Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:46 pm



Quoting Mariner (Reply 145):
None of those things have any community recognition or value

And if they had become "engaged" they would have been making false promises, de-valuing a profoundly important concept that you claim to hold so dear.

I disagree completely. Engagement has plenty of community recognition. Not legally, not here anyway, but there is more to engagement than the legalize involved would you not agree?

Quoting Mariner (Reply 145):
"Engagement" literally means "promise of intention to marry." If there is no prospect of becoming married, it is a false vow, a promise that is impossible to keep.

And how do you know that at sometime you will not be able to fufill your promise? Making the promise when you do not know the exact day or date on which you will be able to fulfill that promise does not make it false. If it did,in its most simplistic form, there would not be a whole lot of day trading going on at my workplace since who would believe that someone would fulfill their promise to work for someone else on some future date?

Quoting Mariner (Reply 145):
Where I live, the law.

That is unfortunate, but it is not the same here.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 146):
Let's put this another way: why would you become "engaged" if marriage was not a possibility?

Let's put it another way, what is stopping you and why wouldn't you want to take the relationship as far as humanly possible?

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 146):
And how do you conclude that "obtaining a ruling from the court" is a measure of how committed a couple is?

For the simple fact they waited until the court made a ruling to even get engaged. If they are truly serious then they would have shown it by getting engaged long ago and staying with it no matter what the court said.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
mbmbos
Posts: 2925
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:59 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 152):
Let's put it another way, what is stopping you and why wouldn't you want to take the relationship as far as humanly possible?

Who says getting engaged is taking a relationship as far as humanly possible? That argument sounds shallow, quite frankly.

Quoting DXing (Reply 152):
If they are truly serious then they would have shown it by getting engaged long ago...

You say this as if it is self evident. But I disagree. And I would bet that most people wouldn't agree. This rule exists strictly in your mind.

But what is most disturbing is your willingness (perhaps desire) to see less than noble motives in this lesbian couples' actions. You have taken a big leap and you've gone out of your way to characterize them as less serious than yourself. I believe that's intentional. I don't think you can bear the thought of a gay couple being just as committed and pure in motive in their marriage as your own. And that, I believe, is unknowable.
"If I don't manage to fly, someone else will. The spirit wants only for there to be flying. As for who happens to do it, in that he has only a passing interest."
- R.M. Rilke
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:25 pm



Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 143):
Poor folks loose their healthcare so that the Christian right can continue on their road of discrimination, wonderful, really wonderful.

The same poor folks may have considered the welfare of any children they'd bring under their roof before doing so knowing they'd likely run into problems - your own crusade should tell you that gaining and keeping such privileges would come with problems. They simply should have known better - and they're the ones ultimately responsible for those poor children they brought into a questionable situation. That's an absolute shame on them and those who would deflect that.

Quoting D L X (Reply 151):
That exact line of reasoning was expressly ruled unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia. Hell, that line was ruled unconstitutional in Brown v. Board as well! Of course, you should already know that because Garnetpalmetto told you that in Reply 23.

What, you don't think the courts are ever activist, even on behalf of same-sex rights?  crazy  It's twisted, relativistic reasoning, detailed more than once here for you and others. Sometimes the courts get it wrong, and I'm sure you've seen that happen. This would be a prime example of such.
Living the American Dream
 
D L X
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:35 pm



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 154):
What, you don't think the courts are ever activist, even on behalf of same-sex rights?

1) Stare decisis. Even if the court was "activist" in Loving, it is the law of the land now that all inferior courts must follow. On top of that, the Supreme Court is bound by their previous cases as well in order to ensure the even application of justice. Cases are RARELY overturned, and there's no way they're going to overturn Loving and say interracial marriage can be banned.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 154):
Sometimes the courts get it wrong, and I'm sure you've seen that happen. This would be a prime example of such.

Because you say so?
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage B

Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:50 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 152):
Engagement has plenty of community recognition.

For heterosexuals, sure. It is a statement of intent to marry.

Quoting DXing (Reply 152):
That is unfortunate, but it is not the same here.

Yes, it is, except in four states of the union. It can be said, but it has no relevance or meaning.

Again, you have no idea what private declarations this couple that has earned your patronizing condescension have made. That they did not call those declarations "engagement" is, to me, entirely right and proper.

You seem to be insisting that they do something that they cannot, legally, do.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:52 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 155):
Cases are RARELY overturned, and there's no way they're going to overturn Loving and say interracial marriage can be banned.

No, not overturn Loving, but perhaps learn, know and apply the distinction between that case and others involving same-sex relations.

Quoting D L X (Reply 155):
Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 154):
Sometimes the courts get it wrong, and I'm sure you've seen that happen. This would be a prime example of such.

Because you say so?

I'm sure there's plenty of reasonable jurists who would agree with the sensible reasoning I laid forth in very plain language above. The courts may have the final say in case law, but to say that the jurists involved in deciding cases involving same-sex relations made their decisions based on objective reasoning is naive at best, especially considering there's nothing substantial other than relativistic ideas being applied. The substantiative reasoning - historical, original intent, the fact that this is not a civil rights issue, etc. - I've already laid forth above.
Living the American Dream
 
D L X
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:03 pm



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 157):
No, not overturn Loving, but perhaps learn, know and apply the distinction between that case and others involving same-sex relations.

