Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman

[Peikko 1,575]

It was never about what 'god' wanted.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

But its circular logic isn't it?

What reason *is* good enough for gay couples to be allowed to marry if none of the arguments that apply to anyone else are applicable?

I think the reason that would be good enough is that the entire institution of marriage being based on a union of a man and woman before God is a sham.

which God? I mean, so we are all on the same page.

Pick one.

Cool. I'll play. My Creator loves all creatures equally. Communion of Two-Spirited people (gays to you) are not frowned upon- and no, I am not making it up.

OWNED.

[fozzie 41]

But its circular logic isn't it?

What reason *is* good enough for gay couples to be allowed to marry if none of the arguments that apply to anyone else are applicable?

I think the reason that would be good enough is that the entire institution of marriage being based on a union of a man and woman before God is a sham.

which God? I mean, so we are all on the same page.

Pick one.

Well thats a bit of an issue isn't it. Every religion has its own god so whose god sanctions marriage?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

In many states (not sure about all?) de facto hetro couples get the benefits regardless of being married or not.

The UK is like that. I think you have to live together as man and wife for six months to fall under common law marriage. Doesn't seem like long these days!

Currently, only 9 states (Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma, and Texas) and the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages contracted within their borders. In addition, five states have "grandfathered" common law marriage (Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania) allowing those established before a certain date to be recognized. New Hampshire recognizes common law marriage only for purposes of probate, and Utah recognizes common law marriages only if they have been validated by a court or administrative order.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/commonlaw.htm

[Chica Yeyé 41]

In many states (not sure about all?) de facto hetro couples get the benefits regardless of being married or not.

The UK is like that. I think you have to live together as man and wife for six months to fall under common law marriage. Doesn't seem like long these days!

Currently, only 9 states (Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma, and Texas) and the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages contracted within their borders. In addition, five states have "grandfathered" common law marriage (Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania) allowing those established before a certain date to be recognized. New Hampshire recognizes common law marriage only for purposes of probate, and Utah recognizes common law marriages only if they have been validated by a court or administrative order.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/commonlaw.htm

Canada also recognizes common-law after one year of continuous cohabitation - even for immigration purposes.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, the curiosities of State law.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ah, the curiosities of State law.

In a way, it is kind of nice. You can pick the state whose laws suite your lifestyle best. If you like whoring, gambling, sub-machine guns, and flame-throwers, then Nevada seems like a good place to go.

http://www.westernhunter.com/Pages/Vol07Is...machinegun.html

[Sofiyya 1,687]

But that isn't *the goal*. The goal is a variety of legal rights that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples (of which that is but one).

And thanks for injecting polygamy back into the debate - as if it has anything to do with what you quoted above

Get some new arguments Danno - this polygamy thing angle is getting very stale.

IT may be "stale for you"... but it's not stale for others who not only don't enjoy the rights of marriage...but they also have to fight against those of you who feel rights are not for EVERYONE, just for select groups.

Tsk Tsk

Danno, the only reason why your point is dissed is because no one on this thread is advocating it, not because it's not a vaid concern for others. Most of the people posting here are only interested in what they want, not what anyone else wants. When polygamy becomes an issue, and it will because gay marriage is not the end of the debate, that's when we'll see how far they are willing to go with their compassion and fairness.

Who on this thread is using religion as the reason to deny same sex marriage? I must have missed that.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Barza Woman

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Ah, the curiosities of State law.

In a way, it is kind of nice. You can pick the state whose laws suite your lifestyle best. If you like whoring, gambling, sub-machine guns, and flame-throwers, then Nevada seems like a good place to go.

http://www.westernhunter.com/Pages/Vol07Is...machinegun.html

And I do not doubt a lot of folks choose their place of residence based on such laws.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But that isn't *the goal*. The goal is a variety of legal rights that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples (of which that is but one).

