Iowa SC legalizes Same Sex Marriage in Unanimous Decision

[Soxbadger]

Polygamy should be legal as long as its between consenting adults.

 

Marrying your first cousin should be legal. (Better question is about allowing them to procreate.)

 

In fact marriage to first cousins is legal in many states.

 

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Polygamy results in abuse at a high frequency, and first-cousin marriage results in children at an astronomically high rate for all sorts of problems. In both cases, the societal damage is documented and huge. Gay marriage does no such thing - it doesn't promote abuse any more than any other marriage, and it doesn't result in retarded or handicapped children.

 

Actually, I recall reading a couple of studies showing that genetic abnormalities in offspring of closely-related people (such as 1st cousins) aren't really that much higher than the general population. I'll see if I can dig them up some time today or tomorrow. Also, not all marriages result in children, so that isn't a stipulation anyway.

 

I don't know much about polygamy abuse rates, but I'm not surprised since they usually come from extreme fundamentalist authoritarian societies.

[lostfan]

They were already allowed to. It was about the right to marry whom (trying to recall The Office debate about when to use who/whom)

It sounds really simple when it's explained like this, but if the pronoun who/whom is referring to ends in "m" (him, them, so also her) then you use whom.

 

To whom does this car belong? Him.

Who is coming with us? He.

[StrangeSox]

Polygamy should be legal as long as its between consenting adults.

 

Marrying your first cousin should be legal. (Better question is about allowing them to procreate.)

 

In fact marriage to first cousins is legal in many states.

 

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss

 

Wouldn't a lot of laws have to be re-written or re-interpreted in light of multi-party marriages? You'd also have problems dealing with private entities like insurance plans.

[StrangeSox]

They were already allowed to. It was about the right to marry whom (trying to recall The Office debate about when to use who/whom)

 

Right, just like 40 years ago, both blacks and whites could marry, they just couldn't marry each other. It's still a violation of civil liberties.

[Soxy]

Actually, I recall reading a couple of studies showing that genetic abnormalities in offspring of closely-related people (such as 1st cousins) aren't really that much higher than the general population. I'll see if I can dig them up some time today or tomorrow. Also, not all marriages result in children, so that isn't a stipulation anyway.

 

I don't know much about polygamy abuse rates, but I'm not surprised since they usually come from extreme fundamentalist authoritarian societies.

In one of my classes (conditioning and learning?) the instructor said that actually, from an evolutionary aspect, marrying your first cousin in optimal. It allows you to pass on maximal amounts of your genetic info with minimal genetic defects.

[NorthSideSox72]

If it is all about rights and such I don't see any difference at all. If I wanted to marry my cousin why can't I? (I know I could in some states but in general i'm fairly confident you can't). As for polygamy leading to a high frequency of abuse, well, what's to say I wouldn't be in a loving relationship with 3 or 4 wives who all loved each other? Nothing. Should medically retarded people be allowed to marry each other? I'd think they'd have a pretty high chance of having children with problems. I mean how can you (not you directly) claim it's all about the "right to marry" and yet still deny it to others.

 

I believe gay people should be able to engage in a civil union with all the legal rights and privileges that a marriage allows. I also believe in civil unions b/w two consenting individuals with no sexual relationship. For example, my grandmother has two friends, sisters, who never married or had kids and lived 100% of their adult lives in the same house. I believe they, or any other pairing that makes sense, should be allowed to have the legal privileges a civil union could provide. But to me, the term marriage is a union between a man and a woman. You will never change my opinion on that.

You are simply using the hyperbole here, saying it we allow gay marriage, why not marrying anyone or anything as many as you want, which NO one is saying.

 

Its really simple to me. People should be able to socialize with whomever they want, in whatever way they want, as long as it doesn't jeapordize the health and safety of others. Gay marriage doesn't do anything to you, and doesn't harm anyone. Polygamy and familial marriage do.

 

[TheBigHurt]

If you're not gay then it simply doesn't concern you, so I don't see why it is such big deal. I think religion is the biggest thing, but no one has to abide by someone else's beliefs. I don't think homosexuality is right but I fully support gay marriage. Let the people be happy for Chrissakes. There's just no logical reason not to.

