John Logan, a sociology professor at Brown University, said Iowa’s status as a largely rural, Midwest state could enforce an argument that gay marriage is no longer a fringe issue.

“When it was only California and Massachusetts, it could be perceived as extremism on the coasts and not related to core American values.

“But as it extends to states like Iowa, and as attitudes toward gay marriage have evidently changed, then people will look at it as an example of broad acceptance,” Logan said.

Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said his office will not ask for the case to be reconsidered.

“Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is, and we follow Supreme Court decisions,” Sarcone said.

Gay marriage opponents have no other legal options to appeal the case to the state or federal level because they were not parties to the lawsuit, and there is no federal issue raised in the case, Sarcone said.

Comments

Satirical 6 years ago

Polygamy and group marriage are next; it is just as inevitable as gay marriage being legal in every state. Soon enough marriage will be so broad and all encompassing, out of fear of denying rights, that it will be essentially meaningless. Hip Hip Hooray for the erosion of marriage.

jonas_opines 6 years ago

"Soon enough marriage will be so broad and all encompassing, out of fear of denying rights, that it will be essentially meaningless."

Maybe for those who only derive their meaning for it from being part of an exclusive club.

acceptance 6 years ago

Why can't we just be tolerant of others beliefs and lifestyles? If everyone would not judge others because they have different lifestyles, beliefs, and preferences the world would be a much nicer place to live in. You do not have to change your views, but allow others to have theirs. Basically, practice what we have been taught in Sunday school, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Be kind, listen, and open yourself up to other points of view and you know what, you might learn something. You do not have to agree, but listen and do not judge.

gccs14r 6 years ago

Hey Tom,

There's always northern Idaho or northern Michigan. I'm sure you can find like-minded people up there. I'm pretty sure we won't miss you.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

"Polygamy and group marriage are next;"

Why not? As long as provisions are made for child custody/welfare, why should it be anybody's business but the people involved which or how many consenting adults choose to be "married?"

Urae 6 years ago

"Hip Hip Hooray for the erosion of marriage." That's honestly a very terrible thing to say. It's not the erosion of marriage, but expansion. These are modern times, and with modern times come new morals and concepts. Suddenly, something that would have been scandalous fifty years ago is a-okay today (in theory). I see nothing wrong with gay marriage; in fact, I'm a supporter of the LGBT community. I find that all love is equal, no matter if it's between a woman and a man or two men. Love is love, and that's all that there is to it.

I, for one, applaud Iowa for becoming the third state! Three down, only forty-seven more to go! :)

Newell_Post 6 years ago

Those wild and crazy Iowans. What will they do next?

Iowa: the new San Francisco.

Kryptenx 6 years ago

If Satirical and Tom could comment in previous years:

Satirical: "Oh my Tom, did you hear that them crazies up in Warshington is gunna give women the right to vote!? Oh society is f*cked!" Tom: "Yup, perty soon they gunna let them black folks vote too, and Jesus is gunna come rescue us from all this sin."

phoggyjay 6 years ago

i'm so sick and tired of hearing those who think marriage should be between a man and a woman. get your head out of your ass! seriously, we all have the right to be happy and to marry whoever the f*ck we want to! those who are against it are probably so miserable in their own marriage, they want to make others miserable as well by deniying them basic rights, such as marriage. is it not 2009? i think we should all be past this petty point in our nations' history! equal rights...anyone?

viewfromahill 6 years ago

Perhaps a new term is needed for the ever expanding definition of "legal" marriage, consistent with its departure from and dilution of the original.

I propose: blurrage.

(I now pronounce you... uh ... whomever... and... um... whatever.)

ndmoderate 6 years ago

This news makes me proud to be a native Iowan!

yourworstnightmare 6 years ago

Reason, moderation, equality and freedom will eventually out.

While bans against same-sex marriage are the order of the day, they are doomed to the dustbin of history. They will join bans on women voting, Jim Crow laws, and opposition to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Connacht 6 years ago

"Perhaps a new term is needed for the ever expanding definition of “legal” marriage, consistent with its departure from and dilution of the original"

And what was the original? It sure wasn't between one man and one woman. Anyone with a speck of knowledge of human anthropology knows that. Marriage has no agreed upon definition and never did.