And what is the distinction?

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 157):
I'm sure there's plenty of reasonable jurists who would agree with the sensible reasoning I laid forth in very plain language above.

Name one.

Correct me if you believe I am wrong, but you have yet to present a legal argument to describe a distinction for which Loving would not apply to gay marriage. Reed and Johnson are not even remotely relevant to this discussion about Equal Protection.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 157):
to say that the jurists involved in deciding cases involving same-sex relations made their decisions based on objective reasoning is naive at best

You think the Iowa Supreme Court is not objective? That's a very disrespectful thing to say about sitting judges, and I dare say a very _naive_ thing to say about judges when you do not understand the law.

Did you read the opinion?
 
dtwclipper
Posts: 6668
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:17 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:35 pm



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 154):
The same poor folks may have considered the welfare of any children they'd bring under their roof before doing so knowing they'd likely run into problems - your own crusade should tell you that gaining and keeping such privileges would come with problems. They simply should have known better - and they're the ones ultimately responsible for those poor children they brought into a questionable situation. That's an absolute shame on them and those who would deflect that.

You are kidding right? You are really cought in your own twisted logic here.

MI Prop 2, 2004 also removed benefits from Hetro domestic partners. How is that OK?

They should have known better? How dare you pass judgement!!!!


"Questionable Situation" Who left you in charge to say what a questionable situation is?




Note to self....take Allstarflyer off of my wedding anniversary party list.
Compare New York Air, the Airline that works for your Business
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:51 pm



Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 153):
Who says getting engaged is taking a relationship as far as humanly possible? That argument sounds shallow, quite frankly.

Until the court decison that was a far as they could take it unless you have some other idea.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 153):
I believe that's intentional

Well of course it is. Do you think I accidentally typed, proof read and confirmed it?

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 153):
And I would bet that most people wouldn't agree.

And I bet most people, when they decide to take their relationship a step farther get engaged. All you have to do is check your local paper. Everyday there are generally announcements of people doing just that.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 153):
I don't think you can bear the thought of a gay couple being just as committed and pure in motive in their marriage as your own.

Then you are practicing selective reading.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 156):
For heterosexuals, sure. It is a statement of intent to marry.

As it would be for a gay couple. That they may not be able to set a date to marry is irrevelant to the statement of engagement.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 156):
Yes, it is, except in four states of the union. It can be said, but it has no relevance or meaning.

Engagement has more meaning than just that a couple has decided to marry. It is considered the time where the final process of whether or not marriage is right is found out through consuling and introspection.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 156):
Again, you have no idea what private declarations this couple that has earned your patronizing condescension have made.

But given that they waited until a court decided in their favor that they could marry we can certainly infer it.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 156):
That they did not call those declarations "engagement" is, to me, entirely right and proper.

And to me shows that maybe there is more here than meets the eye.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 156):
You seem to be insisting that they do something that they cannot, legally, do.

In your country. In this country, again, there is no legal ramification to engagement.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21804
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:57 pm



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 157):
I'm sure there's plenty of reasonable jurists who would agree with the sensible reasoning I laid forth in very plain language above.

I see no "sensible reasoning." In fact, as soon as you said "Bible" that automatically excludes sensible reasoning. If you believe it's gospel, then by necessity it MUST mean that no amount of sensible reasoning can overrule it.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:23 am



Quoting D L X (Reply 158):
Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 157):
No, not overturn Loving, but perhaps learn, know and apply the distinction between that case and others involving same-sex relations.

And what is the distinction?

For starters, the same one I've oft-repeated - that same-sex relations are not a civil right.

Quoting D L X (Reply 158):
Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 157):
I'm sure there's plenty of reasonable jurists who would agree with the sensible reasoning I laid forth in very plain language above.

Name one.

I could name around 4 for starters, but you already know who the SC justices are.

Quoting D L X (Reply 158):
Did you read the opinion?

A good portion of it I did, and I'll go over it again, if necessary.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 159):
MI Prop 2, 2004 also removed benefits from Hetro domestic partners. How is that OK?

What's stopping them from getting married?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 161):
In fact, as soon as you said "Bible" that automatically excludes sensible reasoning.

And introduces relativistic ideas.  sarcastic 
Living the American Dream
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage B

Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:24 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 160):
As it would be for a gay couple. That they may not be able to set a date to marry is irrevelant to the statement of engagement.

It is completely relevant.

It is more than "setting a date". It is an actual and legally realistic intent to marry. In most states, this is simply not possible for same-sex couples.

Quoting DXing (Reply 160):
But given that they waited until a court decided in their favor that they could marry we can certainly infer it.

You can infer what you like. I have no idea what private commitments they have made to each other.

Even if they had sworn their vows to each other before a celebrant, they would still not be either "engaged" or "married."

Quoting DXing (Reply 160):
In your country. In this country, again, there is no legal ramification to engagement.

I've already pointed out that breach of promise of marriage still has legal force in many places.

My partner and I made certain commitments in the US where we met and lived for 17 of our years together.

We did not become engaged because I don't make promises that I have no possibility of being able to keep.

