Loading ...Iowans: Lock Your Doors And Keep Your Powder Dry — Those “Dangerous” And “Immoral” Gay Folks Are Heading Your Way SOON
How could the Great State Of Iowa’s Supreme Court unanimously get such an important issue so wrong (Des Moines Register)? I don’t give a damn what those Iowan Justices say, marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. Unless you read the Holy Bible where it is often defined as “so-and-so and his many wives”. Or the Mormon version, which basically says the same thing. Or the Queran — same thing again. Okay, so we’ll get over that part — marriage is defined as a union between one man and as many women as one man wishes to marry, but hey — they’ve got to be 100% straight women, not gay women and definitely not bisexual women. Correct? Oh, heck, now I’m all confused. Somebody please straighten this out for me, will you?
Okay, so where are we headed next? It’s scary, isn’t it? Just the thought that the State of Iowa has just taken government out of the church. That just isn’t Constitutional, is it? Wait — maybe it is? Heck, again — confusing as heck to me, this issue. Just why did Iowa have to go and open up such a can of worms when we were slogging along just fine with the gay people locked out of any possibility of their pursuit of their own “twisted” version of the “American Dream”. Weren’t we? Or, maybe not so much. Again, this ill-advised ruling just destroys America and most definitely Iowa; destined to become a “Gay Los Vegas” now. Hide your kids, Iowans.
So, what’s next in Iowa? Multiple partner marriages — i.e. — one man and multiple women or vice versa? That would be just HORRIBLE, wouldn’t it? I mean, I have one very lovely wife and I would deserve everything coming my way for doubling, tripling, or quadrupling the pain “bliss” were such an ill-advised thing become a legal possibility. I’m sure glad government is standing in the way of multi-partner marriages. I’m not exactly sure why or if even that is Constitutionally “legal” of the government to get involved in the topic but it just “feels good” to type this statement because I feel the angel on my shoulder’s warm smile, and damn it — that should be reason enough to keep the government involved, correct?
Poor, poor Iowa. They’ve just set America back 220 years; back to the days of our Founding Fathers. Just what were they thinking?
***
Other “Must Reads”…
“… fear can overwhelm logic and justice. But remove fear – and the case is overwhelming.“
“When are the morons going to learn that you cannot vote away civil rights?“
“… The Iowa Supreme Court ruling was also a victory for separation of church and state and the concept that religious organizations cannot use the power of the state to impose their beliefs upon others… “
“Gay Marriage” is nothing but a “money grab” by gays from any and all individuals who choose not to “marry”.
Ask Andi!
He already “self-identifies” his “sexual relationship” as a “marriage”. What else does he want? (Can you say, “gov’t benefits”? I knew you could…)
Why should any “marriage” in the year 2010- (gay or straight)- provide an individual with extra special “gov’t benefits” that are not also available to each and every individual that has chosen not to marry?
My (half)-sister Nikki died in 2006 (age 45–way too fucking young!)- would Andi have supported my effort to “marry” her before she died so I could collect some 20 yrs of Socialist InSecurity “survivor benefits” in her name?
I was really surprised to see Iowa take this step, and it is interesting to note that the unanimous verdict included conservative as well as liberal judges. I don’t know if my feeling is correct or not, but I can’t help but have the sneaking notion that this is part of a reaction against Prop 8 on some level… that the ballot box attack on judicial review in California may have pissed off some judges who might not normally be this ‘activist.’
I am very glad to see another state court make the right ruling on this issue. The usual people are condemning this as loudly as they can. If Iowa allows ballot initiatives, we will certainly see an Iowa version on the ballot at the mid-term. If not, this will be the talking point of every Republican candidate in the state.
Fletch,
Is that the case with all marriages?
Marriage is different in the New Testament than it is in the Old Testament. There are two foundational shifts that occur in the New Testament which distinguishes its view of marriage from the one we find in the Old Testament. First, while marriage in the Old Testament was primarily a cultural concern for ethnic Israel, it is now a theological concern for spiritual Israel (the Church in Christ). Second, while marriage was the central human institution in Israel, its primacy is relativized in the New Testament by something greater…the coming of the kingdom of God.
The gospels present a multifaceted view of marriage. Marriage is relativized in the gospels. Marriage and family become secondary to the gospel. The gospels declare that something more important than kinship is now here. While Israel’s kinship was ethnic and tribal (by the blood of family), there is a new kinship that is theological and spiritual (by the blood of Christ).
Paul expands on the teachings of the gospels to demonstrate that marriage, in all its aspects, is a gospel issue. Paul teaches that marriage reflects the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). In fact, male leadership (5:23) and female submission (5:22, 24) within marriage are not an accident but are designed by God to most accurately reflect this relationship.
The reason that Christians defend this institutuion between a man and a woman is the spiritual significance given to marriage in the new testament as opposed to the old testament in which procreation was an important aspect of increasing the physical numbers of the tribes of Israel. Once God ordained that man had strayed from his teachings he sent Christ to earth to reaffirm and expand the new order that man was to follow.
No longer was the kingdom of God a far away abstract concept but rather “was at hand” and was to be within us. The institution of marriage was something that the founding fathers I believe did not feel the need to lay out because even among the diest and the atheists the prevailing wisdom of the 1700′s was that marriage most definetly was between a man and a woman.
