Iowa...

#26
#26
VOLatile said:
It was more of an image for the churches and out of state money that funded the attack ads against the justices for allowing same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

So it was only churches and out of state money that voted for this?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#28
#28
VOLatile said:
It was a unanimous decision between ALL 7 justices of the Iowa Supreme Court. There was no activism.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is activism. They had to write into law something that was not there before in order to get to gay marriage.

A judge does not have this right regardless of whether the outcome favors you, me, or someone else. Legislatures are where law is rightly made. Judges do not have a trump card over the will of the people on the qualifications for a "LICENSE".
 
#31
#31
AllVols said:
Sorry, it might just be me and I really don't care if anyone agrees...

but this is all I see when I read these words.

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."
Click to expand...

I was wondering how long it was gonna take to get the first "Gays are going to Hell" post.
 
#32
#32
Did somebody up in this joint say they have black friends?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#34
#34
BeecherVol said:
Does that include voting rights?
Click to expand...

Yeah. What are you getting at?

T-TownVol said:
Sounds like Cali is the place for you. San Fran to be exact.
Click to expand...

Oh geez... a gay joke! I wouldn't expect less.

AllVols said:
Sorry, it might just be me and I really don't care if anyone agrees...

but this is all I see when I read these words.

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."
Click to expand...

Quoting the bible to me is rather pointless.

Oldvol75 said:
So it was only churches and out of state money that voted for this?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The churches and out-of-state money funded the slur campaign against the justices basing the change on gay marriage when the real issue was radicalism, apparently. I saw no commercials or ads here in IA that said anything about judicial radicalism. EVERY ad mentioned gay marriage.
 
#37
#37
Well, by applying the Larry Craig rule, that irrational hatred for gays is a form of self loathing, even for, say, 10%, theres a whole lotta butt sex going on.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#38
#38
Gay marriage is something that, if it ever becomes legally recognized, needs to be done at the national level with an opt-in provision for states that want to participate. Trying to force that kind of social change on the citizenry by forum shopping for a sympathetic state supreme court and then ramming it down the country's throat under the auspices of the full faith and credit clause is not the way to go about it. JMO
 
#39
#39
Good points, VH, especially re: the shopping around for a sympathetic court.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#40
#40
The divorce rate for heterosexual couples is 50%. :crazy:

Until heterosexuals start taking marriage seriously, why should I care if a few gays want to come together and screw up their lives in matrimony?
 
#41
#41
Rasputin_Vol said:
The divorce rate for heterosexual couples is 50%. :crazy:

Until heterosexuals start taking marriage seriously, why should I care if a few gays want to come together and screw up their lives in matrimony?
Click to expand...

you're exactly right. God doesn't like the fact that anyone gets divorced, but two wrongs do not make a right.
 
#42
#42
VOLatile said:
Yeah. What are you getting at?



Oh geez... a gay joke! I wouldn't expect less.



Quoting the bible to me is rather pointless.



The churches and out-of-state money funded the slur campaign against the justices basing the change on gay marriage when the real issue was radicalism, apparently. I saw no commercials or ads here in IA that said anything about judicial radicalism. EVERY ad mentioned gay marriage.
Click to expand...

That was not a joke.
 
#43
#43
VolunteerHillbilly said:
Gay marriage is something that, if it ever becomes legally recognized, needs to be done at the national level with an opt-in provision for states that want to participate. Trying to force that kind of social change on the citizenry by forum shopping for a sympathetic state supreme court and then ramming it down the country's throat under the auspices of the full faith and credit clause is not the way to go about it. JMO
Click to expand...

Or you could take government out of the marriage business altogether. The government can recognize civil unions for tax, power of attorney, and inheritance purposes. You would have heterosexual couples, gay couples, and polygamists for all I care in a civil union (but that can be debated). Then people can go to their religion of choice and get 'married' for the label.
 
#44
#44
lumberjack4 said:
Or you could take government out of the marriage business altogether. The government can recognize civil unions for tax, power of attorney, and inheritance purposes. You would have heterosexual couples, gay couples, and polygamists for all I care in a civil union (but that can be debated). Then people can go to their religion of choice and get 'married' for the label.
Click to expand...

This is my POV, but try telling it to the "moral majority" and closeted gays that piss and moan incessantly about it.
 
#45
#45
Good for the people of Iowa, now if they would just quit sending that commie Harkin back to DC, they would make it off my sh!t list!!

ortegawithharkinkerry.jpg
 
#46
#46
lumberjack4 said:
Or you could take government out of the marriage business altogether. The government can recognize civil unions for tax, power of attorney, and inheritance purposes. You would have heterosexual couples, gay couples, and polygamists for all I care in a civil union (but that can be debated). Then people can go to their religion of choice and get 'married' for the label.
Click to expand...
I don't mind if they just make every adult file a tax return with their own name and ss# on it and base every distribution of a decent's property on a will or the laws of intestacy.
 
#47
#47
Well, this is my view. I dont dislike gays. They dont really bother me.

In all cultures, not just ours, marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Regardless of religion, this holds true all across this world. Marriage was never intended to bring together two persons of the same sex.

There are male and females that love each other and live together for years and never get married. Why then, does some in the gay community want to push for gay marriage?

Does marriage change ones feelings toward one another? No
Are there certain rights that married individuals benefit from more than single? Yes
 
#48
#48
The way the courts are set up right now, men get the short end of the stick the majority of the time in divorce.

Now you add in gay marriage... :unsure:


What will be the trend if you have a bunch of gay divorces? What will be the determining factor as to who gets what assets, who gets custody of children (adoption, test tube babies, etc), and who gets the other spoiis of divorce?

Will they actually have to use common sense to determine who gets what in divorces? :eek:hmy:

If anything, I see this as an opportunity for the men's rights movement to step in and call foul.
 
#50
#50
CountVolcula said:
Well, this is my view. I dont dislike gays. They dont really bother me.
Click to expand...

Good to know "they" don't.

CountVolcula said:
In all cultures, not just ours, marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Regardless of religion, this holds true all across this world. Marriage was never intended to bring together two persons of the same sex.
Click to expand...

So changing the institution would do what, exactly? Would there be riots in the streets?

CountVolcula said:
There are male and females that love each other and live together for years and never get married. Why then, does some in the gay community want to push for gay marriage?
Click to expand...

Why do wealthy folks who don't need marital tax benefits get married then? It's a ceremonial act that two people use to tell each other that they want to spend the rest of their lives together. Why should anyone care about re-defining the institution? It just sounds like a cop-out excuse.

CountVolcula said:
Are there certain rights that married individuals benefit from more than single? Yes
Click to expand...

Why would you end your argument against gay marriage like this?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top