You're not going to be able to stop people from living their lives, be it in a heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous, or whatever relationship, and anyone who's married knows that a marriage license is just a piece of paper. It's the individual meaning the YOU assign to it that makes it special or not. And most people who get married clearly don't see it as being particularly special, since most heterosexual marriages end in divorce and many people end up cheating. Then of course, you have the heterosexual couples, legally married, who "swing" with other couples. That's a real sacred marriage right there!

Of course, we all know that these half baked arguments against gay marriage stem from religious beliefs, making them all irrelevant. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.

Kryptenx 6 years ago

Prop 8 will also soon be history due to state Supreme Courts, because nobody who opposes same sex marriages can come up with a reason why not that doesn't cite the Bible. If you expect a law to be passed because of a religious objection, prepare for it to be swiftly struck down by the Supreme Courts:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Banning same sex marriages is a law respecting an establishment of religion and has no other claims that stem from real-world damages or reasons, hence why the laws will continue to fall. I am sickened knowing that a law like this can be passed in the first place, much less in the present time, but relieved to see examples of how our justice system continues to perform the job of upholding our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Kryptenx 6 years ago

You still have the right to freely practice marriage under your narrow religious view: get married to someone of the opposite sex. I fail to see how a heterosexual marriage is threatened by a couple of guys or gals you may never even come into contact with. Yet the same people who will get married just to have sex and be "right" under God's eyes seem to be concerned about the sanctity of marriage. While gay marriage invalidates NO heterosexual marriage, divorce invalidates 50%. Wage war on divorce if you want to "uphold the sanctity of marriage." If the religious base spent as much time focusing on their own marriages instead of marriages of people that their bigotry will never let them associate with, maybe the divorce rate wouldn't sit at 50%.

beatrice 6 years ago

Way to go Iowa!!!

Satirical, polygamy and group marriage are products of heterosexual relationships.

Newell_Post 6 years ago

If you want a Biblical interpretation, check out King Solomon. He had 700 wives and 300 concubines. God didn't give him any trouble about that. Solomon got in trouble for worshiping Baal and Ashtoreth, not for being a polygamist.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years ago

I'm sorry, Iowa. This is what happens when our Far Left judiciary becomes the defacto maker (judicial branch) and signer (executive branch) of government.

Confrontation 6 years ago

If you're going to take the "word" of the Bible on this, then you might as well take the word of the tooth fairy or santa claus.

grammaddy 6 years ago

It's not just your so-called far-left kooks that reject your silly imaginary friend. And I've always found the same"kooks" way more tolerant and selfless than yourself!We don't need visions of the tooth fairy or Santa Claus to be decent to our fellow human beings, Mr. Nancy Tom.

grammaddy 6 years ago

like I said before.......way more tolerant than yourself.

tin 6 years ago

Without morals and right and wrong what are we? Maybe we should divide the country, libs on one coast and conservatives on the other.

Crap like this make me more hateful everyday. I'm sick of the ideal that just because a handful of freaks thinks it's OK to do what ever they want that the rest of use should accept it its BS.

I also notice that the ones on here that celebrate homo rights are the first one to hate and criticizes peoples faith. What morons.

Practicality 6 years ago

I think that quote pretty much sums up the me-first, if it feels good do it, I am the center of the universe, baby boomer generation M_N_B_T_Y.

It has always puzzled me how the baby boomer's parents, who grew up during the Great Depression, sacrificed so much to win WWII, and turned America into a Super Power, could raise such a bunch of selfish, undisciplined, entitled, unresponsible kids.

tin 6 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Kryptenx 6 years ago

"Without morals and right and wrong what are we? Maybe we should divide the country, libs on one coast and conservatives on the other.

Crap like this make me more hateful everyday. I'm sick of the ideal that just because a handful of freaks thinks it's OK to do what ever they want that the rest of use should accept it its BS.

I also notice that the ones on here that celebrate homo rights are the first one to hate and criticizes peoples faith. What morons."

Please explain to me how being born homosexual makes you a "freak." Are autistic children, siamese twins, little people, and mentally retarded kids "freaks" too? How incredibly closed minded and ignorant.

Also, please tell me how homosexuality is wrong or immoral. Put your damn Bible down, because if you can't come up with a single reason why something is wrong independently of your religion, it is not an objective moral standard and therefore cannot exist beyond the walls of your church. To think that something your church believes should be law for EVERYONE in the US is ridiculous. You exemplify the decline of moral values, you and your self-righteous church who believe that only you have the power to tell everyone what is good and bad.