[Soxbadger]

Wouldn't a lot of laws have to be re-written or re-interpreted in light of multi-party marriages? You'd also have problems dealing with private entities like insurance plans.

 

A lot of laws needed to be rewritten and reinterpreted when Black people were given rights or when women were given rights.

 

I mean its not really that hard to change intestate laws or to add an additional line on beneficiary forms.

 

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

What's next?

Iowa is the most socially conservative state to legalize same-sex marriage, which is in place in Massachusetts and Connecticut and was abolished in California.

 

But law and politics there mean that same-sex marriage will likely stay legal, at least, until 2013.

 

Iowa blogger Desmoinesdem explains the law: A constitutional amendment can get on the ballot only after being passed in two consecutive two-year sessions. But Democratic leaders -- who welcomed the court ruling -- say they won't hold a vote on it this year; they're likely to block any vote in at least the State Senate until the end of this session in 2010.

 

If Republicans pick up seats, or the climate changes, you could see an amendment passing in the 2011-2012 session, and again in 2013. But that is a very long way off.

[Soxy]

Here's the thing. I feel like people think that the midwest is really conservative and all that. But I don't think it is very socially conservative--I think it's really just that people are more private. I'm not surprised at all by this ruling.

[bmags]

Here's the thing. I feel like people think that the midwest is really conservative and all that. But I don't think it is very socially conservative--I think it's really just that people are more private. I'm not surprised at all by this ruling.

 

That's very apt, but perhaps only to Iowa. Missouri is bats*** crazy, imo. The things that get added to our constitution are just embarrassing.

[Heads22]

What's next?

 

Labeling Iowa as socially conservative.....well......it's hardly correct. I mean, since we hand out pie at toll booths and all, people think we're backwards. We've got a pretty stout history of progressivism.

 

Here's the thing. I feel like people think that the midwest is really conservative and all that. But I don't think it is very socially conservative--I think it's really just that people are more private. I'm not surprised at all by this ruling.

 

We tend to just let people do their thing as long as it doesn't bother us.

[Soxy]

That's very apt, but perhaps only to Iowa. Missouri is bats*** crazy, imo. The things that get added to our constitution are just embarrassing.

I feel like it's maybe true more for the upper midwest than the lower parts.

[Heads22]

BTW, God has sent a blizzard to smite us.

[ptatc]

If you're not gay then it simply doesn't concern you, so I don't see why it is such big deal. I think religion is the biggest thing, but no one has to abide by someone else's beliefs. I don't think homosexuality is right but I fully support gay marriage. Let the people be happy for Chrissakes. There's just no logical reason not to.

 

I really don't care one way or another however it does concern everyone. The reason it does is economics. The reason many people want the legal marriage is for spouse insurance benefits and everything that goes with it. Anybody canlive with someone they love, but the legal marriage has more to do with recognition on a legal basis and the benefits thatgo with it.

 

All of this spreads the insurance dollar thin especially health care with AIDS, which is higher in male-male couples.

[Heads22]

[NorthSideSox72]

LOL

 

[Soxy]

Isn't actually a picture of a farmer and his spinster daughter?

[The Critic]

[hack comedian]

HEY, WHY SHOULD THE STRAIGHT PEOPLE BE THE ONLY ONES SUFFERING?!?!?!

[/hack comedian]

[vandy125]

If you're not gay then it simply doesn't concern you, so I don't see why it is such big deal. I think religion is the biggest thing, but no one has to abide by someone else's beliefs. I don't think homosexuality is right but I fully support gay marriage. Let the people be happy for Chrissakes. There's just no logical reason not to.

 

I don't think that you can argue it that way. There are ways to argue for or against gay marriage, but you can't say that beliefs have no place. Beliefs that are held firmly by our society are put down into laws. For example, I believe that we all need to stop at red lights. We all pretty much agree with that one and set it down as law. We put those beliefs into law for many reasons (financial, physical, emotional, etc harms that they can cause). This is one that affects a lot of people for various reasons.

