A New Frontburner Issue in Iowa: Same-Sex Marriage

posted by John Nichols on 08/31/2007 @ 04:05am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (154)

Subscribe Now

Iowa will in all likelihood remain the state that opens the process of nominating the Democratic and Republican candidates for president in 2008. As such, it is a "must visit" and "must impress" state for contenders in both parties.

Iowa is now something else, however.

With the decision of a county judge to strike down Iowa's law banning same-sex marriages, the state becomes a front-line battleground in America's ongoing political wrestling match over gay and lesbian rights.

When Polk County Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and ordered the county recorder in Des Moines to issue marriage licenses to six gay couples, he did not merely give an unexpected courtroom victory to plaintiffs likes Iowa City's Jen BarbouRoske, who declared Thursday, "This is kind of the American Dream."

Hanson also reshaped the presidential races of both parties.

Democratic and Republicans candidates will not be able to campaign in Iowa -- as all will be doing in coming days and weeks -- without addressing the ruling and the broader issue of same-sex marriage.

Of course, most of the candidates have already done this with varying degrees of specificity. But now they will be thrust into the center of a real-life struggle in a state where they will be spending a great deal of time between now and the day in December or January when Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses are held.

As Judge Hanson's ruling is appealed, and as conservative legislators move to counter it, the same-sex marriage debate will move much closer to the front of the agenda -- not just in Iowa but, because of the caucuses, nationally.

That is especially true because Hanson's decision accepted the argument of Iowa attorney Dennis Johnson, who represented six same-sex couples who filed suit after they were denied marriage licenses.

Johnson, a veteran civil rights lawyer, made the case that Iowa's nine-year-old Defense of Marriage Act -- which is similar to those on the books in other states and at the federal level -- is at odds with the state constitution's equal protection and due-process clauses.

Johnson's point is a vital one that is not talked about enough in discussions of same-sex marriage that tend to focus more on personal morality than the rule of law. And it will frame a discussion that, particularly for Democratic candidates who have tended to support gay rights while shying away from embracing same-sex marriage, could take the whole debate to a new and much more serious place.

Both Democratic and Republican candidates will be forced to offer specific responses to precise legal arguments, as well as to the very human demands of men and women in Iowa who have gone public with their struggle for the right to marry their partners.

This is all the more the casein Iowa because the relatively low turnout for the state's caucuses heightens the influence on the Democratic side of grassroots activists who are far more supportive of same-sex marriage rights than party leaders, just as it heightens the influence on the Republican side of religious conservatives for whom -- aside from their opposition to reproductive rights -- the way in which Americans arrange their families remains the hottest of hot-button issues.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (154)

Well, this is apparently a bit of good news if the implication holds that a more progressive caucus constituency shows up at the polls.

As most observers concede that the Democratic nominee will seize the presidency, the campaign is rapidly boiling down to a question of who can push the queen from her pedestal.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/31/2007 @ 07:54am
I guess the judge is gay. a liberal, or just discovered something in the states constitution that evreyone else missed, the legislatoras, the voters, and the other judges since the founding of the state...a new right thqat was always intended? The founders always intended for same sex marriage and it was just discovered now? Even when the legislators and the majority of the population and voters doesn't favor same sex marriage,the judge decided it was there all along? Kinda like abortion was the intention of the founding fathers, only they didn't know it and it took the courts 200 to find it?

I am not advocating one side or another, but I always favored legislators writing the laws of a state, exactly as they intended to write them and follow the will of those who send them to the legislator...not the judges...

I guess I missed something in the constitutional process from grammer school civics class.

Posted by john maasch at 08/31/2007 @ 08:47am
WHY THE DIALS ON YOUR GAYDAR SHOULD SPIN WILDLY AT EVERY WORD FROM CONSERVICLOWN CRO-MAGS

When a man (say, JOHN MAASCH) says, "I am married with children ... and I am an outspoken conservative Republican all the way down the line", he is actually speaking in a code. The code says, "I am a gay man and aspire to be a sweaty throbbing men's room hustler. I am a Larry Craig Republican, deep into my public denial ... until I spy a public men's room, the mere sight of which ... makes my loins a little rigid and humid. I look around before entering, hoping no one notices although after all ... it's just a guy going to the can ... I cruise the stalls. I adopt the Larry Craig-esque 'wide stance' with my foot extended into the next stall, I play the game of 'pick the tiolet paper up from the floor of the next stall' as well. I am now throbbing, heading in for the score ..."