Kryptenx 6 years ago

Tin: You do realize how much you sound like the Confederacy before the Civil War, don't you? I guess some people are completely oblivious to how hateful and evil their actions really are until 200 years have passed. Sadly, you will remain an idiot for the rest of your life.

Stu Clark 6 years ago

Having an aunt and a daughter both coming out as lesbians in a very similar way and observing that the homosexual lifestyle is not a comfortable one has convinced me that no one "chooses" to be gay. Rather, it come with the genes. And, it cerainly doesn't have anyting to do with Benjamin Spock.

To recognize that same sex couples should have the same legal standing as heterosexual ones is not being activist; it's just being fair.

tin 6 years ago

Kryptenx, Let me better explain myself.

  1. I don't care about your sexual preference or anyones else's. What you do in your bedroom is your business, I could care less
  2. I'm against gay marriage but if you what civil union or what ever, I could care less.
  3. You call me hateful and an idiot, take a few minutes to read any blog on LJW that refers to faith and see how you and people like you call people like me everything but human, yet you want me to be loving and tolerant of you and your believes?
  4. I thought we lived in a country were the majority rule? I don't like this new government but the majority voted for Obama so I have to accept it even though I don't like it. Yet every-time gay marriage is voted on it is struck down by the majority and then some left wing judge tries to overthrow the will of the people. THAT PISSES ME OFF.
  5. You can call me anything you want, I could care less. You have to live with the consequences of your life and so do I. I can live with that, hope you can to.

leftlawrenceafter30years 6 years ago

As a former resident of Lawrence and a current resident of Iowa, I am very proud that the Iowa Supreme Court actually respects the constitution. It is unconstitutional for the government to respect any religion and marriage is a religious state. It starts to be a slippery slope if they start to recognize and define marriage in a religious manner. Which religion would you have us all go by? It seems to me that when folks get upset about same sex "marriage" and use God as their argument they don't see that their argument goes against the constitution. My marriage isn't in danger of being harmed if my gay friends can enjoy the legal rights I have. Well, in 21 days they too can enjoy the same rights in Iowa. We live in a rural community and guess what - there are gay folks here too. Iowa is way ahead of the curve on this issue. Oh and by the way we did help Obama get elected in a nearly all white state. I am so proud of my fellow Iowans, except for crazy Steve King and a few other nut jobs.

leftlawrenceafter30years 6 years ago

Tin: For your information, the vote was unanimous and some of the so called activist judges were appointed by a Republican governor. What they did was follow the Iowa constitution and extend the same rights without regard to religion as they should.

grammaddy 6 years ago

Let's hear it for separation of church and state!!!

tin 6 years ago

Please this isn't about separation of church and state. This isn't about people of faith vs homosexuals. If you believe that your just dumb. Do you think that in California were it has been voted down twice that only christians voted it down? That's ridiculous, your just looking for someone to blame.

Leftlawrence-Again it was passed by a handful of liberal judges and not by the people of Iowa. Put it up for vote by the citizens, see if it would pass then. Probably not.

RedwoodCoast 6 years ago

Oh my god, the sky is falling! Our economy is in the toilet, we're fighting two wars, and now we have to worry about queers getting married! Polygamy and bestiality are next (do yourselves a favor and read up on the "slippery slope" fallacy)!

Honestly, though, I don't see what the big deal is. Life will go on, regardless of who is marrying who. Get over your "moral" selves.

leftlawrenceafter30years 6 years ago

Tin: It is about separation of church and state. It is about churches doing the states business. Churches do not issue marriage licenses - do they? There is a reason for that. When you get a marriage license it is not a requirement that you get married in a church. You may get married in the courthouse and it is still a marriage. A church wedding is not required, it is a choice.

As far as having the people of Iowa vote on this issue it will take years to get it on a ballot and I can tell you that I believe that it would be defeated. We are more tolerant here than you might like to think.

I can think of one Kansas family who is probably having fits about this right now. Good old Fred and crew. This "religious" man and his ilk have given a very bad name to religion. I expect to see him "protesting" in Iowa again. It doesn't seem to work out too well for him here though.

Tolerance would be a far better way to handle the differences in this country but there are some who want to attach labels such as "liberal" and paint everyone with the same brush.

