I'm so proud of my adoptive home state (went to college there) of Iowa for lifting the ban on same sex marriage in a unanimous Supreme Court ruling.
Justices wrote that they had “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.”
Applause, Iowa! Another first.
Go Iowa! This is a historic step towards the recognition of our collective humanity. Nate Silver's got an interesting perspective on the decision. Apparently, civil rights has reached critical mass and now it's only a matter of time
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/ … riage.html
I have the honors of being from there and I have many family members that still reside , congratulations!!!! Goes to show the midwest is not that stuffy.
I went to college there too, and occasionally think of moving back. (Amazing the difference a river makes in the political atmosphere.) One more reason to do it!
I would've never have thought that Iowa had it in her. How many states does that make now?
Now CA has deny gays to marry now, right? Or whatever has become of that? I can only think of 3 states now, and that's including Iowa. So it the number now 3?
Yes, RK. Prop 8 in CA--so they no longer are legal in CA. The other states where it is legal are CT and MA.
I think of Iowa as kind of a special place. It's got its issues, but the people there (as I know it) are active and smart.
BTW--Very well stated Calebd. That mirrors my feelings exactly.
I don't like the idea of marriage and government.
To settle this issue once and for all--why don't state officials suggest that all marriages licenses (whether recognized or not) be changed to civil unions, and give civil unions to same-sex couples if they so desire?
Huh? Why isn't this idea being taken seriously?
It takes marriage out of the equation, and equalizes the issue.
Marriage ceremonies can be performed, but all documentation will be labeled as "civil unions" so that all will be treated equally.
Dire, excellent, excellent idea. I have wondered about that myself.
Why cede marriage to the churches? For one, it ignores the history of marriage, and two, it has cultural connotations that people, straight and gay, would like to preserve, and three, it creates an artificial distinction for two instances of the same thing. What on earth is lost by legalizing gay marriage instead of copping out and saying civil union? None of that separate but equal shit.
Dont have an argument with me--i'm on your side. I would give you my argument, but you seem too frustrated and angry to hear me out. I want equality for all, whilst keeping church and state seperate. The term marriage has no place whatsoever in legal contracts franchised by the state. It helps everyone meet at the same level without keeping a disenfranchised subgroup (homosexual couples) out high and dry (not to mention, arguably discriminated against).
Please, speak to a fellow ally with more respect or else you shall have none. Want a goal accomplished? Try respect.
Apologies for the tone, but I've heard this a fair bit and am obviously frustrated by it. Usually, it implies that the speaker would like to give in and say let the religious folk keep the institution of marriage. Since marriage is essentially, in my view, a legal contract historically, it makes little sense to turn it into a solely religious contract. Since the institution of marriage exists and other folk reasonably want in, it makes no sense to me why anyone would want to shoehorn them into a category they'd rather not be in. Talks like a duck, walks like a duck and so forth, why call it a goose?
If like you say, marriage ought to be a solely religious contract, then the state ought not to guarantee it in anyway. This would mean taking away benefits, not giving more people access to them. That is my understanding anyway. Lita, wouldn't it make more sense to, since common law and civil unions exist, to increase benefits for those categories for folk leery of the term marriage? It's a more reasonable fix than telling people that want to be married they can't be.
I wasn't implying your views were coming from a bad place or that you were personally at fault. I simply think that particular view can be easily co-opted for other purposes.
I see your point, Direxmd & basically would agree. Unfortunately, that kind of rational thinking is about 75-100 years off, give or take...
We're only now to the point where we aren't treating portions of the population like lepers and outcasts. Taking away those 'special' privileges would really upset the applecart.
RK--I'm sure they are working to overturn the decision in CA.
I live in California, and I love my state, but I am ashamed and embarrassed that gay civil unions are not legal here.
Hello? San Francisco? West Hollywood? Palm Springs? These are extremely well-established gay communities, and they generate millions of dollars in tourist revenue/state sales tax. Too bad we can't respect and honor the residents of these (and ALL) California communities with the same right enjoyed by those of us who are straight. For shame.
Please check out SomeLikeItScott's Hub on the issue:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Thanks-Iowa--No … L-Marriage
Oh, I got so fired up, I forgot to say BRAVO, IOWA! I'm gonna go buy a bunch of corn today as a way to honor you. My family will be eating corn chowder, corn bread, and popcorn today. Those kids are going to be shitting themselves blind!!
Civil unions for same-sex couples are currently legal in California, but there is a constitutional amendment barring same-sex couples from the word "marriage" and thus cannot attain that specific license. Civil unions give them all the same benefits, except for the strikingly obvious separate-but-equal clause the term "civil unions" currently evokes.