What you do - your attitude to making false promises - is entirely your business.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
D L X
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:28 am



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 162):
For starters, the same one I've oft-repeated - that same-sex relations are not a civil right.

And I've told you why you are completely wrong on that many times. Do you simply choose to ignore it?

I'll remind you. Yours is the very same argument that bigots used in Loving, that interracial marriage was not a civil right. Those bigots were soundly rebutted by the Supreme Court.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 162):
I could name around 4 for starters, but you already know who the SC justices are.

Right... I'm quite certain that the Justices would be able to make little sense out of your argument that relies on cases that are no longer good law.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 162):
Quoting D L X (Reply 158):
Did you read the opinion?

A good portion of it I did

I hope you understood the punchline, that the ban was unconstitutional because it is gender discrimination.
 
dtwclipper
Posts: 6668
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:17 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:42 am



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 162):
Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 159):
MI Prop 2, 2004 also removed benefits from Hetro domestic partners. How is that OK?

What's stopping them from getting married?

I love it. You offer the choice to one but not the other. How Christian of you.  no   no   no 


You folks would make a Vulcan cry with your twisted logic.
Compare New York Air, the Airline that works for your Business
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:47 am



Quoting Mariner (Reply 163):
It is more than "setting a date". It is an actual and legally realistic intent to marry.

I don't know where you are getting the "legally" from. When two people get engaged they may or may not set a date for a wedding. I have had friends that were engaged for 5 or more years and still had not set a date. It is a statement of intent but that intent is only between the two and no agency or institution has any force over it.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 163):
Even if they had sworn their vows to each other before a celebrant, they would still not be either "engaged" or "married."

Yes they would. Again, in this country two people can become engaged and no license or legal requirement must be satisfied to do so. A minor can get "engaged".

Quoting Mariner (Reply 163):
We did not become engaged because I don't make promises that I have no possibility of being able to keep.

And you had no idea that you would not be able to keep your promise. You and your partners decision were your own and not subject to any law in this country.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:21 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 166):
I don't know where you are getting the "legally" from.

Marriage is a legal state. Engagement is an intent to enter into a legally recognized contract.

If you put so little value on the word engaged, I wonder why you are making such a fuss about it.

Quoting DXing (Reply 166):
A minor can get "engaged".

A minor can get engaged to a person of another sex, with the realistic intent to marry that person, a statement of intent to enter into a legally binding contract.

Quoting DXing (Reply 166):
You and your partners decision were your own and not subject to any law in this country.

Yes, they were. We met and commited in California. Same sex marriage was/is illegal in California.

We could make whatever vows we liked to each other, but those vows were ultimately constrained by the law.

We could not marry.

We could have said we were "engaged" - but we were not. We could have said we were "married" - but we were not.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:42 am



Quoting D L X (Reply 163):
And I've told you why you are completely wrong on that many times.

And you were/are/and will continue to be wrong from the core of it every time with that relativistic opinion, just like the activist jurists. As stated, every time, and no assertion otherwise can change the underlying fact of it. The law may eventually change, too, although, if done via the courts, it's all activist legislation from the bench.

Quoting D L X (Reply 163):
Yours is the very same argument that bigots used in Loving

Except they were actual bigots and same-sex relations is plainly, irrevocably immoral. If you don't think it is moral, then only divine intervention can show you otherwise. Because if you strip away the idea that same-sex relations are immoral, you're allowing greater latittude in defining what is moral and immoral. Standards go further out the window, and everything gets even more relative.

Quoting D L X (Reply 163):
Right... I'm quite certain that the Justices would be able to make little sense out of your argument that relies on cases that are no longer good law.

If they wanted to play the game the liberal justices have, they could make sure the law states that marriage is 1 man-1 woman. Then again, if they applied the law in the way it should be, it would net the same result.

Quoting D L X (Reply 163):
I hope you understood the punchline, that the ban was unconstitutional because it is gender discrimination.

The merry-go-round reasoning of the supporters of same-sex relations can't spin fast enough. The state is discriminating? Please. The state, even enough by defining the law via a statute such as DOMA, has kept the original intent in effect. Calling it gender discrimination is obfuscation - no one particular gender is receiving discrimination, which was what the legislation was all about in the 1st place - keeping one from discriminiating against the other. The creative latitude envisioned by you and activist jurists is the one of the only things keeping the dreams of same-sex supporters alive in the face of the right kind of societal boundaries that by and large have been and remain in effect.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 164):
I love it. You offer the choice to one but not the other. How Christian of you.


You folks would make a Vulcan cry with your twisted logic.

If you read and ingested the Word, you may actually find what Christianity is all about.

"Twisted logic"?  rotfl  Good one. This whole time I've been advocating on behalf of only 1-man 1-woman marriages. At least offering it to the other would be consistent in keeping it 1-man and 1-woman. Between you and I, only one of us can be using twisted logic on this matter, and if you think the consistency of what's been plainly drawn for any critical mind to see is actually twisted, then which of us is twisted then? Is there an element of self-delusion that supporters of same-sex relations are not able to address for themselves? If so, anything else I have to offer would likely be repetitious and unfortunately and obviously lost on some readers in particular. And if Vulcans didn't care about morality, then ship 'em some kleenex.
Living the American Dream
 
eric
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 9:37 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:44 am

Allstarflyer I must say I admire you having so many people going against you and still replying.

