Wow, doesn’t the Iowa Supreme Court realize that God is likely to strike the state off of the face of the earth just as was done in MA, CA, and CT?
Peace!

“Our worse fears have been realized,” said U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron, who helped write the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act while he was a state senator in the Iowa Legislature.
“I can’t think of a more activist decision that has been made by this Iowa Supreme Court,” King said while appearing on a WHO-AM radio talk show.
“It turns immediately Iowa into the Mecca for same-sex marriages — a destination state,” he said. “There will be weekend packages that are being planned right now. It will be the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage for America if the Legislature doesn’t act now.”
First, if this is Rep King’s “worse fear”, he must not be paying attention to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan….nor, the current economy….nor, can he be listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck. What kind of a Republican can he be?
Second, perhaps he needs to take a civic course so he is better understand the role Supreme Court Justices play in our judicial system.
Third….what a nightmare…with the economy stagnant, what could be worse than people from all over the mid-west going to Iowa and spending money on weddings, receptions, etc?
Peace!

Yep, the crazies are getting wound up and will be going full force pretty soon. Maybe, just maybe straight Iowans will notice that their marriages aren’t affected at all and will decide to not raise a fuss. But you know the Party of Limbaugh will stir up as much fecal matter as they can to get their reliable voters excited.

This should be such a non-issue. As JohnQ points out, there are lots of real problems. The Republicans, no doubt getting desperate that Obama and the Democrats are making progress toward solving the pile of problems left by Bush and the Republicans, will distract as many people as they can with side issues. Let the gays marry and experience married life like the rest of us, with its advantages and joys and pains. And let’s work on the real problems facing us.

Thank you Iowans and the Supeme Court for giving equal rights in Iowa. Evidently the Republicans complaining don’t understand their states Iowa Constitution. It’s been there all the time and now it is complying with it by allowing SS marriages. As Iowa goes, the nation goes, remember this adage?

this is a wonderful birthday present!
Slowly, equality will be a reality rather than something we simply talk about and then discuss.
I look forward to the day when “with liberty and justice for all” becomes the truth!

PERFECT! Heard it on the news today and was more than pleasantly surprised. Iowa…who would have “thunk it?”

I think I’ll hold off celebrating until after the inevitable election in the hope that enough people in Iowa decide that the romantic relationships of other people aren’t any of their business (except in circumstances when someone is being mistreated). Not holding out much hope, of course, as the marriage police will probably cook up a real horror story to get the gullible to vote their way.

Wohoo go Iowa!! I have been so sick of midwest “values”, It was embarassing when MO passed the admendment refusing same sex marriages. I’ve seen more than enough relationships in the gay community to know that it is no better and no worse than any other marriage/partnership. Im’for giving anyone who wants to love someone have that chance to do it legally. For me, I will keep to partnerships after 1 husband cheating through the marriage and the second one becoming increasily verbaly abusive, I don’t plan on legally tieing my self to anyone. But thats my choice… everyone should have the same choice.

I need to say that Iowa has a much stronger progressive history than many people seem to think. Iowa was one of the founding states of the Farmer-Labor Party, was the first state to outlaw slavery (in 1839 I think), and was the first state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, about 20 minutes after it was passed by Congress.
Iowa is very rural and largely Protestant. Let this monumental court ruling, and these facts from the state’s history, remind us that social and political conservativism are *not* core value of mainline Protestantism, that political liberalism, at least, is.
In recent years, we have been led to believe otherwise, by Scaife and Coors and the ill-named “Institute for Religion and Democracy” and certain other figures. Let us all see and know that they are liars.
Deacon Scott
BA, Philosphy & Psychology, University of Iowa, 1977.
(Go Hawkeyes!)

Good points Scott. And will you, a good Big 10 graduate, be rooting for MSU today?

