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

[Danno 1,228]

I have to say I am a republican, but I am very disenchanted with the republican parties’ stance on embryonic stem cell research, abortion, sexual education, gay rights and religion in government. Hopefully the pounding they got in the last election will teach them that they need to change their views to be more in line with the rest of the majority. I kind of look at republican views on these subjects, like I look at the catholic churches view on birth control, what is the greater sin, use birth control or have 15 babies that you cant take care of and feed.

And I am a democrat who is disenchanted with their stand on Abortion, Taxes, Gay rights, Gun laws, Racial quotas and peace at any cost. (to name a few)

The GOP did exactly as you wanted... they ran a "middle of the road" republican for office.

How'd that work out?

Who would you have nominated?

[almaty 19]

i thought bush was a middle of the road gop, too?

[almaty 19]

i thought bush was a middle of the road gop, too?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Who knew...

The only road that McCain rode the center line on was the one that said "well I'm a Maverick, so I'm all about doing things differently, but I think things are working fine just as they are".

[dalegg 143]

People are still promiscuous though...

That's what the nightclub scene is all about...

True, albiet not quite as acceptable, as it once was, and much more "restrictive" as to the possible outcome for the evening. Even the gay community has become much more monogamus, which puts us back on topic. But, too late for Freddy Mercury!

Mags and I have a gay friend who has been with his partner for 10 years. That's about as monogamous as you can get - longer than many hetero marriages, even.

I'm curious about couples like this. Do they intend to get married if it is legal? If so, is there something specific they are looking for by getting the marriage certificate that they don't have now, or is it just to say "we're married"?

If it wasn't for the fact that you and your SO are from different countries, but lets say met in the local supermarket, and you had been together (as man and wife) for ten years, would you still want to get married?

No.

So are you just getting married because you have no other choice?

Pretty much. I want to be with Nicole, but since she is from another country she would not have been able to stay here if we weren't married.

[Peikko 1,575]

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

[dalegg 143]

The reasons I mentioned in an earlier post:

1. file taxes as married.

2. Ability to be "next-of-kin" for emergency and legal reasons.

3. Family insurance (the partner is a professor, and therefore has good health insurance while the guy who was our friend first has minimal - if any - health insurance.)

Our country offers benefits to married people. As such, our government is discriminating against certain citizens by denying them those same benefits. It's like those damn discount cards at supermarkets.... It's $3.99 if you have a card - $5.29 if you don't.

#1 doesn't really take a change in marriage laws. The government could amend the tax code and solve that issue without offending anyone.

#2 can be solved with a legal writ I would think. If it can't, again a simple amendment to make those legal statements most binding would solve the problem.

#3 - well, at least with my insurance that is already the case. Significant others have every right to the same insurance coverage as wives and children. The answer there is to change insurance companies.

Of course, you could use that logic to argue against heterosexual marriage just as readily.

Only if those were the only reasons for a heterosexual couple to get married. But those usually aren't the only reasons. Heterosexual couples get married also because they want to have sex and/or children together and have it legitimate in the eyes of their family and/or God. I think this is the number one reason why marriage began in the first place.

This doesn't really apply to gay marriages. They certainly aren't going to have children together, and I can't really believe most parents are going to change from being unapproving of a gay union until the day they are actually married, and then suddenly be happy about it.

[fozzie 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!

[fozzie 41]

The reasons I mentioned in an earlier post:

1. file taxes as married.

2. Ability to be "next-of-kin" for emergency and legal reasons.

3. Family insurance (the partner is a professor, and therefore has good health insurance while the guy who was our friend first has minimal - if any - health insurance.)

Our country offers benefits to married people. As such, our government is discriminating against certain citizens by denying them those same benefits. It's like those damn discount cards at supermarkets.... It's $3.99 if you have a card - $5.29 if you don't.

#1 doesn't really take a change in marriage laws. The government could amend the tax code and solve that issue without offending anyone.

#2 can be solved with a legal writ I would think. If it can't, again a simple amendment to make those legal statements most binding would solve the problem.

#3 - well, at least with my insurance that is already the case. Significant others have every right to the same insurance coverage as wives and children. The answer there is to change insurance companies.

Of course, you could use that logic to argue against heterosexual marriage just as readily.

Only if those were the only reasons for a heterosexual couple to get married. But those usually aren't the only reasons. Heterosexual couples get married also because they want to have sex and/or children together and have it legitimate in the eyes of their family and/or God. I think this is the number one reason why marriage began in the first place.

This doesn't really apply to gay marriages. They certainly aren't going to have children together, and I can't really believe most parents are going to change from being unapproving of a gay union until the day they are actually married, and then suddenly be happy about it.