Nonetheless, I can't say I agree with you.

As a gay (non-American) man I do not quite understand the views portrayed on here (by many of those with a US flag/state flag). I do not understand why "marriage" is so important to gay people. It could be because I do not affiliate with any religion. Let a union between a man and woman, if the straights want it, remain a marriage (mind you, none of my straight friends could care less whether gay's get married in a church or in a grass field) on paper if they so desire. What is important are the equal rights for all people whether straight or gay. [Too many seem more pre-occupied by the perceived sanctioning by "God".] This, for many, is implied by marriage and that a Civil Union in the US does not always connotate equal rights. Why so hung-up on having a "marriage", why not have a union? Giving that we all claim to be "leaders" why not lead the way for something new. Change the word "Civil Union" into something positive.

It is a sad state of affairs that a nation such as the US with its perception of civil liberties does not recognise each individuals differences.

Although anecdotal, Norway, a few years ago passed a law saying that a parent could name their child which ever name they felt like. For three months, calling your kid "Roller curtain, etc..." was popular, but guess what? The fade died - they got proper names. Letting gays have equal rights through a state law will not imply that next year marriage to animals, lamp shades or your car will be approved. It really is not a slipper slope. If you think so, I honestly can't say you grasp reality very well.

As for the history of marriage and the implied rights, sanctity etc... A union between two individuals occured long before Jesus supposedly walked on this earth. The bible was written in Latin and has been changed numerous times and adopted at times when the only literate part of the population was the Clergy who had immense power.

Allstarflyer, I do not know very much about your language skills but being multilingual, I can tell you even the most direct translation of a book, the most direct literal equivalent can be widely different and change the context of one sentence. Having had the bible go from a language which today is almost extinct to languages of the world, the number of times the meaning of something has changed can only be astounding. If I were you, I would not place to much emphasis on the contents. It does not form a law (and the US most certainly does not abide by it in its laws) so why is it important? I do not know, and I assume for you, it does have a meaning historically. But that does not mean you have a right to bring in an old book (as in reality, admit it or not, that is what it is), throw out statements from it when US law does not abide by it so as to use that as an arguement against marriage?

As someone said earlier, it is good the Court has read the laws and followed those.

[Edited 2009-04-11 18:47:37]
n
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:55 am



Quoting Eric (Reply 168):
The bible was written in Latin

Actually, it was written in Hebrew, Arabic and Koine Greek.

Quoting Eric (Reply 168):
If I were you, I would not place to much emphasis on the contents. It does not form a law (and the US most certainly does not abide by it in its laws) so why is it important?

It's important for individual life. And a group of individuals together, who more or less agree on the content, on a grand scale, such as in this case, a national scale, will want to see laws applied in ways that will reflect the standards of said book - the same standards that John Adams said were essential for the continuity of our nation.

Quoting Eric (Reply 168):
But that does not mean you have a right to bring in an old book (as in reality, admit it or not, that is what it is), throw out statements from it when US law does not abide by it so as to use that as an arguement against marriage?

I have my 1st amendment rights, for one. Even if I didn't, I'd still say it. And even though US law doesn't strictly abide by the Bible, enough of its principles are incorporated into our way of life and system of laws.
Living the American Dream
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:06 am



Quoting Mariner (Reply 166):
Marriage is a legal state. Engagement is an intent to enter into a legally recognized contract.

But "engagement" of and by itself has no legal standing as marriage does so you can be engaged for a day or a decade and no legal ramification, under certain circumstances can be inferred.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 166):
If you put so little value on the word engaged, I wonder why you are making such a fuss about it.

I put high value on engagement, I put low value on the misinterpretation of the word and act.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 166):
A minor can get engaged to a person of another sex, with the realistic intent to marry that person, a statement of intent to enter into a legally binding contract.

Incorrect. A minor can become engaged but cannot promise to enter in the contract of marriage without parental consent.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 166):
We could have said we were "engaged" - but we were not.

Yes you would have been, you would not have set a date since same sex marriage is not legal but that would have no impact on your engagement to be married if and when the law was changed.

Again, "engagement" holds no legal binding nor requires any permit or license from any State to enter into. You can be engaged for a day, a decade, or a life time. There are any number of reasons both legal, moral, and ethical that might give two people pause to marry but that does not change their engagement status. In my own case it was ethical, we both decided to wait until our financial footing was more secure. In my mother and fathers case it was moral. My mother wanted my father to convert to Catholicism and so the wedding was postponed until he could accomplish that. Its not rare at all for two people to become engaged and hold off on setting a wedding date and that certainly does not imply that their engagement is anything less than a couple who zooms through the engagement and is married relatively shortly after becoming engaged.

You are trying to attach a legal definition to engagement and there isn't any in this country. You are also trying to say if you can't set a date to get married you shouldn't be engaged which is also a personal decision but not one that has any broad based support that I have ever read.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
eric
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 9:37 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:13 am



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 169):
Actually, it was written in Hebrew, Arabic and Koine Greek.