And thanks for injecting polygamy back into the debate - as if it has anything to do with what you quoted above

Get some new arguments Danno - this polygamy thing angle is getting very stale.

IT may be "stale for you"... but it's not stale for others who not only don't enjoy the rights of marriage...but they also have to fight against those of you who feel rights are not for EVERYONE, just for select groups.

Tsk Tsk

Danno, the only reason why your point is dissed is because no one on this thread is advocating it, not because it's not a vaid concern for others. Most of the people posting here are only interested in what they want, not what anyone else wants. When polygamy becomes an issue, and it will because gay marriage is not the end of the debate, that's when we'll see how far they are willing to go with their compassion and fairness.

Whatever. I've said on numerous occasions that the reason we're talking about gay marriage now is because homosexuality has achieved mainstream acceptability. That's why there is a public debate about gay marriage.

There is currently no mainstream debate on polygamy, because of the sheer impracticality of integrating plural marriage into our current framework of laws. The only way anyone here can discuss that is in purely theoretical terms - Its a red herring.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

But that isn't *the goal*. The goal is a variety of legal rights that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples (of which that is but one).

And thanks for injecting polygamy back into the debate - as if it has anything to do with what you quoted above

Get some new arguments Danno - this polygamy thing angle is getting very stale.

IT may be "stale for you"... but it's not stale for others who not only don't enjoy the rights of marriage...but they also have to fight against those of you who feel rights are not for EVERYONE, just for select groups.

Tsk Tsk

Danno, the only reason why your point is dissed is because no one on this thread is advocating it, not because it's not a vaid concern for others. Most of the people posting here are only interested in what they want, not what anyone else wants. When polygamy becomes an issue, and it will because gay marriage is not the end of the debate, that's when we'll see how far they are willing to go with their compassion and fairness.

Whatever. I've said on numerous occasions that the reason we're talking about gay marriage now is because homosexuality has achieved mainstream acceptability. That's why there is a public debate about gay marriage.

There is currently no mainstream debate on polygamy, because of the sheer impracticality of integrating plural marriage into our current framework of laws. The only way anyone here can discuss that is in purely theoretical terms - Its a red herring.

That's only true if you're short-sighted, and that's pretty common here.

[Danno 1,228]

But that isn't *the goal*. The goal is a variety of legal rights that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples (of which that is but one).

And thanks for injecting polygamy back into the debate - as if it has anything to do with what you quoted above

Get some new arguments Danno - this polygamy thing angle is getting very stale.

IT may be "stale for you"... but it's not stale for others who not only don't enjoy the rights of marriage...but they also have to fight against those of you who feel rights are not for EVERYONE, just for select groups.

Tsk Tsk

Danno, the only reason why your point is dissed is because no one on this thread is advocating it, not because it's not a vaid concern for others. Most of the people posting here are only interested in what they want, not what anyone else wants. When polygamy becomes an issue, and it will because gay marriage is not the end of the debate, that's when we'll see how far they are willing to go with their compassion and fairness.

Who on this thread is using religion as the reason to deny same sex marriage? I must have missed that.

Yes and infact we not only have a prior history of this type of family set up (POLY) we also have whole communities which are now living this way.

Because it's illegal and hidden, it is ripe for other crimes to flourish.

The news reports focus on these extreme cases and disregard the vast majority of families living normal every day lives... with the exception of the number of people in the secret relationship.

I say if you give the right to marry to two men... well how in the world can you deny a three some. People either have a "Right" to marry according to the dictates of love (Liberal speak) or the state does have the right to draw bounds.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But that isn't *the goal*. The goal is a variety of legal rights that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples (of which that is but one).

And thanks for injecting polygamy back into the debate - as if it has anything to do with what you quoted above

Get some new arguments Danno - this polygamy thing angle is getting very stale.

IT may be "stale for you"... but it's not stale for others who not only don't enjoy the rights of marriage...but they also have to fight against those of you who feel rights are not for EVERYONE, just for select groups.