The reality is that we have more in common than we realize. I try to see both sides of an argument and then make my own decision. We need to work together to make our country a more just place to live. There are much more important issues facing us and feeding the fire over same sex marriage is nothing more than a distraction.

oldvet 6 years ago

"What they did was follow the Iowa constitution and extend the same rights without regard to religion as they should."

Which is why the people of Iowa will do the exact same thing that the people of California did... they will have a proposition, voted in by the people of Iowa, to amend their state constitution to prohibit marriage between people of the same sex... then their state Supreme Court will not have an issue with an individual law, since they will be following their state's constitution...

sustainabilitysister 6 years ago

AWESOME!!! A step in the right direction. Hope Kansas gets there SOON!

tin 6 years ago

leftlawrence, I respect your opinions, and agree with you on the Fred & crew. These people are not Christians, they are a hate group that seek to lure people into confrontations and then sue them for damages.

viewfromahill 6 years ago

oldview: "I propose: blurrage."

nuview: "I propose: blurriage."

(... how inconsiderate of me not to suggest full and equal consideration under the "law.")

beatrice 6 years ago

tin, if the majority voted to bring back slavery, that would be okay with you? It would be the majority, right?

You see, laws are in place to protect people, even against the majority.

And since you keep throwing around words like "stupid" and "morons" when talking about others, then you should be bright enough to know that the phrase is "I couldn't care less," not "I could care less."

When you write "I could care less," then what you are claiming is that you care, and that there is a ways to go before you care even less. When you write "I couldn't care less," then that suggests you are at the end of your tether when it comes to caring about a certain subject.

Here is an example of how to use the phrase properly: When it comes to marriage, I couldn't care less about the gender of the married couple. If Adam and Steve want to marry, I say good for them and good luck. Who am I to say "no" to another couple's love for one another just because they have similar naughty bits?

Way to go Iowa!

beatrice 6 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

tashtego 6 years ago

Bravo to the Iowa Supreme Court for a very tight decision that is likely to lead to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that even amendments to state constitutions are unconsitutional. This is because the U.S. Supreme Court decided over forty years ago that marriage is a "fundamental right". Accordingly, to deny that right to a class of people (in that case interracial couples) requires the state to show a "compelling state interest".

Colorado could not do that in Romer v. Evans, a U.S. Supreme Court decision of several years ago that found a Colorado constitutional amendment prohibiting anti-discrimination laws to be unconstitutional under the "equal protection" clause. The state offered the same kind of lame and flimsy excuses the Iowa County offered in this case.

By the way, marriage is a civil institution. Believe it or not, you are married the minute you get your license. The minister and especially the musicians and photographer are just there to make money. The guests are there to complain afterwards about how the ceremony was botched, the food at the reception was bad, there was no open bar or if there was it wasn't open long enough, and the bride was fat or the groom is a jerk and the bride could have done better....

This is also a huge economic boost for Iowa.

One of my childhood friends from California got married to his boyfriend a few months before Proposition 8. His whole family was there and by all accounts it was a wonderful ceremony. They have been together for years. Just how the hell does that threaten anybody else's relationship?

The reality is that these idiots, especially the crazy so-called "Christians" who are obsessed with this issue, are afraid that if same-sex marriage is allowed by society, that sends a message to thier little "Johnny" that if he likes boys, it's ok, he's still one of God's children. And what the hell is wrong with that? Jesus said nothing, NOTHING, about homosexuality.

These so-called "Christians" who oppose rights for homosexuals are exactly like the Islamic nut cases who pervert the message of Islam, and they seize upon exactly the same kind of cryptic stuff in the Bible to persecute and hate homosexuals that the Islamic nut cases seize on to pursue Jihadism and hate.

M. Lindeman 6 years ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

tin, if the majority voted to bring back slavery, that would be okay with you? It would be the majority, right?

rdragon writes

Beatrice that statement is just stupid. Your compairing apples and oranges. How can you equate a behavor to slavery? To try and argue otherwise is just pointless. Sociality DOES have the responsablity to regulate behavor for the better good of its people.

M. Lindeman 6 years ago

Kryptenx (Anonymous) says…

Please explain to me how being born homosexual makes you a “freak.” Are autistic children, siamese twins, little people, and mentally retarded kids “freaks” too? How incredibly closed minded and ignorant.

rdragon writes

Are you saying being homosexual is a handycap now? My God, some here will try and compair it to anything that advances there agenda. Trying to state your born that way is factually false. Men and Woman are born plumbed differently for a reason. That in no way can be argued. How you choose to use that plumbing is your choice, we can also choose to not except that behavor too.