This is what it means to be (cough, ahem) ... "married with children" conjoined to "an outspoken conservative Republican all the way down the line" -- a Larry Craig Republican, in other words. Words that do not rely on disengenious codes to ...

Posted by John_Shaft at 08/31/2007 @ 08:51am
Well, first....good. Maybe the Dems can finally get away from the namby-pambyness and just come out and say that they think ALL Americans should be treated the same.

Second, Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 08/31/2007 @ 08:51am

SHAFT, it's a little too easy to say that EVERYBODY who opposes gay marriage is a closeted gay.

BTW, MAASCH didn't say, nor did he make any proclamations about his martial status....he said he opposed the decision on Constitutional grounds...I'll accept that as his reason for NOW.

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 09:08am
News Flash ... RNC CHAIR MIKE DUNCAN ANNOUNCES NEW SITE FOR 2008 CONVENTION: BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, WYOMING

Date line: Washington.

In a dramatic announcement, Republican National Committee Chair Mike Duncan today stated that the party's 2008 nominating convention will take place on Brokeback Mountain, Wyoming.

"We have come a long way from the smoke filled rooms to the modern convention and now to the tents of Brokeback Mountain", Duncan said. "We envision stiff, sweaty and very swishy Republican (s)he-men boning each other vigourously in tents, just like Heath and Jake in the movie. To round out the tableau, the speaker at the podium will rage against the 'ho-mo-sexxxxx-uaallll' agenda. It may seem like weird performance art to some people, but we are pround to represent the reality of today's Republican party by climbing Brokeback Mountain to fuck each other in the ass with only spit as lubricant before we attempt to do the same to the constitution for another term".

Duncan continued, "Today's Republican Party is a Big Tent party in which men can pack each other's fudge while moaning and groaning in some corner of that Big Tent -- provided, of course, they remain fully self-hating about it in contrast with well adjusted, accomplished and openly gay men like Barney Frank or Gerry Studds. But, deep down, we are a party of pansys and draft dodgers and crooks and 'girly men' in every way, not just economic. So it suits us just fine."

Duncan concluded, "Today's Republican Party is a relativisitc wonder in which a Senator can cruise the bathroom stalls and slide into a 'wide stance' to reach the horny guy in the next stall, tapping his right foot to the tempo of homo arousal that is tooling for some tight, cum-inducing anus. And the next day, the same Republican can hold a press conference with his long suffering ornamental wife/baby factory and denounce the very idea that he is gay. We are happy that our party has evolved in this direction. Yes, we can accomodate such open-minded relativism, self-denial and self-hatred that undoubtably make our party the pillar of community strength and values that it is today."

Posted by John_Shaft at 08/31/2007 @ 09:11am
SHAFT, it's a little too easy to say that EVERYBODY who opposes gay marriage is a closeted gay.

Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 09:08am

MASK,

Perhaps it is "easy" ... but who knows what today's headlines may bring about arrests earlier in the summer in other bathroom stalls across America's vast providence!

And given the utterly OBSESSIVE attention that the Repugnant party devotes to the issue of gayness (electoral crack), recent events DEMAND to be hurled in their faces. From gays in the miltary at the outset of the Clinton era in '93, to combing through a huge report on educational policy to yank out a reference to "Daddy's New Roomate" a few years later, to putting gay marriage inititiatives on the ballot in battleground states in '04 ... conservimals just won't let the gay issue leave center stage, will they?.

So, fuckem, they have made their bed on the issue. Let them sleep in it.

As you may have guessed I am 1,000,000% supportive of gay marriage and in 2000 contacted then VT Gov Howard Dean to urge his signature on the civil union bill -- which, at the time, was the furthest the issue had come, although we are beyond that now with rightfully recongized marriages between loving Americans making solid contributions to their communities.

