Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Way to go, Iowa.
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
According to The New York Times, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled today that a 1998 state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional. The unanimous decision means that same-sex marriage is now legal in Iowa, making it the first Midwestern state, and the third in the country, to legalize same-sex marriage.
And even if the state of Iowa isn't as progressive as the ruling might imply, I'm heartened by the justices' opinion, which said:
Truer words were never spoken.
And even if the state of Iowa isn't as progressive as the ruling might imply, I'm heartened by the justices' opinion, which said:
"We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. ... If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded."
Truer words were never spoken.
0
Comments
Palzang
A state whose name contains no true consonants
ought not be marked by contentious dissonance.
People have the right not to be lonely.
Finally some good news!
Interestingly, the bill's author has since apologized for writing it.
Yes, I'm in favor of polygamous marriages. But frankly, I'm tired of people bringing up polygamy whenever gay marriage is discussed. The reason is that, as one person put it, "It's pretty obvious that homosexuals, as a class, are discriminated against by marriage statutes which exclude them, whereas people who wish to marry multiple women ... are undefined and practically undefinable as a class" (source).
As the Iowa Supreme Court noted in their opinion, the statute in question declares that marriage is a civil contract and doesn't define it in any way that would preclude same-sex marriages. Polygamy is an entirely different issue altogether; but, I have no personal objections to the union of two or more adults in marriage. I've known at least one polygamist couple (three adults) and they seemed happy to me.
Jason
I can't see any logical objection to polygamy or polyandry. Indeed, if you consider an incedibly popular series such as Friends (which I have been watching for the first time), there seems to be an acceptance of multiple partners - indeed an encouragement of it (alongside a puritanical attitude to nudity and a strange ambivalence about homoeroticism). This is then supposed to stop at marriage, as far as I can see. This is 'serial monogamy' but so damned close to polygamy that you can hardly get a cigarette paper between them.
Marriage, as defined by church or state, seems to me to be far more of a social control matter.
But you do recognize that this is a redefining of traditional marriage right? I think that's where the big hang up is for a lot of traditionalists that I know.
Define traditional marriage!
It was in the 1500's that the church decided that because procreation was essentially an act of original sin, they should have a hand in it. At that time they even advocated that the groom practise abstinence and only have intercourse for procreational reasons. Hence the abundance of mistresses... they were for the fun part....! :rolleyes:
But women, even today, are 'handed over (albeit symbolically) as a gesture, reminiscent of times when they were viewed as profitable chattels with breeding potential and a dowry attached.
The word 'obey' has only been eradicated from the ceremony within the last 25 years or so....And it's still part of the marriage ceremony. It's omitted by choice.
Traditional marriage be damned! I'm all for liberalism....!
ANYWHO, it seems Vermont wasn't far behind.
And it'd going to be legal now!
At least we aren't going to see serious attempts at constitutional amendments defining 'marriage' under this administration (D.v.)
A banner week in the US.
Palzang
You make a good point, but then, I've never been much of a traditionalist. All things evolve, even traditional social values. In the United States, for example, it was traditional for whites to marry whites and blacks to marry blacks, and interracial marriage was not socially acceptable.
Today, however, most Americans wouldn't dare suggest that we go back to the pre-1960s idea of traditional (i.e., segregated) marriage. I view same-sex marriage in the same way: it's not considered socially acceptable now, but as Bob Dylan would say, "The times they are a changin'."
Jason
I believe there is still the "issue" of gay adoption in some places.
Palzang
Too bad Abrahamic religions have this effect on people: They just HAVE to be right. Being right means those who are different are wrong and NEED to be punished.
Isn't that sweet?
The truth is that it isn't religions that produce this sort of bigotry - it is stupid, ignorant and hate-filled people.
Sure, but it doesn't help that this sort of bigotry is found in many religious texts (e.g., Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13). Religion isn't just some innocent bystander in all of this.
Religion is a human creation not some sort of independently existing reality. And humans choose the bits they want, as demonstrated by those Christians who quote Leviticus but eat bacon! What is more, most religions in today's world are based on translations and adaptations of original texts. Take the Levitical ones: the English gives us the word "abomination" (after the Wycliffe version) whereas the Hebrew suggests simple 'uncleanness' - a very different matter.
Let us not forget that it took some pretty strong lobbying before HHDL took a more accepting attitude towards homosexuality than the traditional one in which he was brought up. Acceptance of different sexual orientation is pretty new in both the UK and the US.