My mistake. Language barries still upheld.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 169):
It's important for individual life. And a group of individuals together, who more or less agree on the content, on a grand scale, such as in this case, a national scale, will want to see laws applied in ways that will reflect the standards of said book - the same standards that John Adams said were essential for the continuity of our nation.

May I ask you why what John Adams said is more important than what someone says today? As you point out yourself, if the individuals (based on their perception of religion) make the law and that today they believe their perception of religion has aletered then what is happening is a progression which could change their said standards of the book. Again, just because something was said or written in the past, it does not make it applicable today. X years ago it was said the world was flat - that perception changed. We believed that Earth was the only planet - that changed when we could see further and so perception of that changed.

Of course you have a right to say what ever you want, that is the liberty most of us enjoy living in the free world have. When those passing laws make a change, applying previous and current individual speech as written down on paper, they exercise their free will of speech. In Iowa, that is that two individuals have the right to enter a union.

Despite your belief in the words of the bible, it does not make it illegal nor immoral to enter said union. As such, I do not understand why the bible was brought into this discussion. For me, discussing the bible in this matter is completely unreasonable. The US does not have a religious law, so really what was said in the bible should not enter this discussion.
n
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12572
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:20 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 133):
Nor do I since I wasn't making a case for a broad brush stroke, just this couple. I find it interesting that you could read that into the post since nowhere do I intone this is some sort of lacking in all gay couples.

The thread is about gay marriage in Iowa, not about a certain couple. Why bring up the issue of a certain couple if it did not reflect in any way on the broader topic?

Quoting DXing (Reply 133):

You could except for the fact I gave the reason up front. Financial. We were in the middle of the actual deepest recession and worst economy since the Great Depression and I was unsure of my career path at that point. Would you not agree that financial problems lead to many divorces in this day and age? If so is not waiting until the financial picture is more stable the wisest course of action? Does not announcing that you are engaged tell the world around you how serious you value the relationship? Lack of planning? I would say that it was smart planning all around. We knew that a sense of financial security was important in the marriage to both of us. So the smart plan is to wait until there is a sense of security.

Hey, if it were me, and I were in financial difficulty, I wouldn't have even gotten engaged. Perhaps that's just an ideological difference in our view. But engagement generally isn't cheap - that ring costs a hell of a lot.

As to the part about telling the world of your commitment:

Once again, for me, getting engaged is not about the rest of the world. I don't particularly care if someone knows that I'm engaged or not. Commitment shows people how much you value your relationship, not the title of engagement. For, by your own argument, that's all it is - a title.

Personally, I don't feel the need to prove to the world that I am committed to my significant other. It's vastly more important to me that she knows it. But money doesn't buy commitment, nor do promises show commitment. Actions alone show true commitment.

Quoting DXing (Reply 133):
If I could not marry I would want the next best thing



Quoting DXing (Reply 133):
As stated if I could not marry I would want the next best thing.

That's all well and good, but maybe this couple already has the next best thing, in their minds. Perhaps they don't find the state of being engaged as meaningful as you do. So why bother if you weren't able to get married anyway.

Quoting DXing (Reply 133):
If it was trivial I would not have brought it up. Their actions smack at sensationalism.

So what? Everyone's actions are interpreted differently by anyone else. All that matters is what it means to them.

Quoting DXing (Reply 159):

Engagement has more meaning than just that a couple has decided to marry. It is considered the time where the final process of whether or not marriage is right is found out through consuling and introspection.

Another ideological difference, perhaps, but I would argue that said "final process of whether or not marriage is right" should be undertaken before getting engaged. That'll save everyone the pain of a possible broken engagement.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:22 am



Quoting Eric (Reply 171):
Despite your belief in the words of the bible, it does not make it illegal nor immoral to enter said union.

Then to what objective standards do you hold that define your views on morality?

Quoting Eric (Reply 171):
The US does not have a religious law, so really what was said in the bible should not enter this discussion.

The US has laws, like any nation, that define standards that are largely based on some moral code or other. Because the US has a lot of like-minded people on this in its population, and was founded by men who upheld of a lot of the same principles of the Bible, the Bible, or simply principles found in it, will likely always enter the discussion.
Living the American Dream
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4314
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:29 am



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 161):
For starters, the same one I've oft-repeated - that same-sex relations are not a civil right.

Really, what is it then? Or do you just want the government in our bedroom just like the rest of your theocratic dream world. What conservatives principles, too!

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 169):
I have my 1st amendment rights, for one. Even if I didn't, I'd still say it. And even though US law doesn't strictly abide by the Bible, enough of its principles are incorporated into our way of life and system of laws.

Mr. Theocracy all of a sudden cares about the Constitution. LMAO

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 169):
It's important for individual life. And a group of individuals together, who more or less agree on the content, on a grand scale, such as in this case, a national scale, will want to see laws applied in ways that will reflect the standards of said book - the same standards that John Adams said were essential for the continuity of our nation.

Um, no, govern your life by it, not anyone elses.
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
Gemuser
Posts: 5078
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:29 am



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 169):
Quoting Eric (Reply 168):
The bible was written in Latin

Actually, it was written in Hebrew, Arabic and Koine Greek.