However Our kingdom is not of this world and in conclusion if our nation chooses to let gays be married. So be it. Christians are to seek not the ways of this world but rather seek first the kingdom of God. We are to render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s and render unto God that which is Gods.
Meaning.
Christians I believe lost their way when they began trying to force their ways upon this government. We are simply to bear witness to the kingdom of God and let GOD do the work. NOT US.
I agree with the last paragraph there. Marriage is, or should be, a legal contract between two people who love each other. If they choose to involve some gobblyty-gook from one outdated book full of nonsense or another then they should be free to do so, but hopefully, in the next few generations we can get past relying on illogical, hateful, bigoted and nonsensical mythology to guide us.
There are two types of “marriage” that are being improperly mixed together in this discussion. There is a religious “marriage” over which the courts have no authority and which does not include relationships between same-sex couples. Then there is a secular “marriage” which in reality is simply a legal or civil union. The courts have addressed civil unions, regardless of the terminology – whether they call it a “marriage” or not is irrelevant. In the religious sense, gays cannot marry and courts cannot change that fact.
Hey girardia, long time…
Hi F&B,
I hope things have been going well for you. I’ve had some medical problems slowing me down a bit so I had to take a leave of absence from my duties here. I’m gonna try to pull my weight again. We’ll see what happens.
You are correct. Marriage really has more than one definition. I support peoples’ right to interpret marriage in the context of whatever religion they wish but when it comes to laws, religion should have absolutely nothing to do with things. The only reason to view a gay marriage as something different than a traditional one would be through a failure to seperate church and state. Besides, the hateful bigotry required to maintain this mindset results from serious misinterpretaion of scripture, and a failure to recognize that the golden rule is the underlying theme of not only Christianity, but of every other major religion as well.
F&B, I’m not disagreeing with you on this, but there are a couple of things that I want to point out, here.
“There is a religious “marriage” over which the courts have no authority and which does not include relationships between same-sex couples.”
Correction:
YOUR religious “marriage” does not include relationships between same-sex couples. MY religious “marriage” does not include relationships between same-sex couples. But YOUR religious “marriage” and MY religious “marriage” are not the same as ALL religious “marriage.” Primarily, most Christian religions do not allow for same-sex or multiple marriages; however, that cannot be said of all religions, or even most of them. That’s the problem with leaving it to a religious definition.
Now, religiously speaking, I think the people who worry so much about keeping marriage as a sacred union should be the very ones leading the example. Instead of focusing so much on those who shouldn’t marry, perhaps they should start by making sure that those they do allow to marry take it seriously. Once they start taking it seriously as a sacred religious union, then perhaps others will as well.
“In the religious sense, gays cannot marry and courts cannot change that fact.”
I can respect that; however, the reverse is also true. In the legal sense, gays should be able to marry, and religion should not be able to change that fact. If one is not true, then the other will not remain true for much longer. Something to chew on… When religion dictates what government can and cannot do, then government may well determine what religion can and cannot do. I like my government out of my religion, and so I keep my religion out of government.
I’ve seen the argument that religious contracts should be called “marriage” and government “civil unions,” but then we go back to the above problem where you have to choose one religion over another. I also feel like it gets into a whole other situation where we’re treating one group of people like less of a person by giving them a different category of sorts. It’s seperate but equal all over again.
There is no victim. There is no crime. It should not be outlawed. Government sould butt out.
Wait…if I move to Iowa I can have a harem of women?
Next thing you know religion will be taken out of government. No more Blue laws.
Boy, I sure am gonna miss those blue laws.
Any “money grab” that my husband and I get for being married disappears at income tax time. Adding our two incomes together always puts us in a higher tax bracket. If we divorced, lived together and filed as singles we would save thousands. No use in trying to file, Married, filing seperately because that would cost us thousands more. So we didn’t marry for money. we don’t stay married for money and we refuse to divorce for money. And we didn’t marry for committment either; we’ve been married for 25 years, together for 32 years. We married because it was easier than hiring a lawyer to make the paper work that would give us legal rights that we got automatically by being married.
So why do gays want to get married? Maybe for love, or committment or because they want the same legal rights that my husband and I have or maybe all of the above. My son, who is gay, and his long time partner have no intentions of getting married as they went the lawyer route years ago. They had their own committment ceremony with friends and family.
But I am so glad that slowly but surely the tide is turning and more and more people are seeing people who are gay as human first. And are also beginning to understand that being gay is just not that much of a choice. The only choice seems to be that of accepting their sexuality or denying it. My son came out when he was 17 years old in 1977 and it was hard on us, his family, but it was far harder on him. I was then, and still am, proud of his courage.
And it did take courage. He was denied jobs, housing and was beaten several times, all because he is gay. He says that it felt like being an early Christian in Rome; all except he wasn’t fed to lions but to the homophiles.
If a Iowa court, with a Republican on it appointed by Bush, can see the humanity of my son and agree that that he has legal rights then perhaps the rest of the United States will follow suit soon.
Lots of great comments but Gaia, you’re was EXTREMELY informative and touching. Thanks to all and thankya, Ma’am