I thought that was recently overturned, Direxmd?
Gotcha, gotcha. I just read a little bit more. I'm still ashamed of California. What is the big deal, and why can't couples be together, legally, and call it marriage, since that is what it is? Infuriating.
Well, Prop 8 overturned Same-Sex Marriage, but Civil Unions are still legal here. If you wiki Same-Sex Marriage in the United States, it will show that California legalized civil unions a while ago, but recently amended the constitution saying that same-sex couples could not get formally married with the tag "marriage" on their license.
A war of semantics, really.
Bravo, Iowa. Here's hoping civil and human rights are soon extended to all, across the States.
Because, perhaps, calebd, some of us are partnered, but not married and don't want to get married in the 'traditional' sense. All of this precludes these couples--whether gay or straight. Legally, this means many things.
Well if you are suggesting that a specific state government lends more value, merit and integrity to the term "marriage" than a specific religious institution than you certainly have your priorities mixed up.
The history of marriage can only be traced back so far--and I would love to hear your history of marriage as it changes from person to person, culture to culture (make sure to cover the past 10,000 years, even prior to modern agriculture).
Also, I've heard the bashing--"it's not good enough, it's not good enough". I would love to hear your solution to this social crisis that is causing a divide amongst two separate peoples, per se.
I recommended a detached, non-governmental solution that gives no people an advantage or preference. Under the United States constitution--church and state shall not mix. With this plan, I think it upholds to that decree better than the current.
I don't want to have a little flame war with you, because i've been in 1000 of them and I am a tired person--so just give me the history of marriage (as you suggested, seemingly dying to bring up--make sure to write through the lens of every culture from the past 10,000 years, since it changes from culture to culture), and give me your best solution to this problem. Telling me it's not a problem is not satisfactory, because apparently it's worth arguing.
Fair enough. If you want government to show no preference whatsoever, then that's a valid position I have no quarrel with.
As it stands, government enforces religious contracts. Without legal backing, the church would have no leg to stand on to propagate said institution. I don't need to talk about marriage in every culture to the beginning of time. The entirety of my point was that historically, marriage has not simply a religious institution and to claim only churches have the right to is unfair. The only commonality was that it was provided weight by society and the state.
To say only churches ought to let people get married, which I guess you aren't saying but people that take a similar position often do, that seems to me a deliberate misreading of what marriage has represented throughout the years. I'm not flaming you and I've no intention of. My first comment wasn't specific to you and I've even apologized for the tone.
Since I don't see rights and benefits of marriage being revoked, my best solution is to expand those rights and benefits to people that are unfairly disallowed from claiming them. I'd even propose expanding common law and civil union benefits to be equivalent. Pick whatever institution you want to be part of, essentially, because marriage isn't going down. I come from a position of expanding rights, not reducing them.
I never said we should reduce rights--since civil unions and marriage are the EXACT same thing, just different wording, at least in the US.
I am playing a game of semantics, since that is apparently the one thing people are sensitive to--that one... little... ****ing... word--Marriage.
As Teresa McGurk here on Hubpages might say, "Mah-rriage." Didn't the institution get its start with property rights?
I don't like the idea, frankly, of marriage, period. Why should some people get legal benefits, i.e., just because they are coupled "no man should put asunder?" and all the authoritative drapings? Why shouldn't all be equal in the eyes of the law and gov't--single, coupled, gay, straight, single, poly-amorous?
I'd be for increasing benefits all around--more than to civil unions and common law marriage. To domestic partnerships.
But because I see the historical relevance of marriage as a legal, religious and cultural institution--an influence that won't end soon--I support, as a beginning, the legalization of gay marriage as a step towards broader human rights.
by WayneAnsell22 months ago
Should the government allow same sex marriage?
by sneakorocksolid7 years ago
Leave marraige to churches and make it their ceremony not even a public issue and everyone as a matter of law have a civil union.This was a sugestion made by Livelonger and if I didn't word it right it's because I'm not...
by JillEM6 years ago
I have mixed feelings about a Presbyterian convocation recently held. At least they have tabled the discussion of the nature of marriage for another few years before rushing off the deep end like they have done...
by Kiz8 years ago
I'm going to bed in absolute horror over this situation these propositions will be putting people in. I know a lot of the homosexual folks I know don't care one bit if the word marriage is tacked on to the various...
by PrettyPanther20 months ago
The world is a' changin' and we're a little slow but we're tagging along.Read the opinion in its entirety here:http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06 … y-marriage
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
What do you wish to share with others about the facts concerning marriage in general. It has a long history. What about marriage interests or benefits YOU?Or is there anything about marriage that irritates you or does...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.