Actually the "Bible" as we know it WAS written in Latin, in the 4th century, translating and drawing on earlier writings in Hebrew, Aramaic (not Arabic) and various Greek dialects, at least.

It was the Roman Emperor Constantine who decided what earlier writings would go into the "Bible", which makes it a pretty good political/legal document for the Roman Empire, but pretty useless as a "political/legal" document now.


Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
eric
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 9:37 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:39 am

Morality - really. An ethics dicussion? Yes, US and most other countries base their laws on morality which is often changed. Are you saying being gay is immoral since you oppose it? I can do very little to change your view on that, nor will I really try, as having read all your posts in this thread, quite simply will take much more effort than I think it is worth. At the end of the day, if it is an issue for you, then it is an issue for it.

Most European laws, and especially that sore German period between 1933-1945, found any kind of marriage to Jewish people and various other matters to be wrong and illegal by law (and in Northern Europe, with rooting in religious writing). At the time, it was considered to be within good morality. Guess what. WE WERE wrong. Our perception of morality on this stance changed. Laws were changed, etc, etc...

Morality is what you make it out to be. Through time we have changed our perception widely on what it is. It happens everyday. In Sweden, beastiality is not illegal. Rhetorically, you can ask, is it right? Is it wrong? Having no religious belief, I believe it is immoral that some people can't be together and enjoy equal rights whilst others can.

My view on morality? Be kind, do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, etc... You can always argue it is losely based on the Ten Commandments, but I believe these are also intrinsic in human nature (after all, something must have given way to them). Do not bug others but if someone is of the same sex wants to get married, let them do so. I find it immoral that someone who is 60 years old wants to marry an 18 year old who is techinically not mature enough (in my view) but I would not really make a fuss about it. If they want to, let them. It really is not any of my business much like it is not any of your business that someone of the same sex wants to get married as long as they do not harm you. If I had a deep issue with it, I would try and change the law.

Just because something has been institutionalised does not make it correct. As humans we should strive to change old views and our perception, not abide by what has been said in and by generations before us.

[Edited 2009-04-11 19:43:21]
n
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage B

Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:39 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 170):
Again, "engagement" holds no legal binding nor requires any permit or license from any State to enter into.

One mo' time - the complaint "breach of promise of marriage" indicates that it can be legally binding.

Quoting DXing (Reply 170):
Yes you would have been, you would not have set a date since same sex marriage is not legal but that would have no impact on your engagement to be married if and when the law was changed.

One mo' time - I do not make promises that I cannot reasonably and realistically expect to keep.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:09 am



Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 174):
Or do you just want the government in our bedroom just like the rest of your theocratic dream world. What conservatives principles, too!

Actually, I largely agree with the findings of Lawrence v Texas - it's same-sex supporters that are trying to thrust their view of fairness on the rest of society.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 174):
Mr. Theocracy all of a sudden cares about the Constitution

Did you skip past my previous posts? There's more than 1 in here that will drop hints as to the conclusion you've made about me.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 174):
Um, no, govern your life by it, not anyone elses.

Since when have I forced anything on you or anyone else here? Told them "do this, or else"?

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 175):
Actually the "Bible" as we know it WAS written in Latin

Which was taken from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.

Quoting Eric (Reply 176):
Morality is what you make it out to be

I'm sure everyone from Miss Manners to the lowest thugs in the street could make the same conclusion - it's all relative if that's how you feel about it.

Quoting Eric (Reply 176):
Just because something has been institutionalised does not make it correct

Doesn't mean it's incorrect, either.
Living the American Dream
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4314
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:17 am



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 178):
it's same-sex supporters that are trying to thrust their view of fairness on the rest of society.

Oh really? First off, I think thats what you're trying to do. Now i'd like for you to examine the impact of gay rights issues- gay marriage for example. Evaluate how legalized gay marriage impacts your life, now examine how it effects the life of a gay person in a committed relationship. And now they're the ones thrusting their views on the rest of society? really?
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
dtwclipper
Posts: 6668
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:17 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:25 am



Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 179):
Oh really? First off, I think thats what you're trying to do. Now i'd like for you to examine the impact of gay rights issues- gay marriage for example. Evaluate how legalized gay marriage impacts your life, now examine how it effects the life of a gay person in a committed relationship. And now they're the ones thrusting their views on the rest of society? really?

I asked.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 88):
What danger does my 17 year long relationship and recent marriage in CA pose to you and your family?

And this is the dance around the issue I got.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 106):
Why do you want to be married anyway? Is it because of the financial benefits? If it's because of some idea that a same-sex marriage is somehow special, then that's the rub. 1 man and 1 woman together in marriage is special because, not only for Scriptural reasons (from both the O.T. and N.T.), but also because, for purposes of this discussion, it represents the fundamental unit of society that promotes the building of society, namely, for example, due to the biological reasons. Same-sex relations of themselves (men with men or women with women) cannot of themselves alone afford that to society.

Compare New York Air, the Airline that works for your Business
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21804
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 4:28 am



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 178):

Actually, I largely agree with the findings of Lawrence v Texas - it's same-sex supporters that are trying to thrust their view of fairness on the rest of society.

Please explain to me how my marrying another man affects your life in any way.

Not "it cheapens marriage" not "it speaks to our moral standing as a society."

