Same Sex Marriage Passes in Iowa: But It Gets Even Worse for Republicans

Thankfully justice has prevailed in Iowa with the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruling in favor of same sex marriages. All across the country, Republicans are having panic attacks and pulling their hair out because “those gays” can marry. To those Republicans, let me pour salt on your wounds:

In recent years, four state Supreme Courts have ruled in support of same sex-marriage.

In Massachusetts, the ruling was written by Justice Margaret Marshall.

In California, the ruling was written by Justice Ronald George.

In Connecticut, the ruling was written by Justice Richard Palmer.

And in Iowa, the ruling was written by Justice Mark Cady.

And what do all four have in common? Each was appointed to their respective state Supreme Court by a Republican governor.

This has GOT to be killing conservatives right now.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Same Sex Marriage Passes in Iowa: But It Gets Even Worse for Republicans

  1. Not all Conservatives, Phil. I love to break it it to you, but true Conservatives see the good in Iowa’s ruling. The Supreme Court’s ruling was based on secular authority only being able to recognize civil union – no matter what they are named.

    To true Conservatives and to moral individuals this shows a rare wisdom and may give us a slight hope of getting the secular government to get its filthy hands off the sacraments.

    • If you’re saying not all conservatives are opposed to same sex marriages, then yes I agree. The conservative movement like most movements isn’t homogenous in their beliefs.

      However, most conservatives are very open about their opposition to same sex marriage.

      Whether or not that aligns with the “true” beliefs of conservatism, that’s up for grabs.

  2. As usual, you don’t understand our opposition to gay marriage. You believe yourself to be some morally superior champion of equal rights. I believe you to be extremely reckless in your social engineering in the name of “fairness.”

    I’m sure you’ve heard this argument before, but let me try to make it clear to you.

    Do you believe that marriage is about two people loving each other?

    If the answer is yes, then I am very sorry for you. I will point you to the conclusion that conservatives like myself, who are opposed to gay marriage, have reached: marriages based only on “love” is the reason the divorce rate in this country is 50%.

    It’s hard to explain to someone who believes this, the greatest of cultural lies. Marriage is much, much, much more significant than love. This should be obvious to anyone who has loved more than one person in their lifetime.

    My first relationship with a girl lasted five years, and I loved her. Of course, that’s hard for me to admit now, since any feeling of love I may have had for her is long gone. But it was obvious from the start that even though we loved each other, we couldn’t – nor shouldn’t – marry each other, for a littany of reasons, not the least of which is that we came from two different cultures, and her parents did not support the idea of her marrying outside of her race. If her parents didn’t approve, it would never work.

    Yeah, I loved her. Could I marry her? Absolutely not.

    You probably don’t have to take my word for it. You probably understand this. Romantic love is possible between virtually any two people. But a successful marriage is not possible between every pair, even a pair who loves each other.

    Giving gays the right to marry “the ones they love” only reinforces this cultural lie. It only encourages more people to believe that if you love someone and are about the right age to get married, you should get married.

    This, of course, doesn’t even touch the argument about marriage as the basis for raising children. Virtually every empirical, observational study on the matter has concluded that the healtheist, happiest children with the least diagnosable conditions come from homes including one male parent and one female parent. Naturally, you probably ignore those studies because they don’t align well with your sense of justice.

    I believe gay marriage cheapens marriage for everyone because it disguises the seriousness of the institution. Marriage is supposed to be forever. It’s bad enough that the majority of heterosexual couples entier into it so lightly. Now we are going to encourage gays to get married, too? By the way, in case you hadn’t heard, the first lesbian couple to marry in Massachusettes – a couple, in fact, who spearheaded the gay marriage crusade in that state – is already divorced. Good to know their cause really mattered, right? Only five short years later, their situation is that it never mattered at all whether they were legally married at all.

    I can’t think of a single successful civilization that has existed in which the majority of its reproducing population hasn’t been married while doing it. Can you?

    But hey, why not gamble with ours? We only live in the most prosperous, luxrious, secure civilization on the planet earth. Why not fundamentally change the way it operates and take enormous risks that it will all work out for the better in the end? If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.

    It’s not about homophobia, but even if it were, have you ever stopped to wonder why you embrace homosexuality with open arms but cannot accept or even understand homophobia? Why is one better than the other? Why, in the name of inclusiveness and open mindedness, are you so exclusive and close minded to the conservative point of view?

    • So marriage shouldn’t be based on love? Maybe we should have arranged marriages, to eliminate that whole pesky ‘love’ thing. Do you believe marriage is simply an institution to raise a family? Perhaps then those who don’t plan on having children or are unable should refrain from marriage. What about gays that have children? They shouldn’t be able to raise them as a married couple? Gays shouldn’t be able to merry because heterosexuals can’t get marriage right? I agree that divorce has been a major cause of social problems but as far as I can tell there is no drive to make this illegal (and this by far is a much bigger issue then gay marriage). Maybe if people were concentrating on their OWN marriages instead on who is allowed to merry who, we wouldn’t have such a high divorce rate…just a thought.