Marriage is also about commitment. Saying to someone officially in front of family and friends that we are married and love each other. Do we need to to? No but we want to . As for having kids in the traditional sense of the word then no gay couples can't do that. However there other ways such as adoption.

[Peikko 1,575]

Many homosexual couples do have children together. They may not have biological ties, but without the help of homosexuals, there would be far more orphans languishing in orphanages.

Not a gay story, but I was listening to a program about a single guy in the UK who adopted 2 kids, really interesting.

[dalegg 143]

The reasons I mentioned in an earlier post:

1. file taxes as married.

2. Ability to be "next-of-kin" for emergency and legal reasons.

3. Family insurance (the partner is a professor, and therefore has good health insurance while the guy who was our friend first has minimal - if any - health insurance.)

Our country offers benefits to married people. As such, our government is discriminating against certain citizens by denying them those same benefits. It's like those damn discount cards at supermarkets.... It's $3.99 if you have a card - $5.29 if you don't.

#1 doesn't really take a change in marriage laws. The government could amend the tax code and solve that issue without offending anyone.

#2 can be solved with a legal writ I would think. If it can't, again a simple amendment to make those legal statements most binding would solve the problem.

#3 - well, at least with my insurance that is already the case. Significant others have every right to the same insurance coverage as wives and children. The answer there is to change insurance companies.

Of course, you could use that logic to argue against heterosexual marriage just as readily.

Only if those were the only reasons for a heterosexual couple to get married. But those usually aren't the only reasons. Heterosexual couples get married also because they want to have sex and/or children together and have it legitimate in the eyes of their family and/or God. I think this is the number one reason why marriage began in the first place.

This doesn't really apply to gay marriages. They certainly aren't going to have children together, and I can't really believe most parents are going to change from being unapproving of a gay union until the day they are actually married, and then suddenly be happy about it.

Marriage is also about commitment. Saying to someone officially in front of family and friends that we are married and love each other. Do we need to to? No but we want to . As for having kids in the traditional sense of the word then no gay couples can't do that. However there other ways such as adoption.

Yeah, and do they need to be married to do that? No.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Its funny how many anti-gay people in the world change their opinion once their son or daughter turns out to be gay.

Good point.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The reasons I mentioned in an earlier post:

1. file taxes as married.

2. Ability to be "next-of-kin" for emergency and legal reasons.

3. Family insurance (the partner is a professor, and therefore has good health insurance while the guy who was our friend first has minimal - if any - health insurance.)

Our country offers benefits to married people. As such, our government is discriminating against certain citizens by denying them those same benefits. It's like those damn discount cards at supermarkets.... It's $3.99 if you have a card - $5.29 if you don't.

#1 doesn't really take a change in marriage laws. The government could amend the tax code and solve that issue without offending anyone.

#2 can be solved with a legal writ I would think. If it can't, again a simple amendment to make those legal statements most binding would solve the problem.

#3 - well, at least with my insurance that is already the case. Significant others have every right to the same insurance coverage as wives and children. The answer there is to change insurance companies.

Of course, you could use that logic to argue against heterosexual marriage just as readily.

Only if those were the only reasons for a heterosexual couple to get married. But those usually aren't the only reasons. Heterosexual couples get married also because they want to have sex and/or children together and have it legitimate in the eyes of their family and/or God. I think this is the number one reason why marriage began in the first place.

This doesn't really apply to gay marriages. They certainly aren't going to have children together, and I can't really believe most parents are going to change from being unapproving of a gay union until the day they are actually married, and then suddenly be happy about it.

Marriage is also about commitment. Saying to someone officially in front of family and friends that we are married and love each other. Do we need to to? No but we want to . As for having kids in the traditional sense of the word then no gay couples can't do that. However there other ways such as adoption.

Yeah, and do they need to be married to do that? No.

What difference does that make though?

You can have sex and have kids as a heterosexual without being married.

Why do we need to scrutinise a persons reasons for wanting to do it?

If you or I did that to a straight couple we'd rightly be told to piss off and mind our own business.

Why the need to act as judge and jury over why someone's desire to get married, just because they're gay?

[mawilson 2,133]

Only if those were the only reasons for a heterosexual couple to get married. But those usually aren't the only reasons. Heterosexual couples get married also because they want to have sex and/or children together and have it legitimate in the eyes of their family and/or God. I think this is the number one reason why marriage began in the first place.

Marriage had to have been invented by a woman. No guy would ever come up with the idea of

living together as one and when it doesn't work out, giving up half his #######.

Seriously though, the idea that it was "God's will" that men and women should not have sex with

anyone but one person throughout their entire life span and that too with a marriage license for

him/her, is completely insane.

[Peikko 1,575]

It is, but that is not why there is a marriage contract, as you well know Mr Wilson