No, how does it affect YOUR life in ANY way?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Doona
Posts: 3382
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:43 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:05 am



Quoting Eric (Reply 168):
I do not understand why "marriage" is so important to gay people. It could be because I do not affiliate with any religion

I'm not a big fan of marriage itself, I probably won't subject myself to it. But I will not accept being treated differently by society around me. I'm a person. There. That's all society needs to know in order to afford me my rights.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 173):

Then to what objective standards do you hold that define your views on morality?

IMO, it is immoral for society to treat people differently simply because they are in some way different. To borrow from your own constitution, I was created equal to everyone else. I don't know if that is an objective moral standard, but your founders certainly seemed to think so. At least when it came to white men. But the spirit of equal rights have remained, and the US constitution has been amendend in order to include those who were overlooked to begin with.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 178):
their view of fairness on the rest of society

At least we're not trying to push a millenia-old book down anybody's throat.

Cheers
Mats
Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:11 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 170):
enter in the contract of marriage without parental consent.

So now marriage is a contract?
Step into my office, baby
 
EWRCabincrew
Posts: 4314
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 2:37 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:28 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 181):
Please explain to me how my marrying another man affects your life in any way.

It doesn't. Same sex marriages happen daily all over the world, affecting only those who are getting married.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 181):
"it cheapens marriage"

Divorce cheapens marriage.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 181):
how does it affect YOUR life in ANY way?

Again, it doesn't

We chose to get married because we want to be a family. Same last name and all. Just like anyone else who gets married. It is important to us. No one else. It cheapens no one. It does strengthen ours. What is even better, is that no amount of arguing here will take that marriage away.


If us, or any gay couple getting married, affects you in any way, maybe your marriage was doomed from the start and you look for a scapegoat/reason to place blame instead of blaming yourselves.
You can't cure stupid
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21804
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:49 pm



Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 184):

It doesn't. Same sex marriages happen daily all over the world, affecting only those who are getting married.

Wasn't asking you EWR. As I recall, you're family, so gay marriage affects our lives profoundly.

I was asking Allstar.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
EWRCabincrew
Posts: 4314
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 2:37 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:59 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 185):
Wasn't asking you EWR.

I know. I was just stating the obvious. I am family and marriage, indeed, affects us profoundly.
You can't cure stupid
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:00 pm



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 172):
The thread is about gay marriage in Iowa, not about a certain couple. Why bring up the issue of a certain couple if it did not reflect in any way on the broader topic?

The two people I posted about are featured in the second line of the story and are the only two of the six couples who sued that are even mentioned. Evidently even the reporter felt they were worth a mention. Their actions do reflect on the topic elsewise they would not have been mentioned.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 172):
But engagement generally isn't cheap - that ring costs a hell of a lot.

That "ring" is probably the cheapest part of a marriage.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 172):
Commitment shows people how much you value your relationship, not the title of engagement

Engagement shows commitment.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 172):
But money doesn't buy commitment, nor do promises show commitment

But lack of money will definitely put a strain on a committed relationship and try to get through a serious relationship without making any promises of commitment.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 172):
Another ideological difference, perhaps, but I would argue that said "final process of whether or not marriage is right" should be undertaken before getting engaged.

Then you need to read up on the history of what "engagement" means.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 177):
One mo' time - the complaint "breach of promise of marriage" indicates that it can be legally binding.

Not in this country.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 183):
So now marriage is a contract?

On the civil side it always has been, why do you think it takes a court to officially break one?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21804
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:03 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 187):

Engagement shows commitment.

And I'm sure that's the ONLY way to show commitment. There's no other way.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:11 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 188):
And I'm sure that's the ONLY way to show commitment. There's no other way.

It is? Did I say that? Are you inferring that becoming engaged does not show a deepening commitment to a relationship?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21804
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 4:52 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 189):

It is? Did I say that? Are you inferring that becoming engaged does not show a deepening commitment to a relationship?

You did imply that.

Quoting DXing (Reply 113):

They are so committed to each other that they had to wait for the court decision to become engaged? Now that speaks volumes.



Quoting DXing (Reply 122):
So to wait until a court says that you can now get married just to become engaged shows a lack of something on someones part.

Right there.

And it's disgusting that you would say it.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4314
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:19 pm

The whole engagement 'argument'/tangent/rant put forth by dxing is completely absurd.  banghead 
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:27 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 190):
Right there.

And it's disgusting that you would say it.

 redflag  I implied nothing of the sort. My comment spoke to them waiting until a court said they could get married to even become engaged. That in no way implies that engagement is the only form of commitment.

Quoting Jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 191):
The whole engagement 'argument'/tangent/rant put forth by dxing is completely absurd.

When I find something absurd I usually ignore it. There's a hint.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4314
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:33 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 192):
My comment spoke to them waiting until a court said they could get married to even become engaged. That in no way implies that engagement is the only form of commitment.

So it's out of the question to go the logical route here, i guess not being engaged to be married when you can't be married is just the most ridiculous concept ever. Logic, try it sometime. And you have definitely implied that it is pretty much the only form of commitment and bashed gays for not being 'engaged' when they couldn't be married.