      • Yeah, that was pretty much my answer.

        Also, why should Britney Spears be able to have a quicky drive thru wedding in Vegas but not two homosexuals that have been together for 14 years?

        The marriage issue is at its root, about freedom. In many ways, its a very “conservative” argument. The government should not have the right to tell two people that they are not “good enough” to get married. Conversely YOU don’t have the right to tell people what qualifications they must meet in order to get married. (And neither should I)

        People get married for lots of reasons. And that’s their right to get married for whatever reason they choose.

    • By the way, your argument that heterosexual couples are defacto better at raising families is a hasty generalization at best.

      I could easily produce, or make up, a statistic saying that white middle class couples between the ages 28-35 are the best at raising children. Does that mean that this should be the only category of people that can have a family?

      The argument is on its face silly.

      “Efficiency” is not an argument for discrimination.

  3. “As usual, you don’t understand our opposition to gay marriage. You believe yourself to be some morally superior champion of equal rights. I believe you to be extremely reckless in your social engineering in the name of “fairness.””

    1. Not true- anyone who knows Phil knows that he does not believe that women should have equal rights. j/k

    2. “…extremely reckless in your social engineering in the name of fairness…” WTF? please explain further…that is an uber vague statement if I have ever seen one.

    “Do you believe that marriage is about two people loving each other?
    If the answer is yes, then I am very sorry for you. I will point you to the conclusion that conservatives like myself, who are opposed to gay marriage, have reached: marriages based only on “love” is the reason the divorce rate in this country is 50%. It’s hard to explain to someone who believes this, the greatest of cultural lies. Marriage is much, much, much more significant than love. This should be obvious to anyone who has loved more than one person in their lifetime.”

    1. Where are you getting this study from? Who ran it? Methodology? How do you measure whether a relationship is only based on “love?”

    2. Marriages based on convienence have often proved to be better, I suppose? How do you measure convienence? What else can you base a marriage on?

    3. How do we police whether one’s marriage is based on love or practicality? How do you plan on predicting the longevity of one’s marriage? Should we police it? Or are you arguing that no one should get married including straight people?

    “My first relationship with a girl lasted five years, and I loved her. Of course, that’s hard for me to admit now, since any feeling of love I may have had for her is long gone. But it was obvious from the start that even though we loved each other, we couldn’t – nor shouldn’t – marry each other, for a littany of reasons, not the least of which is that we came from two different cultures, and her parents did not support the idea of her marrying outside of her race. If her parents didn’t approve, it would never work.”

    1. Never good to use personal examples when making an argument. Why? Because you are making the assumption that your experience is the same experience for everyone which makes you a bit arrogant and stifling of other people’s voices.

    2. Personal examples force us to examine your private life (which none of us have much interest in). In order for us to understand your viewpoint, we would have to ask you dumb questions like how many relationships have you been in since then? How long did they last? Were your feelings of love any different, if so, why or why not? Then we would have to talk to your exes to find out if the “love” was mutual (really).

    3. Conceptions of love could change as people grow together. Did I love my first boyfriend or my first husband, it could be argued that I did, but it could never be argued that I loved them in the same way. This is why this argumentation is ridiculous. How can we measure love and what makes a successful marriage and what doesn’t. Its different for everyone.

    “You probably don’t have to take my word for it. You probably understand this. Romantic love is possible between virtually any two people. But a successful marriage is not possible between every pair, even a pair who loves each other.”

    1. Where do you come up with this? Do you know for a fact that romantic love is possible between virtually any two people? How can you speak on this with any certainty?

    2. If romantic love is “possible” between virtually any two people, like you say without any sort of corresponding data or proof, why is it not equally as possible that a successful marriage is not “possible” between everyone?

    3. Ug. I’m sounding like a romantic which I’m not- gross. I just really dislike arrogance.

    “Giving gays the right to marry “the ones they love” only reinforces this cultural lie. It only encourages more people to believe that if you love someone and are about the right age to get married, you should get married.”

    1. So, it reinforces the cultural lie..so what? Any implications? There are none!

    2. Everytime I get married, even though I’m straight, does that not still reinforce this cultural lie? I am reinforcing this lie, why? Because the government gives me benefits and tax breaks for doing so. But I suppose under your reasoning, that’s ok since I’m straight.

    3. Who are you to judge whether their relationships are based solely on love or could be one of the functional marriages that you speak on? Why are those merely for straight people? If what you say is true, and the divorce rate is super high as it is, then what does it hurt? Nothing. Homosexual individuals getting married has zero impact on your life other than the sad argument that it disrupts the moral balance. But then again, who are you to judge morality for everyone else. If you are so afraid of your kids being corrupted by seeing a homosexual couple, home school them. That’s your choice.