[Balta1701]

I don't think that you can argue it that way. There are ways to argue for or against gay marriage, but you can't say that beliefs have no place. Beliefs that are held firmly by our society are put down into laws. For example, I believe that we all need to stop at red lights. We all pretty much agree with that one and set it down as law.

This is a terrible example. If you run a red light, you're clearly impinging upon my rights to, you know, live. The rules regarding red lights are more than beliefs, they're basic structures set up in society so that we aren't accidentally killing each other. If we didn't follow those rules, then either society wouldn't function as it currently does because no one would drive given the 50/50 chances of dying, or we'd run out of cemetery space.

 

No one died after the first gay people got married. Gay people getting married does not impinge upon my rights to live my life any way I want. It does not affect my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, to borrow a phrase.

[vandy125]

This is a terrible example. If you run a red light, you're clearly impinging upon my rights to, you know, live. The rules regarding red lights are more than beliefs, they're basic structures set up in society so that we aren't accidentally killing each other. If we didn't follow those rules, then either society wouldn't function as it currently does because no one would drive given the 50/50 chances of dying, or we'd run out of cemetery space.

 

No one died after the first gay people got married. Gay people getting married does not impinge upon my rights to live my life any way I want. It does not affect my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, to borrow a phrase.

 

Hey, I just grabbed the first example that came to mind. Would you rather I use the example of laws that need to be set down for environmental causes? Those are all based upon beliefs as well. We may put a bunch of laws into place when many people disagree as to whether or not we can have an affect on the global environment, which btw I think that we can and do. Same principal. Our laws are based upon what we believe.

[Balta1701]

Hey, I just grabbed the first example that came to mind. Would you rather I use the example of laws that need to be set down for environmental causes? Those are all based upon beliefs as well. We may put a bunch of laws into place when many people disagree as to whether or not we can have an affect on the global environment, which btw I think that we can and do. Same principal. Our laws are based upon what we believe.

Again, environmental laws can be argued to be a terrible example. Really easy one. The Clean air act. Or the clean water act. Or the endangered species act. Whatever. It is simple to argue that those laws exist in no small part because not having them is a detriment to all of us. Most people don't want PCB's in their water. Or to be downing liters of mercury because there's a coal plant near by. Or to have the ecosystem for a dozen species die off because a key predator was removed and the environment in the area went crazy.

 

In virtually every case, there is a negative outcome for at least a group of people or for the country as a whole if you don't have those laws. You are interfering with my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if you're constantly trying to give me cancer. Gay Marriage does not.

[vandy125]

Again, environmental laws can be argued to be a terrible example. Really easy one. The Clean air act. Or the clean water act. Or the endangered species act. Whatever. It is simple to argue that those laws exist in no small part because not having them is a detriment to all of us. Most people don't want PCB's in their water. Or to be downing liters of mercury because there's a coal plant near by. Or to have the ecosystem for a dozen species die off because a key predator was removed and the environment in the area went crazy.

 

In virtually every case, there is a negative outcome for at least a group of people or for the country as a whole if you don't have those laws. You are interfering with my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if you're constantly trying to give me cancer. Gay Marriage does not.

 

That all depends on what you think about gay marriage. I was looking to not take a stance on it here, but I'll try and show the negative (that I am not yet fully convinced of) since you are taking the positive. It has already been argued that there is a financial cost to gay marriage due to insurance, blah, blah, etc (of course this is debatable too). There is also the argument that it leads our whole society to accept something that many people do not want to accept (again not saying whether or not that is a good thing). You believe it does not infringe on other people, others would disagree. It is a matter of what you believe and that is what gives us our laws.

 

I don't think anything that we do is done in a bubble. There are repercussions for everything that we do that affect those around us. So, it matters as to whether or not you believe that those repercussions are large enough or not to put into law. I'm not going into a full out huge dissertation on this because frankly I think that there needs to be a split between religious view of marriage and government marriage. As our government sits, we are not supposed to be sanctioning religious ideals.

Edited April 3, 2009 by vandy125