RoeDapple 6 years ago

I know people who race sailboats. It doesn't appeal to me. If I tried it I doubt if I would like it. It's their business, so I stay out of it. But they are my friends, I care about them, so we socialize together in other ways. It doesn't rub off on me, I don't become a sailor by being around them. I have friends who sky dive. Same story. Friends who do many different things. Friends who are many different things. Friends who are gay. I've been called a Republican, a Libertarian, a Centrist. Never been called a Democrat, but have friends and relatives who are. All the same story. I have no need to take a stand for or against this issue. What is it every homophobe is afraid of? If you don't think it is right for you, don't do it. You are not hurt in any way because of the lifestyles others live. If you want to get along with others you have to get over yourself.

(Must remember I said that next time I flip out over issues I do take a stand on.............)

RonBurgandy 6 years ago

Congrats Iowa, you've shown that the midwest isn't full of intolerant, ignorant people.

Cooky_the_Cook 6 years ago

Should any of these be illegal? A man marries a woman. A man marries a man. A woman marries a woman. A father marries his adult daughter. A woman marries her first cousin. A man marries his sister. A man marries his brother. A woman marries her adult grandson. A man marries a severely retarded woman. A severely retarded woman marries a severely retarded woman. A woman marries a 14-year-old boy. A man marries a 14-year-old boy. A 14-year-old boy marries a 14-year-old girl. A 95-year-old man marries an 18-year-old woman. A woman marries her uncle. A black man marries a white woman. A white man marries an Asian woman. A man marries ten women. A woman marries ten men. Who are you to tell any of them what they can or cannot do? How would any of them affect any other marriage? Is your opinion about incest based on religion? Are you some kind of bigot? Remember, here in Kansas you are as bigoted as I think.

beatrice 6 years ago

Liberty-one, please show me where I've written it is okay for the majority to vote on stealing from the wealthy. Please.

I have, however, stated that the massive tax breaks that were given to the absolute wealthiest of the wealthy, the top 1 percent, by the last administration -- during a time of war, no less -- have contributed to placing our nation in massive debt today that the current administration is struggling with. Congress should repeal those tax breaks, and I don't care if the majority or the minority of the people agree. It should be an act of Congress.

I do find cheerleaders for the wealthy rather amusing, however.

Back to this gay-marriage issue, are you saying that laws aren't often times put in place to protect the minority from the majority? Further, if you don't feel that the majority has the right to take money from the wealthy (and I would agree), then why should the majority have say over who should marry? If you feel the majority should have the say on who should marry but shouldn't have the right to "take money from the wealthy," then who exactly is the hypocrite here?

rdragon, the majority approving slavery analogy was obviously an exaggeration to make a point. Geez. As far as there being laws to protect society goes, I don't see how preventing two people from marrying protects society. This is a privacy issue. Laws against gay marriage only aids those who have particular religious beliefs into being able to force their will on the private lives of others.

jonas_opines 6 years ago

"Liberty-one, please show me where I've written it is okay for the majority to vote on stealing from the wealthy. Please."

That's his opinion on taxes, Bea.

purplesage 6 years ago

IOWA??? That just defies explanation. If the voters of California overturned their court's rulings just wait until the good citizens of Iowa get their chance to vote.

hartk678 6 years ago

1.) Interesting how when people bring up "Majority Rule" they forget that it is followed by "Minority Rights."

2.) I would love to expel my thoughts on this, but nothing can be said that hasn't been said already. This blog post says it all. http://nofo.blogspot.com/2008/11/proposition-hate.html

"Your mythology does not trump my reality."

denak 6 years ago

Good job Iowa and congratulations to the U.S. citizens who can now get married in that state.

M. Lindeman 6 years ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

rdragon, the majority approving slavery analogy was obviously an exaggeration to make a point. Geez. As far as there being laws to protect society goes, I don't see how preventing two people from marrying protects society. This is a privacy issue. Laws against gay marriage only aids those who have particular religious beliefs into being able to force their will on the private lives of others.

rdragon writes

I will say this one more time. Men and woman are plumbed differently. What you choose to do in the privacy of your home is your business. The problem is you don't keep your private behavior private. You have choosen to throw it into our faces and tell us we must accept it. That is where the problem lies, it has nothing to with privacy. It is all about the recognition and nothing more. I will not be forced to recognize abnormal behavor as normal.

oldcat 6 years ago

rdragon, just one question. How does gay marriage affect your marriage or the institution of marriage? With approximately 50% of all marriages ending in divorce, what is there to protect? Along the same line, let's just ban divorce, once married, you stay married. No exceptions.