This is great news. Hopefully other states will follow suit and stop forcing their religious beliefs down other adult’s throats.

nnms -
Most certainly not!
My U of Michigan alumna spouse (BA ’77, MA ’82) would kill me!
8^)
DS

Ah, there’s a real religious issue. Should you support your conference against other conferences or respect important rivalries? There must be some real philosophical content there.

There is a story in a VT newspaper http://www.reformer.com/ci_12070840 that suggests that even though the VT legislation that passed both their state senate and house did not pass with enough votes to over-ride a veto….that indeed they may be able to pull together enough votes.
I wonder if the Iowa ruling that was announced on Friday will provide some with the courage to do what is right and over-ride a veto that would prevent equal-marriage rights in VT?
If it in fact the veto is over-ridden, I can hear the call go out to followers of FRC, FOF, ACLJ, etc suggesting that the sky is falling.
Peace!

Oops, I left out the most important part of that emergency call to action by the FRC, FOF, ACLJ, etc. which would of course be: SEND MONEY NOW!
Please do not misunderstand, I think these organizations have every right to solicit money from their followers. Even if that money would be used to promote bigotry, discrimination, and prejudice.
Peace!

But JohnQ,
“Oops, I left out the most important part of that emergency call to action by the FRC, FOF, ACLJ, etc. which would of course be: SEND MONEY NOW!”
Didn’t you know that to groups, Gay Marriage and Abortion is the only real threats that exist in the world!?!
Seriously, it’s a money maker for them. Prey on fear and send money.
One of the best scams going.

Should read:
Didn’t you know that to THESE groups…

JohnQ: “I think these organizations have every right to solicit money from their followers. Even if that money would be used to promote bigotry, discrimination, and prejudice.”
How dare you accuse us conservative Christians (as if there were any other kind) of such things? You’re all just a bunch of liberals who want to close down our churches, put us in prison, and teach our children that two men or two women getting married is not the equivalent of human-plant marriage. Which it is, because…just because, that’s all! And you must want to date plants, because if you disagree with us on one moral issue, clearly you must disagree with us on the rest. There is no middle ground.
I’m still working on my impression, but I think it’s getting better.

Mordred08-
There are many of us Christians that are not completely conservative. Many of us support equal-rights for all people LGBT included….as well as a woman’s right to choose.
Or, were you suggesting that Conservative Christians don’t think up Christians who support equal-rights are real Christians?
Peace!

“core value of mainline Protestantism”
I didn’t realize a mainline Protestant has core values, since every time one disagrees with his minister he gets up and starts a church of his own in his living room with a handful of friends and his own personal interpretation of the Bible.
I thought mainline Protestantism was a bastion of moral relativism, a thing which, by its very nature, is incapable of fostering core values, since core values usually require a certain degree of permanence, while mainline Protestantism changes with the wind.
(By the way, I say this as a former mainline Protestant myself.)

“Conservative Christians don’t think up Christians who support equal-rights are real Christians?”
Marriage has never been a “right” in this country.
Right to vote? yes. Right to marry? No. It’s been a state-regulated privilege (religious aspects of it aside for the moment), just like getting a driver’s license. Gay, straight, bisexual, it doesn’t matter matter — no one has a right to marry anymore than they have a right to drive.

JohnQ: “were you suggesting that Conservative Christians don’t think up Christians who support equal-rights are real Christians?”
I’ve heard them all but say that on occasion, yes. That and insisting that being a gay Christian made as much sense as being a “serial killer Christian”. I don’t have much respect for them if you can’t tell.
Bob: “Marriage has never been a ‘right’ in this country…It’s been a state-regulated privilege”
Which just happens to be enjoyed automatically by the heterosexual elite, who think themselves superior to us sodomites because their relationships make it easy to procreate and put even more of a drain on our already limited resources.

Bob-
“Marriage has never been a “right” in this country.”
It would appear that the Supreme Court of the US does not agree with you.
from Loving v Virgina
The court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:
“ Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,”
Now, you are welcome to your opinion…but, you are not welcome to change facts.
I also take exception to your suggestion that protestants do not/can not have core values.
Peace!