Quoting DXing (Reply 192):
When I find something absurd I usually ignore it. There's a hint.

Heres a hint: no.
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:01 pm



Quoting Jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 193):
Logic, try it sometime.

I did, read replies 132, 141, and 151 for a start.

Quoting Jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 193):
And you have definitely implied that it is pretty much the only form of commitment and bashed gays for not being 'engaged' when they couldn't be married.

Where? How about a quote instead of an ambiguous statement? My statements have been quite clear. They waited until a court ruled in their favor to become something they could have become at anytime since it carries no legal weight in this country. That they waited smacks of sensationalism. That's one couple out of six. Have I said anything about the other 5? No, yet you use the word "gays" in plural as though I have. Now who is being disingenuinous?

BTW, still waiting on answers.


Quoting DXing (Reply 139):
Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 139):
I would suspect the "next best thing" would to live together and to work with a lawyer to establish power of attorney and a will.

Do you, or did you, work up POA's with just anyone you cohabitated with?



Quoting DXing (Reply 151):
Quoting Mariner (Reply 145):
"Engagement" literally means "promise of intention to marry." If there is no prospect of becoming married, it is a false vow, a promise that is impossible to keep.

And how do you know that at sometime you will not be able to fufill your promise?



Quoting DXing (Reply 187):
Quoting Mt99 (Reply 183):
So now marriage is a contract?

On the civil side it always has been, why do you think it takes a court to officially break one?

Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4314
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:17 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 194):
That's one couple out of six. Have I said anything about the other 5?

Then why the hell have you essentially turned this thread into a thread about 'engagement'?

Quoting DXing (Reply 194):
They waited until a court ruled in their favor to become something they could have become at anytime since it carries no legal weight in this country.

If you can't see the merit in someone saying screw engagement if we can't get married, then i have nothing more to say to you. It's just a word....engaged, committed, partners, whatever, why continue to play these silly games of semantics.
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
dtwclipper
Posts: 6668
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:17 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:18 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 194):
They waited until a court ruled in their favor to become something they could have become at anytime since it carries no legal weight in this country. That they waited smacks of sensationalism.

DX, I respect you a great deal for your forensic skills and knowledge, however here I think you are behaving like a bulldog who won't let go of his toy. You are making assumptions and you know what happens when you assume.

Let this one go, and move on to something more relevant, no one will respect you any less for not having the last word.
Compare New York Air, the Airline that works for your Business
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4314
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:21 pm



Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 196):
behaving like a bulldog who won't let go of his toy.

 checkmark   checkmark 
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
D L X
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 7:09 pm



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 167):
And you were/are/and will continue to be wrong

Good response. Ignore the things that I actually said, and refuse to explain why I am wrong. Whenever you're ready.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 167):
from the core of it every time with that relativistic opinion

And what is a "relativistic opinion?"

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 167):
just like the activist jurists



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 167):
The law may eventually change, too, although, if done via the courts, it's all activist legislation from the bench.

Not only is this foolish and naive, but it is utterly disrespectful. To the people that call this opinion "activist": You are neither a judge, a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, nor have you presented any evidence that you have studied constitutional law in any way. Therefore, you don't really know what you're talking about, and yet, you malign these jurists as "activist" merely because they didn't give you the result that you wanted. In the face of hundreds of pages of evidence and law, you have decided that this well reasoned opinion of the highest court in Iowa is "activist" because you didn't get the result you wanted. In the face of the fact that every single state supreme court that has analyzed this question has come to the exact same result, you have concluded that they must all be activist, because they didn't give you the result that you wanted. Not one single court has concluded that banning gay marriage is constitutional. Yet you still call this activist?
How about showing a little deference to those who are more expert than us on this issue.

We are a nation of laws, and to decide that the law doesn't apply in this situation when it does apply in that one, as some of you on here are arguing, THAT is activist.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage B

Sun Apr 12, 2009 8:37 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 187):
Not in this country.

Hmmmm?:

http://family-law.lawyers.com/Who-Ge...g-If-the-Wedding-Is-Cancelled.html

"Someone who claims they have been wronged by the cancellation of the wedding might think about filing a lawsuit for breach of promise of marriage. In order to bring a lawsuit for breach of promise of marriage, a person must show:

An exchange of promises existed.
The action of the party when they broke their promise, which makes him or her responsible for the wedding being called off.
The promise was supported by a benefit or loss, such receiving or giving the engagement ring.
Both people were of legal age to marry."


Some states (New York, of course) have removed the complaint from the statutes, which means they had to be there to be removed.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,415341,00.html

"RoseMary's lawyer, Lydia Sartain, explains that this type of cause of action is not as rare as you might initially think. "It's really not an unusual case, it's not unheard of and there's this cause of action in states across the country." While it's true that some states allow a person to sue for a broken engagement, it's important to note that some don't. For example, under New York Civil Rights Law, Article 8 abolishes actions for breach of contract to marry."

But in several states, it is still valid:

"But some states, like Georgia, do allow so-called "jilted brides" (or grooms) to sue a fiancé that breaks an engagement."

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21804
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 8:39 pm



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 199):

How about demonstrating how/why you/they are such experts.

He's a scholar of constitutional law. What are you?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArchGuy1 and 25 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos