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

Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:11 pm



Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 195):
Then why the hell have you essentially turned this thread into a thread about 'engagement'?

If you don't want to participate then ignore the posts. There are several different conversations occuring simultaneously in this thread, you don't see me involved in all of them do you?

Quoting Mariner (Reply 204):
"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.



Quoting Mariner (Reply 204):
"But some states, like Georgia, do allow so-called "jilted brides" (or grooms) to sue a fiancé that breaks an engagement."

Neither example supposes that both parties get engaged with the intent to marry if and when it becomes possible and both suppose that one or the other breaks off the engagement. Again, you can be engaged for a day, a decade, or a lifetime. That is up to the individual parties involved.
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 B

Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:19 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 206):
Neither example supposes that both parties get engaged with the intent to marry if and when it becomes possible and both suppose that one or the other breaks off the engagement. Again, you can be engaged for a day, a decade, or a lifetime. That is up to the individual parties involved.

Ah - qualifications. You claimed that the complaint "breach of promise to marry" does not exist in the US.

In fact, it does. I shrug.

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 10:21 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 202):
You didn't answer that bit. Because you can't.

I don't mind quoting myself, either for your information - or instruction.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 199):
For starters, I live in this society, which means I'd have to live in a society that legitimizes same-sex relations - that could affect my speech towards them about such behavior; possibly (someday) the legality of teaching/sharing with others about viewing said behavior; it tells society around me that homosexuality is not immoral behavior (which it is - it manifests itself not by gender since both genders can participate, but by actions - by behavior), but rather a (unproven) state of being, making for a society that is less, over time, able to discern right and wrong. It's rather convenient for the same-sex crowd to say "I was born this way", when, in fact, there is zero scientific proof that's held water over the long haul that supports that notion. And it's convenient to say that, because if they're to say it's behavior (and some slip up and do say it), it would allow the notion that behavior applies to personal responsibility, which ultimately leads to conscience and morality.



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 202):
Because you know you're wrong but can't admit it because doing so would bring down the house of cards that you call your religion.

I'll admit God's right, it's squarely in the Bible and I'm wondering if what's happening with your conscience through all this, whether or not you type on the keyboard that it's clear.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 202):
You can deny the above statement, but it's a raw fact out there for the world to see.

Let them read everything I've said, especially about the Bible. Let them read it over and over. It's there for you to read again as well.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 205):
Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 199):

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

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

"Scholar" is a strong word.

Quoting Doona (Reply 203):
Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 201):

If you're into same-sex relations, must I explain in detail?

So you mean that simply because I happen to enjoy penises I should be treated differently?

Cheers
Mats

I simply oppose legitimizing same-sex behavior as far as marriage is concerned. "Treated differently" - to put it the other way, to legitimize same-sex behavior would be giving same-sex relations special treatment.
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 10:50 pm



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 208):
I'll admit God's right, it's squarely in the Bible and I'm wondering if what's happening with your conscience through all this, whether or not you type on the keyboard that it's clear.



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 208):
Let them read everything I've said, especially about the Bible. Let them read it over and over. It's there for you to read again as well.

What I believe you need to realise is that not everyone follows the bible. For most people, and as said numerous times here, it is not a book the world lives by. For most people, what is written in there is irrelevant. What the bible says, in the end, does not really matter that much. You ought to stop using the bible as an example and realise that the law in the US is not strictly built on this.
n
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:25 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 194):
BTW, still waiting on answers.



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?

Hey sorry. It was Easter here. Any true American would have been celebrating this religious event.

I thought marriage was "way more" than a simple contract? You really need to decide on what your defiintion of maariage is. Is it something of millenial tradition? is it a contract? both?

What is your definition of Marriage? Lets start there.

Catholic, Jewish, Hindi weddings are all dissolved by the same civil divorce.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 199):
or starters, I live in this society, which means I'd have to live in a society that legitimizes same-sex relations - that could affect my speech towards them about such behavior; possibly (someday) the legality of teaching/sharing with others about viewing said behavior; it tells society around me that homosexuality is not immoral behavior (which it is - it manifests itself not by gender since both genders can participate, but by actions - by behavior), but rather a (unproven) state of being, making for a society that is less, over time, able to discern right and wrong. It's rather convenient for the same-sex crowd to say "I was born this way", when, in fact, there is zero scientific proof that's held water over the long haul that supports that notion. And it's convenient to say that, because if they're to say it's behavior (and some slip up and do say it), it would allow the notion that behavior applies to personal responsibility, which ultimately leads to conscience and morality.

Well you could move. Iran doesn't have any homosexuals you know.

www.uhaul.com
Step into my office, baby
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage B

Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:34 pm

I cant believe that the story of David (of Goliath fame) and Jonathan is not more popular

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 208):
Let them read everything I've said, especially about the Bible. Let them read it over and over. It's there for you to read again as well.

1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)

1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)

2 Samuel 1:26
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."


hmm.. i wonder what "Covenant" means.. Marriage perhaps?
Step into my office, baby
 
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 11:59 pm



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 199):
Quoting D L X (Reply 198):
Ignore the things that I actually said

You set the example quite well yourself.

Riighht. I like your strategy: keep ignoring the rebuttal 8 or 9 times, then when you get called out on it, claim that I've never rebutted your argument to begin with.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 199):
An opinion based on reasoning that suits your own purposes.

Puh leez. The only thing you can attack about the opinion (which you still haven't read) is that you didn't like the freakin' result. Don't talk to me about the conservative Iowa Supreme Court making a ruling that "suits their purposes" when you haven't done anything to show how their reasoning was improper. The fact that you would accuse the Iowa Supreme Court as activist on this issue when it is so conservative is just downright foolish.

But you didn't stop there. No, you've decided to take the disrepectful step of thinking you know more than they do about the law! You do realize that accusing them of activism is the exact same thing as saying they are corrupt. That's a bogus charge if ever there was one.


You really should concede this argument.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 199):
Not for their position, but definitely for their actions.



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 199):
How about demonstrating how/why you/they are such experts.

They are experts because they are SUPREME COURT JUSTICES!!!! You are not. That's not a slight against you, because I will defer to your opinion on issues relating to airline dispatching. But seriously, your criticism based on law is foolish when you have not studied it.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 199):
And rewording the laws to accommodate the behavior of a particular group isn't activist?

If you read the opinion, you'd see how this opinion was not based on behavior at all.

Dude, I'm done with you. You completely refuse to let a lawyer tell you how to help you with constitutional law. You've decided straight up that there is only one result that proper, and since that result was not the result you got, then they must be wrong. You have closed your mind and can't be convinced, so I won't waste any more effort on you.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:45 am



Quoting Mariner (Reply 207):
Ah - qualifications. You claimed that the complaint "breach of promise to marry" does not exist in the US.

In fact, it does. I shrug.

No, it does not. Lets look at your posts again.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 204):
"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."



Quoting Mariner (Reply 155):
You seem to be insisting that they do something that they cannot, legally, do.



Quoting Mariner (Reply 162):
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.

Where is the law that says two people cannot be engaged with the wedding date to be set a some future time? I see the ability of one of the parties to sue the other if they break the engagement. Of course I can sue the restuarant that serves coffee that is too hot and I spill in my lap while driving as well. The fact that someone can sue if the other breaks the engagement in no way says that you cannot be engaged for any legal reason. BTW, where would either party be responsible for a break up if both parties entered into an engagement knowing full well they would have to await the day that same sex marriage was legal? When you can cite a law that says that same sex couples cannot become engaged then your statements will have some validity. There is no and has not been any qualification on my part other than that there is no "legal" restriction on two people becoming engaged.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 210):
Hey sorry. It was Easter here. Any true American would have been celebrating this religious event.

If I were a religious person I probably would have. But since I am not, does that make me less of a "true" American?  scratchchin 

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 210):
thought marriage was "way more" than a simple contract? You really need to decide on what your defiintion of maariage is. Is it something of millenial tradition? is it a contract? both?

It is way more than a simple contract and that is not my definition but in the States eyes that is what it is, unless of course you have a prenup in which the contract could become very complicated.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 210):
Catholic, Jewish, Hindi weddings are all dissolved by the same civil divorce.

That may not be entirely true. While the civil portion of the marriage is indeed wiped out, in the Catholic church if you get a divorce in a civil court you must also apply with the Church for an annulment for which there are pretty specific reasons. If you don't, or cannot obtain one, you are forbidden from matrimony in the Catholic Church again. Don't know about the other faiths.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 196):
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.

I appreciate the compliment, I think, well maybe the front half of the sentence. scratchchin  But wrong is wrong. There is no legal restriction on engagement.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 196):
You are making assumptions and you know what happens when you assume.

I made a comment on two people who waited until a court made a decision for them before proceeding to what I would have thought they would have done long ago. Everything thereafter is in response to questions and comments made towards me.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:51 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 213):
It is way more than a simple contract and that is not my definition but in the States eyes that is what it is,

So why do you care then?

Quoting DXing (Reply 213):
While the civil portion of the marriage is indeed wiped out,

So Marriage is a Civil Contract? more than a religious event?
Step into my office, baby
 
dtwclipper
Posts: 6668
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:17 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:11 am



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 199):
At least I know Q-tips aren't the answer for helping you. I could name the wall in front of me here "Dtwclipper" and it would net the same result.

That was rude. Obviously, if you feel that you can not answer the question resort to name calling. Noted.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 199):
it tells society around me that homosexuality is not immoral behavior (which it is

I'm sorry if you find my behavior immoral, that is your opinion. In my book immoral behavior would be, and not limited to; murder, theft, neglecting your parents or family, neglecting your community, etc. My relationship is not immoral, thank you very much. Please don't respond to this with some biblical quote, thank you very much.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 199):
in fact, there is zero scientific proof that's held water over the long haul that supports that notion.

And for the record there is no scientific proof that it is not an inborn trait. So, that notion goes out the window.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 199):
- that could affect my speech towards them about such behavior; possibly (someday) the legality of teaching/sharing with others about viewing said behavior;

I welcome the day, my friend when your speech about gays will be as unacceptable as the "N" word. I fear for you, because that day is soon approaching and what will you do?
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

Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:18 am



Quoting Mt99 (Reply 214):
So why do you care then?

I guess I don't understand what you are saying.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 214):
So Marriage is a Civil Contract? more than a religious event?

I guess that depends on the people invovled doesn't it?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:21 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 216):


Quoting Mt99 (Reply 214):
So why do you care then?

I guess I don't understand what you are saying.

If marriage..

Quoting DXing (Reply 213):
It is way more than a simple contract and that is not my definition but in the States eyes that is what it is,

You are conceding the definition of marriage to the States... r
Step into my office, baby
 
windy95
Posts: 2778
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:29 am

Well as far as homosexuality goes I for one am not in favor of it. My dislike of it does not come from religion but from what I consider a natural reaction built into me. But as an American I do not see how we can stop two consenting adults who want to enter into this contract of marriage. Or how as Americans we think that our federal government should be concerned by what is going on in our bedrooms as long as it is between two consenting adults. Be it two males or two females I do not see how we can justify to not let it happen.

We have failed marriages everyday,we have marriges being entered into for money, citizenship and various other reasons. Being married for 22 years I do believe that marriage is a sacred trust between my wife and my god and have done everything possible in my life to fulfill my promises to her, to myself and to God. But it is not for me or anyone to force my religious view of marriage on any one else because they do not fit my idea of what is normal.

With that being said I would also see it unfair for the homosexual community to attack religions for not sanctioning it. It is a two way street here where both sides need to back off and find a middle. Religion should not speak out against Homosexuality outside of the Church (by trying to affect state laws) and on the opposite side religions should be left alone and not attacked for not believing, liking or sanctioning homosexual marriages..

Just my nickels worth. Sorry if I rambled it has been a long 16 hour day at work.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:38 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 213):
No, it does not. Lets look at your posts again.

You said in post #187 that the suit "breach of promise of marriage" does not exist "in this country."

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

You can dance around it as much as you like, but that complaint does still exist, presuming you mean the US. I can't think where else you mean.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:08 am



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 218):
With that being said I would also see it unfair for the homosexual community to attack religions for not sanctioning it. It is a two way street here where both sides need to back off and find a middle. Religion should not speak out against Homosexuality outside of the Church (by trying to affect state laws) and on the opposite side religions should be left alone and not attacked for not believing, liking or sanctioning homosexual marriages..

I agree...but from a gay perspective.. it kinda hard to try to meet religious folks in the middle when they are condemning you to hell every time they see you.

At this point, most gays could care less if a particular religious accepts their marriage. It would be nice no doubt! but at this point as long as they dont stand on the way and actively impeade us from getting married would be most welcome.

Do Catholic view Hindi weddings as "real"? Jewish? Muslim? Is Tom Cruise's scientology marriage real?
Step into my office, baby
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:10 am



Quoting Mariner (Reply 219):
You said in post #187 that the suit "breach of promise of marriage" does not exist "in this country."



Quoting DXing (Reply 187):
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.

This is getting ridiculous....

Quoting DXing (Reply 213):
Quoting Mariner (Reply 204):
"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

Might think is not legally binding. The law that Iowa had in place until the court struck it down was legally binding. The new law, whatever it is, is now legally binding. Last time, there is no law in the United States that says that any two people, same sex or not, cannot be engaged to be married. Engagement in and of itself does not carry any legal requirement, nor do you need to obtain a license or permission from the State. You can be engaged for a day, a decade, or a lifetime with no penalty.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 217):
You are conceding the definition of marriage to the States

I agree that the the State defines marriage as a contract. I have no choice but to accept their definition as a basis for marriage. I don't base my marriage on that narrow definiton although it does come into play in some areas.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage B

Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:12 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 221):
I agree that the the State defines marriage as a contract. I have no choice but to accept their definition as a basis for marriage.

So if the State defines that the marriage contract can be executed by 2 males or 2 females, you have no voice in the matter, and following that logic - you shouldnt care about which 2 people execute said contract. Because - it has nothing to do with you.
Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21804
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:19 am



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 218):

With that being said I would also see it unfair for the homosexual community to attack religions for not sanctioning it.

I would never attack a religion for not sanctioning it. You don't want to ordain gay marriages (or interracial marriages, or marriages between two people the minister just doesn't like, or whatever) then you shouldn't have to.

And I would work to silence anyone who would condemn a religion for refusing to perform the rites within its own doors. That would be completely repugnant.

However, when that same religion turns around and tries to reach outside the doors of its church to tell me, a non-believer, what to do, I will fight back.

And we will win this fight. We're winning already. We will win.
-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 B

Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:19 am

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 199):
For starters, I live in this society, which means I'd have to live in a society that legitimizes same-sex relations - that could affect my speech towards them about such behavior; possibly (someday) the legality of teaching/sharing with others about viewing said behavior; it tells society around me that homosexuality is not immoral behavior (which it is - it manifests itself not by gender since both genders can participate, but by actions - by behavior), but rather a (unproven) state of being, making for a society that is less, over time, able to discern right and wrong. It's rather convenient for the same-sex crowd to say "I was born this way", when, in fact, there is zero scientific proof that's held water over the long haul that supports that notion. And it's convenient to say that, because if they're to say it's behavior (and some slip up and do say it), it would allow the notion that behavior applies to personal responsibility, which ultimately leads to conscience and morality.

I could go line by line here, but all i can do is shake my head and laugh. Must have taken how to be a condescending, bitter, holier-than-thou Christian 101. In fact, you could teach it. I really do feel very sorry for you, to go through life with an attitude like that seems awful to me. Good luck with that.

[Edited 2009-04-12 19:21:37]

[Edited 2009-04-12 19:26:14]
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

Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:21 am



Quoting Mt99 (Reply 222):
So if the State defines that the marriage contract can be executed by 2 males or 2 females, you have no voice in the matter, and following that logic - you shouldnt care about which 2 people execute said contract. Because - it has nothing to do with you.

Partially correct. I pay property tax, of which I have very little say in, but that does not mean I don't care how much it is or voice my opinion on ways to lower it. As to the rest....

Quoting DXing (Reply 141):
I can. As I have said, that I disagree with same sex marriage does not mean I will not respect it when it becomes law. My personal opinion at that point in time is then moot. The law is the law. However, as the debate is still ongoing I maintain that changing definitions to fit small minorities, when sufficient legal recourses are already available to them is wrong.

And as such I maintain my right to voice my opinion on the matter. I was actually wrong in that statement since even after a passage of a same sex marriage bill, if I were to be presented with a petition for an amendment to overturn it I would sign it.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
windy95
Posts: 2778
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:21 am



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 223):
However, when that same religion turns around and tries to reach outside the doors of its church to tell me, a non-believer, what to do, I will fight back.

And as I said in my post I agree with you on that and it has to be a respectful two way street.
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:22 am



Quoting D L X (Reply 212):
The only thing you can attack about the opinion (which you still haven't read) is that you didn't like the freakin' result.

Sure I read it - and here's a good example where they got it wrong (from a summary of the results) - "the court found sexual orientation to be central to personal identity and that its alteration". How could they be qualified to make that conclusion? Where's the M.D.'s on that court? Where's the genetic researchers on that court? On what scientific evidence about same-sex relations being "central to personal identity" did they base their findings? Where's the evidence in their findings? Or did they just feel sorry for the same-sex couples? Or was it evidence of identifying with the ideology of same-sex supporters? Perhaps a desire to set a trend?

Quoting D L X (Reply 212):
Don't talk to me about the conservative Iowa Supreme Court making a ruling that "suits their purposes" when you haven't done anything to show how their reasoning was improper. The fact that you would accuse the Iowa Supreme Court as activist on this issue when it is so conservative is just downright foolish.

Courts, like nominees (Souter, Brennan, etc.) are sometimes unpredictable, just like Iowa itself is sometimes unpredictable and politically trend-setting - and they pride themselves "as Iowa goes, so goes the nation".

Quoting D L X (Reply 212):
You really should concede this argument.

Only if I was wrong.

Quoting D L X (Reply 212):
They are experts because they are SUPREME COURT JUSTICES!!!!

The USSC has in the past denounced previous decisions from the Supreme Court. Superior courts are also in the habit of denouncing decisions from lower courts also - who, I'm sure, are stocked full of "experts".

Quoting D L X (Reply 212):
You completely refuse to let a lawyer tell you how to help you with constitutional law.

I'm not persuaded in your abilities.

Quoting D L X (Reply 212):
You have closed your mind and can't be convinced, so I won't waste any more effort on you.

Then don't waste it on a good dose of common sense and reason, either.

There's some tangible point that's missing on same-sex supporters in all of this. When, for example, Massachusetts in 2004 "ordered its Legislature to provide nothing less than marriage" for same-sex relations, the court effectually said "we're going to tell you how to legislate". See how twisted that is? One branch basically usurped the power of another telling them how to do their jobs the way the courts want them to do it. Plantiff tells court "we want the constitution to be read this way", court says "ok", court tells legislature "make it sound like this . . . or perhaps we'll do it for you".  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

Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:26 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 221):
This is getting ridiculous....

Sure it is.

I have given you links to show that the law "breach of promise of marriage" does still exist in some states of the US, which you denied - and seem to be still denying.

I don't maintain that becoming engaged must have legal consequences, only that it can.

That you choose to use your definition of "engagement" to cast aspersions on a woman you don't know is a whole other box and dice, on which I have already given my opinion.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:42 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 225):
I was actually wrong in that statement since even after a passage of a same sex marriage bill, if I were to be presented with a petition for an amendment to overturn it I would sign it.

You can sign as much as you want. Give it 5 years and you will be in the minority. Enjoy it.
Step into my office, baby
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:44 am



Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 215):
In my book

That qualified objective resource was all you needed to share.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 215):
Please don't respond to this with some biblical quote, thank you very much.

Just because you refuse the benefit doesn't mean others should be denied it.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 215):
And for the record there is no scientific proof that it is not an inborn trait. So, that notion goes out the window.

Yes, and let's forget, too, that same-sex relations are demonstrated, not by gender, age or race, but by behavior.  crazy 

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 215):
I fear for you, because that day is soon approaching and what will you do?

Recognize the flaw in that reasoning, as I have been?  scratchchin 

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 215):
That was rude. Obviously, if you feel that you can not answer the question resort to name calling. Noted.

Ah, the reference to the supposed "dance" you received - which was the question I addressed plainly by having to quote myself (yet again). And I don't see how saying talking w/you being akin to talking to a wall is name-calling, but of the outrageous conclusions you've drawn, that's certainly among the lesser.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 224):
Must have taken how to be a condescending, bitter, holier-than-thou Christian 101.

Have you been carefully reading the other thread on this? Say w/posts 75 and 83? Those should help calm you.
Living the American Dream
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21804
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:07 am



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 230):

Yes, and let's forget, too, that same-sex relations are demonstrated, not by gender, age or race, but by behavior. crazy

As is religion. And religion is 100% voluntary. I have always thought that religion should be removed as a protected class. After all, you choose your religion. Why should it be protected from discrimination?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:14 am



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 227):
When, for example, Massachusetts in 2004 "ordered its Legislature to provide nothing less than marriage" for same-sex relations, the court effectually said "we're going to tell you how to legislate". See how twisted that is? One branch basically usurped the power of another telling them how to do their jobs the way the courts want them to do it.

Correction - one branch of government told another branch of government that it was not acting in accordance with the state constitution--which is exactly what a supreme court is supposed to do. Go read Marbury v. Madison, you might find it enlightening.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 223):
And we will win this fight. We're winning already. We will win.

I read a rather dark but somewhat accurate comment somewhere about the gay rights struggle. The person opined that a gay rights supporter's favorite sound ought to be the ambulance siren. Why? Because it's likely signaling the presence of one fewer gay rights opponent or one more gay rights supporter.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21804
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:36 am



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 199):

For starters, I live in this society, which means I'd have to live in a society that legitimizes same-sex relations

So your hatred of gays is the issue, not the gays themselves. I see.

Quote:
- that could affect my speech towards them about such behavior; possibly (someday) the legality of teaching/sharing with others about viewing said behavior;

Please cite any evidence of this claim.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 199):
it tells society around me that homosexuality is not immoral behavior (which it is - it manifests itself not by gender since both genders can participate, but by actions - by behavior), but rather a (unproven) state of being, making for a society that is less, over time, able to discern right and wrong.

I dunno, I'm sick of living in a society in which your behavior of hostility and repression towards people who have done you no harm is acceptable just because you believe in an invisible man told in some silly fairy tale from 1500 years ago.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 199):
t's rather convenient for the same-sex crowd to say "I was born this way", when, in fact, there is zero scientific proof that's held water over the long haul that supports that notion.

1) Kendler KS, Thornton LM, et al. “Sexual Orientation in a U.S. National Sample of Twin and Nontwin Sibling Pairs” Am J Psychiatry 157:1843-1846, November 2000
2) Blanchard R, Bogaert AF. “Proportion of Homosexual Men Who Owe Their Sexual Orientation to Fraternal Birth Order: An Estimate Based on Two National Probability Samples” Am J Hum Biol 16:151–157 (2004)
3) LeVay S. “A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men.” Science 253(5023)1034-1037. Aug 1991

I'll pre-empt your rebuttal. It's "junk science." Right? If the facts don't fit your worldview, then they aren't facts.

Now, my question to you: Do you think I would have chosen to be gay? I came out at 25 after having had five girlfriends. Sex was always a chore. It was a duty, not something I wanted to do. And then I had my first boyfriend and it felt right.

Do you honestly think I would CHOOSE a lifestyle that means that I can't simply become a husband and a father through the standard means? Do you think I would CHOOSE a lifestyle that exposes me to bigots like you? Do you think I would CHOOSE a lifestyle for which I could be fired from my job with no legal recourse? Do you think I would CHOOSE a lifestyle that increases my risk of contracting HIV?

And if you think I would choose it, then what possible motivation could I have?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
D L X
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:01 pm



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 232):
Correction - one branch of government told another branch of government that it was not acting in accordance with the state constitution--which is exactly what a supreme court is supposed to do.

Shush your mouth. Don't you know he already knows everything about the law?

This is one of the most upsetting things about the American public -- they generally have no idea what the role of the courts is, and so they have been persuaded by Republicans (who have a history of using the ignorance of the public for their favor) to believe that any time the result is something they don't like, it means the court was acting beyond their responsibilities. The problem is, legislators have big freakin' mouths, while the court is generally not allowed to comment on their opinions. So people like some posters on here gain this warped view of the judiciary ingrained in their heads with very little opportunity to correct them.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21804
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:26 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 236):

Shush your mouth. Don't you know he already knows everything about the law?

He knows everything about everything! It says so in the Bible!
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
dtwclipper
Posts: 6668
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:17 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:34 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 237):
He knows everything about everything! It says so in the Bible!

Well now everything is clear. I was wondering how he got all of those facts!
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

Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:24 pm



Quoting Mariner (Reply 228):
I have given you links to show that the law "breach of promise of marriage" does still exist in some states of the US, which you denied - and seem to be still denying.

And according to those links in order for some one to sue under breach of promise one or the other party involved would have to break the engagement. That they cannot legally marry has no bearing on their engagement. A day, a decade, a lifetime, the State does not care.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 228):
I don't maintain that becoming engaged must have legal consequences, only that it can.

Yet you started off this roundabout trip by stating:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 144):
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.

"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.

Which they would not have had a true idea of. Yet you are assuming that one or the other for some strange reason would not know that they could not marry quickly or that the engagement would be permanent until such time as the law changed. I would find that even more bizzare than a couple waiting until a judge rendered a decision to move to the next level of the relationship.

But in answer to your question, yes you did imply that the act of becoming engaged has some legal force to it:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 155):
You seem to be insisting that they do something that they cannot, legally, do.

Which is the line I have been operating on since. They can legally, in this country, get engaged. No sanction or license from the State is required to do that. That is what I have stated over and over. Nor did I insist that they get engaged. I only questioned why they waited until a judge cleared the way for them to get married to become engaged. I would like to hear the womens reasoning for waiting until the judge made his ruling to allow them to marry to become engaged. As there is no legal reason why they couldn't have gotten engaged and their engagement would have shown their determination to be married at some point, why they waited might make an interesting story. As I have stated previously it smacks of sensationalism and just a way to get themselves noticed.
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

Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:48 pm

Quoting DXing (Reply 239):
As I have stated previously it smacks of sensationalism and just a way to get themselves noticed.

Only in your own mind, dude. You have failed to make a case for "sensationalism" to the rest of us. You seem motivated to separate their love, their commitment, their legal right to marry from your own by finding some way to see wrong in their actions. You seem to be motivated to see their actions in a bad light when nobody else who has participated in this thread agrees with you.

Why?

[Edited 2009-04-13 06:52:41]
"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
 
windy95
Posts: 2778
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:58 pm



Quoting Mt99 (Reply 220):
At this point, most gays could care less if a particular religious accepts their marriage. It would be nice no doubt! but at this point as long as they dont stand on the way and actively impeade us from getting married would be most welcome.

And they should not impede the progress in a civil court in any way. My philosphy is to worry about me and my family first. And I think that the Catholic church should do the same thing. Worry about keeping it's own house in order and not what is going on among people whose private lives do not effect the Church's daily existence.

And as far as the civil side of marriage as a conservative I want less federal government. The Constitution does not give the authority to the feds to control marriage or abortion. those are rights that should be covered by the states. So if South Carolina does not want Civil marriages or abortions then you have the choice of moving to Mass. or CA. This blanket authority where a minority of people can put a blanket law over the whole country has to stop. We need our states to be different to allow people with diferent views to find a place to settle that they feel comfortable without someone yelling if you do not like it leave the country. The whole country does not have to conform to the same views on everything.

ANd one more thing. As a Christian and as a father I have to look in the mirror and think what would I say or do if my son came to me one day and told me he is gay. And the answer is everything I could do in my powerr to support him and to make sure he has the same choices and freedoms that I have. Anything else would make me less of a man and less of a christian. So why should that thought not also cover the sons and daughters of others.
 
planespotting
Posts: 3026
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:54 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:03 pm

Dudes and Dudettes -

I just got back from visiting my girlfriend's parents in Iowa this weekend, and the carnage I saw was unbelievable ... heterosexual marriages falling apart, gay marriages mandatory for heterosexual people, and animals marrying humans, kids marrying animals, animals marrying humans' kids! Why, I saw a heterosexual woman FORCED to marry a lesbian!

I tell ya, it's a slippery slope alright ...  Yeah sure
Do you like movies about gladiators?
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:17 pm



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 241):
ANd one more thing. As a Christian and as a father I have to look in the mirror and think what would I say or do if my son came to me one day and told me he is gay. And the answer is everything I could do in my powerr to support him and to make sure he has the same choices and freedoms that I have. Anything else would make me less of a man and less of a christian. So why should that thought not also cover the sons and daughters of others.

What a great post. Thank you. I really respect your stance on the issue.
Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:29 pm



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.