    4. Maybe you are right. Maybe homosexuals should just suck it up and marry a man or a woman and pretend to be straight. Them being miserable in their relationship is better for the world, right? Raising children as part of a straight couple has zero implications on their children? You know when daddy and/or mommy drinks because they hate themselves so much or when they commit suicide because of it. Or maybe it is ok, because they will just take their misery out on their kids. Let’s all subscribe to your view of the world, because clearly it is the right one.

    “This, of course, doesn’t even touch the argument about marriage as the basis for raising children. Virtually every empirical, observational study on the matter has concluded that the healtheist, happiest children with the least diagnosable conditions come from homes including one male parent and one female parent. Naturally, you probably ignore those studies because they don’t align well with your sense of justice.”

    1. Dr. Ellen C. Perrin, professor of pediatricts at Tufts University, did a study that spanned from 1981-1994 that stated that children growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes. And that homosexual parents tend to be more nurturing. Another study by Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, then sociologists at the University of Southern California, published a review of 21 previous studies of the children of homosexual parents. Almost uniformly, they wrote, the research found no systematic differences between children reared by a mother and father and those raised by same-sex parents.

    2. Best case scenerio for you and I is that there are no conclusive studies either way. Everyone’s is colored by their own leanings. What does this mean? Since there is so much literature both ways, I would gather that there probably isn’t a big difference in the children either way. Feel free to post studies, I’ll go through each one and break them down, find articles that destroy their methodology and the people running them, and post 3 more for everyone that you post refuting it directly. That’s just how I roll.

    4. Even if you persist to say that there is a difference in the children raised by homosexual parents than straight parents, I would argue that their behavioral problems is caused by other people’s intolerance and treatment of them and not the job that the homosexual parents are doing. Any student who gets made fun of and ridiculed at school tends to have behavioral problems. So, these behavioral problems that are cited in whatever studies you are mentioning could be based on problems at school with other people and not necessarily with their parents.

    “I believe gay marriage cheapens marriage for everyone because it disguises the seriousness of the institution. Marriage is supposed to be forever. It’s bad enough that the majority of heterosexual couples entier into it so lightly. Now we are going to encourage gays to get married, too? By the way, in case you hadn’t heard, the first lesbian couple to marry in Massachusettes – a couple, in fact, who spearheaded the gay marriage crusade in that state – is already divorced. Good to know their cause really mattered, right? Only five short years later, their situation is that it never mattered at all whether they were legally married at all.”

    1. Is marriage a serious institution or a cultural lie? Make a decision so the rest of us can know what you are actually thinking?

    2. I fail to understand how heterosexual couples getting married when they shouldn’t doesn’t make the institution cheap? Why is it only the homosexuals that cheapen things? I think that everyone has the ability to cheapen equally. Ok, one person who wanted marital rights got divorced, so did millions of straight people, but we don’t keep them from getting married, do we?

    3. What makes marriage such a sacred institution? The bible? The only reason to really get married for me is the benefits garnered from the government. P.S. Homosexuality was around long before Christianity.

    “I can’t think of a single successful civilization that has existed in which the majority of its reproducing population hasn’t been married while doing it. Can you?”

    1. In order for this to be a valid argument, you would need to define “successful civilization” and give at least 5 synergistic models; you would also need to define “marriage” and put it in context with your historical models. (I’m a historian, please do this, it’ll make me really happy to refute it).

    2. A proper definition of marriage ( a mutually acceptable definition ) would allow me to give examples that would refute your claim. Our definition of marriage right now would be quite different from what marriage was considered in other civilizations…you know where women were property and raped.

    3. So how and why is this an argument against letting homesexuals marry? I don’t get it.

    “But hey, why not gamble with ours? We only live in the most prosperous, luxrious, secure civilization on the planet earth. Why not fundamentally change the way it operates and take enormous risks that it will all work out for the better in the end? If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.”

    1. How is this a gamble? You are missing a few internal links in there. How does homosexuality lead to the collapse of all civilization. I might have to start calling you Mead ’92 (extra points if you get that reference).

    2. You are right, with our divorce rates so high and our country in the educational and economic “shitter,” lets keep things they way they are continue down our path of destruction… What could it hurt?

    3. The problem is that we are broken. I’m sure the planter class didn’t think the slave system was broken, but it was. I’m sure white southerners didn’t think the Jim Crow system was broken, but it was.

    “It’s not about homophobia, but even if it were, have you ever stopped to wonder why you embrace homosexuality with open arms but cannot accept or even understand homophobia? Why is one better than the other? Why, in the name of inclusiveness and open mindedness, are you so exclusive and close minded to the conservative point of view?”

    1. Hi Mr. kettle, My name is Ms. Pot, and you’re black!

    2. I think it is important to have different points of views on things such as this-I agree with Mr. JSM that a dialectic is important and the only way to reach truth (whatever that may be). Only by having an argument can one really understand one’s own views and other’s better. I don’t think you will change your mind, and that’s fine. No one has the RIGHT answer, all you can do is live your life, and let others live theirs. I think you have every right to believe what you do believe, but I don’t believe that you have the right to police the lives of others.

    This is how we roll in the Bible Belt!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s