Mordred08-
I can understand your thoughts about Christians. I just want to be clear that not all Christians equate sexuality to crime/criminal activity. Nor, do all Christians ignore the scriptures against judging others. Nor do all Christians ignore what Christ said were the greatest two commandments.
Peace!

Nice job John Q. in answering Bob’s statement that “marriage has never been a right in this country.” My first reaction to that was….since when? You even went so far as to site legal proof.
Thank you.

There are Christians who post here regularly who show a lot of concern for the rights of homosexuals to marry.

nnmns-
Yes, as well as atheists, pagans, and Jews to mention a few others. Equality and respect for others are core values that transcends religion.
IMO, it is possible to look at just about any belief system/religion and cherry pick out parts that can be used to denigrate others. However, that does not mean that there is anything noble in doing so. Nor, does it indicate that the tenets of that religion/belief system actually supports prejudice, discrimination, or bigotry.
Peace!
pagansister-
Thanks! It is an old, tire, and faulty argument to suggest that marriage is not an equal right in the USA. Easy to disprove.

John Q,
You can’t eliminate a “right” by popular vote. But California just voted a big NO on gay marriage and by way of that vote inserted the idea into their state constitution.
As to the Virginia court, what can I say other than that courts have made mistakes before (Dred Scott decision, for example).
Pagansister,
Since when has citing facts been important to you? I seen you make one baseless accusation after another against the RCC every time a Catholic item is posted on the news feed. I’ve NEVER seen you cite a source. Ever. But you take the cake for making things up, I’ll tell ya that. You’re capacity for creative writing is unparalleled, as far as I can tell.

“There are Christians who post here regularly who show a lot of concern for the rights of homosexuals to marry.”
And there are Christians who feel it’s wrong. Which group should we go with?

“You’re capacity for creative writing is unparalleled, as far as I can tell.” Bob
Thanks Bob. I always enjoyed creative writing…:o)

Pagansister,
And I enjoy good fiction, but I have a real problem with people being goaded into hating the the RCC they think they know by false statements and blatant mischaracterizations, rather than getting to know the RCC as it really exists and then going on an honest journey from there.

You know, just for posterity’s sake, I’d like to add that although I don’t believe in gay marriage, the advocates are making the wrong argument by trying to call it a civil rights issue.
The real argument is that marriage has co-existed as two separate ideas in this country for a long time. On the one hand, you have a a city hall wedding (or something similar) that’s nothing more than a civil union really, and on the other hand you have it as a religious rite, and the two sides have never had to intertwine, although often times they naturally do.
Using the RCC as an example, you can be still be married in the eyes of the Church even though you’re divorced by law. And you can be married by the Church, but if you don’t get the license, you’re not married in the eyes of the state.
If the state will always see marriage as essentially a civil union, then it can’t really deny it to gay couples. Civil marriage has to be open to all consenting adults, because it’s essentially just a contract (in the government’s eyes).
Religious marriage is something different. People have suggested two categories, two explicit categories, and I think they’re right.

It’s called expressing my opinion, Bob. That’s what we do on this site. My experiences are where I get those opinions. Have spend a lot of time with RC’s…in fact some of my best friends are of that religion. So, dream on about the dislike I have for the RC. It’ s incorrect. You did say you liked fiction…that is what your thinking about my feelings towards the RCC are, incorrect.

Last word of the last sentence should be “fiction” in my 8:53PM post. pagansister

I’m all for civil unions but for them to stand in for weddings they need to confer every right marriage does on the couple. I understand that’s far from the case now, even in many of the places they are available.
If that were made the case, or if as you suggest weddings were done in either or both of two parts, the civil marriage conferring all those legal rights, I would see no problem. But how many here think no fundys would see a problem?