Tsk Tsk

Danno, the only reason why your point is dissed is because no one on this thread is advocating it, not because it's not a vaid concern for others. Most of the people posting here are only interested in what they want, not what anyone else wants. When polygamy becomes an issue, and it will because gay marriage is not the end of the debate, that's when we'll see how far they are willing to go with their compassion and fairness.

Whatever. I've said on numerous occasions that the reason we're talking about gay marriage now is because homosexuality has achieved mainstream acceptability. That's why there is a public debate about gay marriage.

There is currently no mainstream debate on polygamy, because of the sheer impracticality of integrating plural marriage into our current framework of laws. The only way anyone here can discuss that is in purely theoretical terms - Its a red herring.

That's only true if you're short-sighted, and that's pretty common here.

If the point has any substance behind it - it won't be difficult to elaborate on and articulate a response.

If it has no substance - and is just being promoted for reasons of political correctness and moral relativism, it will be.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

But that isn't *the goal*. The goal is a variety of legal rights that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples (of which that is but one).

And thanks for injecting polygamy back into the debate - as if it has anything to do with what you quoted above

Get some new arguments Danno - this polygamy thing angle is getting very stale.

IT may be "stale for you"... but it's not stale for others who not only don't enjoy the rights of marriage...but they also have to fight against those of you who feel rights are not for EVERYONE, just for select groups.

Tsk Tsk

Danno, the only reason why your point is dissed is because no one on this thread is advocating it, not because it's not a vaid concern for others. Most of the people posting here are only interested in what they want, not what anyone else wants. When polygamy becomes an issue, and it will because gay marriage is not the end of the debate, that's when we'll see how far they are willing to go with their compassion and fairness.

Whatever. I've said on numerous occasions that the reason we're talking about gay marriage now is because homosexuality has achieved mainstream acceptability. That's why there is a public debate about gay marriage.

There is currently no mainstream debate on polygamy, because of the sheer impracticality of integrating plural marriage into our current framework of laws. The only way anyone here can discuss that is in purely theoretical terms - Its a red herring.

That's only true if you're short-sighted, and that's pretty common here.

If the point has any substance behind it - it won't be difficult to elaborate on and articulate a response.

If it has no substance - and is just being promoted for reasons of political correctness and moral relativism, it will be.

You demanding substance?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But that isn't *the goal*. The goal is a variety of legal rights that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples (of which that is but one).

And thanks for injecting polygamy back into the debate - as if it has anything to do with what you quoted above

Get some new arguments Danno - this polygamy thing angle is getting very stale.

IT may be "stale for you"... but it's not stale for others who not only don't enjoy the rights of marriage...but they also have to fight against those of you who feel rights are not for EVERYONE, just for select groups.

Tsk Tsk

Danno, the only reason why your point is dissed is because no one on this thread is advocating it, not because it's not a vaid concern for others. Most of the people posting here are only interested in what they want, not what anyone else wants. When polygamy becomes an issue, and it will because gay marriage is not the end of the debate, that's when we'll see how far they are willing to go with their compassion and fairness.

Whatever. I've said on numerous occasions that the reason we're talking about gay marriage now is because homosexuality has achieved mainstream acceptability. That's why there is a public debate about gay marriage.

There is currently no mainstream debate on polygamy, because of the sheer impracticality of integrating plural marriage into our current framework of laws. The only way anyone here can discuss that is in purely theoretical terms - Its a red herring.

That's only true if you're short-sighted, and that's pretty common here.

If the point has any substance behind it - it won't be difficult to elaborate on and articulate a response.

If it has no substance - and is just being promoted for reasons of political correctness and moral relativism, it will be.

You demanding substance?

You unable to provide it?

Seriously - I love this back and forth, I guess its all you can do when you having nothing to say.

I'm sure you can spin this into an "I am rubber, you are glue / sticks and stones" comeback. Feel free - you've validated my point.