RoeDapple 6 years ago

rdragon writes - "You have choosen to throw it into our faces and tell us we must accept it."

The gay men and women I know have never thrown it into anyones face. Not until some scared little homophobe like you brings it up does it even come into conversation. These friends have no interest in sexual encounters with me nor I them. If one of them attempted such an encounter I would treat them the same as if a "straight" female made advances toward me."Just a second, let me ask my wife." has brought it to a stop in the past with no ones feelings hurt. Your fear only indicates you aren't sure how you would react. Take a long look in the mirror, you may be surprised at what you see...........

Kryptenx 6 years ago

rdragon: Let me cite a source even you can believe: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356639,00.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them,"

In order for anyone to base their views on homosexuality based on males and females having different genitalia, you would have to assert that genitals are ONLY for reproduction. Yet this is not the case as shown by 1,500 species of animals and the fact that humans have sex for pleasure infinitely more often than sex for reproduction.

And as RoeDapple said, I've never met a homosexual who wanted to throw their sexual orientation in my face. They are simply asking for the same right to marriage as everyone else. If anyone is throwing anything in everyone's faces, it is you. You view homosexuality unfavorably and want everyone else to feel the same way and refuse to grant them basic rights. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

akuna 6 years ago

Hey Satirical,

What's your definition of marriage? Because mine is two people committing to a loyal, loving, long-term relationship that is identified by society. Your definition sounds like Man + Woman = Marriage. That sounds like the institution of marriage is already eroded. No wonder 50% of marriages end in divorce.

soldier1 6 years ago

Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions. That's called free will. Although I dont agree with homosexuality, it really is none of my or anyone else's, buisness what people do with their lives. If they're happy, great. In fact, I have friends that are gay, and they are really cool people. All I was trying to say is don't bring it in a church. A lot of people say that we should be tolerant of other people's religions, what about christianity? I dont walk into a mosque with a picture of Allah on my shirt.

tashtego- I guess you skipped Genesis, Eziekel, Leviticus. Might want to read it again...

tashtego 6 years ago

Thirty-five years ago, I was studying church history at KU. We had a professor who was also a minister. At the same time, I was also studying ancient history and researching in particular the Dead Sea Scrolls. The so-called "Teacher" in the scrolls was remarkably similar to the Jesus of the New Testament. So one day I asked our professor just how these various books of the Old and New Testament came to be written, a rather obvious question that most Christians have apparently never contemplated.

The answer of course is that they were written much in the way that the Greek myths were written. There was an oral tradition and eventually the stories were written down. Those that were the most entertaining and effective found their way into Scripture.

Much of the Old Testament reflects the culture of a desert tribe that is very concerned about survival and procreation. That's where a lot of the garbage came from.

And it is garbage. I am not suggesting that it be eliminated, just understood for what it is--the superstitions of a primitive culture trying to understand and to explain life's mysteries, stuff like sex and death.

Some of the very few admonitions against homosexuality in the New Testament reflect the local concerns that the culture of Greece was taking over, the so-called "Hellenistic" period in the Mediterranean after the conquests of Alexander the Great, much of it, including a fair amount of homosexual conduct, adopted also by the Romans.

Too bad we don't teach Homer to children. Kids might grow up admiring the love of Achilles and Petroclus.

Then again, if you just re-focus your attention to the Bible, there are David and Jonathan. And let's not forget "the disciple that Jesus loved". I mean, it's not like He had a regular girlfriend....

It's really a shame that two of the world's most prominent religions rely on a handful of poorly written and inconsistent admonitions from centuries ago to guide the conduct of their followers today.

cthulhu_4_president 6 years ago

I honestly feel sorry for the poor citizens of this country who choose to hate gays and deny them equality for no other reason than their sexual orientation. They have an uphill battle, and a very depressing life ahead of them as freedom continues to punch through the useless dogma that has marginalized and persecuted this vulnerable portion of our society.

As is said during election season: As goes Iowa, so goes the nation.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.