Bob-
I agree, “You can’t eliminate a “right” by popular vote.”
That is why Prop 8 will eventually be struck down. Either by the CA Supreme Court in less than 2months. Or, by a re-vote in 2010. If not, when the US Supreme Court cites the 14th amendment in striking down all laws and/or amendments that prohibit marriage equality.
I certainly agree with your explanation of civil marriage and religious marriage. You do realize that in MA, CT, and very soon Iowa….that there are churches and synagogues that perform same-gender marriages….don’t you? And yes, I am referring to Christian churches.
As far as which side to support….I would always rather error on the side of charity…than ignore what our Lord said is the second greatest commandment.
BTW, in the Loving v Virgina ruling….I was not quoting the VA court…but rather, the US Supreme Court’s ruling. Loving v Virgina was the case that resulted in all laws prohibiting blacks and white (as well as other racial combinations)from marrying, being struck down.
Peace!

Bob, religious rituals and ceremonies (like church weddings) are legally meaningless. They simply are zeros in the eyes of the law. That is exactly as it should be.
Marriage — legal marriage — is the property of the state. It is a civil contract documented by a state license. It has nothing to do with religion. No priest or preacher or rabbi has the power to confer a legal marriage; only the state can do that.
I’d like to thank Iowa (and gay Americans) for showing us how religion should be properly isolated from government and the legal rights of citizens. No religion should ever have the power to determine or grant legal rights. Let religions have their dogmas, their prayers, their rituals, their costumes, their incense — but keep them the hell out of our government and our civil rights.

beatrice wrote:
“Marriage — legal marriage — is the property of the state. It is a civil contract documented by a state license. It has nothing to do with religion. No priest or preacher or rabbi has the power to confer a legal marriage; only the state can do that. ”
Eehhhhh! Sorry, but that is not correct.
By virtue of signing the license as the officiant I am acting on behalf of the state. However, the marriage is not fully certified unti it is filed by the County Clerk. Now, as to whether clergy-as-officers-of-the-state is a good thing is another discussion. I have served in three states and one commonwealth, and they all honor some variation on this theme. I expect it is so is the other 46, plus the various territories.

Jestrfyl, you are correct Marriage is a contract recognized and enforced by the state. Clergy are granted the authority to act as agents of the state by the state. (remember “by the power vested in me by the state of…”).
If you don’t agree marriage is an issue of the state, just try getting a divorce without a judge’s signature!

Now it is legal for same sex couples to marry in VT!! Just read it on AP news. State #4.

“If you don’t agree marriage is an issue of the state, just try getting a divorce without a judge’s signature!”
methodistsearching; I love that quote.
It is what it is, civil marriage is not holy matrimony.

Very good point, cknuck. I don’t think anyone is trying to change the definition of “holy matrimony”.
Just the definition of the state sponsored contract between two adult people called “marriage”.

Pleasantly surprised to see such an enlightened comment by Cknuck. My barrette goes off to you.
Bob-They really sold you on that whole idea that the RCC is the “original” Christian Church, didn’t they?

Several people have commented on the distinction between “civil marriage” and what Christians (catholics, at least) call “Matrimony.” The distinction is a very important and meaningful one, but there are one or two points which need making.
One is that, in the United States, a minister officiating at a wedding is acting, not only as a member of her or his church’s clergy, but also as an agent of the State. Somebody said that earlier but it needs reinforcing. One implication of this is that a minister is legally prohibited from officiating at a wedding for which no license has been issued.
In Mexico (maybe other places as well, I don’t know), where the clergy do not act on behalf of the state, no cleric may officiate at a wedding unless the couple have already been “married” at the courthouse, or equivalent.
Also, while the point that civil “marriage” is no different from a “civil union” is well taken, it remains true that the rights and responsibilities conferred by “civil unions” as they exist in the few states that have them, are different from and significantly less than, those rights and responsibilities which “marriage” brings. So the point, formally valid as it is, is made falsified by practice.