Let's just get it over with - are you advocating for a tyranny of the majority? This kind of "my way or the highway" approach is akin to crapping all over the ideals that bind our union, whether some or part of them are based on the Founders' religious beliefs or not!

from de Tocqueville's book 5, on the folly of such thinking:

When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right of the majority to command, but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind. Some have not feared to assert that a people can never outstep the boundaries of justice and reason in those affairs which are peculiarly its own; and that consequently full power may be given to the majority by which it is represented. But this is the language of a slave.

A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength.


http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/detoc/1_ch15.htm

James Madison's issues with such thinking in Federalist 51:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part...

...In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself.


http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
dtwclipper
Posts: 6668
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:17 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 8:50 pm

Allstar,

This ones for you:

http://blip.tv/file/1987365/
Compare New York Air, the Airline that works for your Business
 
User avatar
mbmbos
Posts: 2925
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:09 pm



Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 248):
This ones for you:

Oh that is rich! Thank you so much for sharing!
"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
 
ALexeu
Posts: 1447
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:01 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:01 pm



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 240):
So if South Carolina does not want Civil marriages or abortions then you have the choice of moving to Mass. or CA.

I was wondering, if one commits a crime or anything in one US state, while he resides in another state, which state laws should one be ruled upon him?
 
windy95
Posts: 2778
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:18 pm



Quoting AlexEU (Reply 250):
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 240):
So if South Carolina does not want Civil marriages or abortions then you have the choice of moving to Mass. or CA.

I was wondering, if one commits a crime or anything in one US state, while he resides in another state, which state laws should one be ruled upon him?

The state that the crime was comitted.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21804
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:58 am

I'd like to revisit my Great-Aunt's reaction to Prop 8 when it passed. She is a Survivor of Treblinka who escaped, 3 months pregnant, in a pile of bodies from the gas chambers being trucked for burial.

"The problem is that these people have decided that they are superior to gays, so they can tell gays what they can and can't do. I don't understand homosexuality and I don't necessarily like it, but I don't have to. When you decide that you are superior to someone and that you can tell them what to do, you are no better than Hitler, Himmler, or Goebbels."

There you have it, Allstar. My great-aunt, a survivor of the Holocaust, just compared you to the Nazis. I would personally never accuse someone of being a Nazi because that same great-aunt taught me the power and meaning of that word. But she did, and I was completely floored.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5352
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:29 pm



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 240):
And as far as the civil side of marriage as a conservative I want less federal government. The Constitution does not give the authority to the feds to control marriage or abortion. those are rights that should be covered by the states. So if South Carolina does not want Civil marriages or abortions then you have the choice of moving to Mass. or CA. This blanket authority where a minority of people can put a blanket law over the whole country has to stop. We need our states to be different to allow people with diferent views to find a place to settle that they feel comfortable without someone yelling if you do not like it leave the country. The whole country does not have to conform to the same views on everything.

Justice Thomas, is that you? This is patently ludicrous. Imagine if people had thought like this 50 years ago. Would you say "If South Carolina doesn't want racial integration, then you have the choice of moving to Mass. or CA" or 40 years ago would you be saying "If South Carolina doesn't want interracial marriage, then you have the choice of moving to Mass. or CA?" We live in a federal system, not a confederal one - equal protection of law means equal protection of law regardless of which state you're in. While there's latitude for individual states and other smaller political units to have more individualized laws, if those laws are in conflict with prevailing Constitutional law, they're null and void - that's simply the nature of a federal system.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
planespotting
Posts: 3026
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:54 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:32 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 257):
There you have it, Allstar. My great-aunt, a survivor of the Holocaust, just compared you to the Nazis. I would personally never accuse someone of being a Nazi because that same great-aunt taught me the power and meaning of that word. But she did, and I was completely floored.

Nice one, DL - I wish there was an "iLike" button that we use on here!
Do you like movies about gladiators?
 
diamond
Posts: 3000
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:01 am

RE: Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:48 pm

This thread has run its course and has already resulted in a lot of deletions.

Some users who have received multiple deletions continue to post in the same style that caused the deletions to begin wtih.

Locked.
Blank.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Braybuddy, Chemist, lentokone, PPVRA, ztarizona and 21 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