Posted by John_Shaft at 08/31/2007 @ 09:24am
Though I am happy of the results with the courtroom drama from Polk County Iowa, I can't help thinking that this is an ace up the sleeve for the conservative bible thumping group. This is just the kind of rally cry they need to get their base motivated. I can see Thompson using this as his rallying cry to get the conservative base back in line.

So, though it may be a victory in Iowa, it could cause problems at the federal level.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/31/2007 @ 10:07am
Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 08/31/2007 @ 09:24am

I support it as well, SHAFT. Merely saying we tread dangerous ground to charge "closeted gay" at EVERYBODY who opposes it.

If you'll notice there is NO Constitutional argument that is ever made against gay marriage....there can't be. Since neither "marriage" nor "homosexuality" is mentioned in the Constitution, and the 14th Amendment, Section 1 is quite clear-

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Unless those opposing gay marriage want to argue that homosexuals are not "citizens" or "persons".

All we EVER get is "tradition!" (Tevye impersonation) or "the Bible"...neither of which have anything to due with the US Constitution.

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 10:11am
All we EVER get is "tradition!" (Tevye impersonation) or "the Bible"...neither of which have anything to due with the US Constitution.

Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 10:11am

If I were a rich man.... Haven't heard that tune in some time.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/31/2007 @ 10:16am
I guess the judge is gay. a liberal, or just discovered something in the states constitution that evreyone else missed, the legislatoras, the voters, and the other judges since the founding of the state...a new right thqat was always intended?

Is the right to heterosexual marriage in the constitution?

If no, do you oppose heterosexual marriage?

Posted by BlueSpark at 08/31/2007 @ 10:24am
I love how people on both sides of the aisle claim state's rights when it comes to Gay Marriage. Way to take a stand there... Gay people shouldn't need a law to be married- or unmarried. Most homophobic people abhor the sex or the images in their heads- (or they are closeted guilt ridden sad sacks like "Senator Wide Stance".) Once they get over the fact that gay sex always has and always will exist, other than being extraordinarily vindictive, why should they care if gay people can have healthcare or visitation rights or power of attorney or joint tax filing? And please, don't try to tell me it taints the word M-a-r-r-i-a-g-e Adulterers, abusers, and loveless spouses have already tarnished the institution of marriage.

Maasch- I know this is cliched, but sometimes laws are bad and need to be reinterpreted. It shouldn't happen often, but in some cases such as voting rights and equality issues, laws needed to be taken out of the hands of the people and their elected representatives. Currently- the administration is spending a trillion dollars on a war with less than 40% public approval. I guess Bush believes he's right and everyone else is wrong- just like Judge Hanson.

Posted by phillymark at 08/31/2007 @ 10:29am
I guess the judge is gay. a liberal, or just discovered something in the states constitution that evreyone else missed, ... The founders always intended for same sex marriage and it was just discovered now? ... Kinda like abortion was the intention of the founding fathers, only they didn't know it and it took the courts 200 to find it?

I guess I missed something in the constitutional process from grammer school civics class.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/31/2007 @ 08:47am

Looks like you missed quite a lot, JM. For one, abortion comes from a constitutional amendment passed in the civil war era, not in the 1700's by the founding fathers.

Secondly, equal protection under the law is just that. You can't deny something to one group and permit it for another group on the whims of your bigotry or prejudice.

Thirdly, you favor "legislators writing the laws of the state", but the same founding fathers to whom you appeal for your anti-abortion argument also knew that the rights of the minority cannot be trusted to the caprices of legislators pandering to the majority. It is too easy for the mob mentality to assault individual liberties to allow our rights to be up for a vote in some statehouse.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/31/2007 @ 10:30am
In addition to there being no rational argument against gay marriage, what I can't understand is why the family values party does not want to promote monogomy among any population, particularly the one at the highest risk of spreading STD's.

This will be interesting to see how this plays out. As Wolfgang noted, there will most likely be repercussions; a right wing counter-reaction that will mobilize the religious base, but around whom? Mitt Romney, the moron, er mormon? Giuliani? Lazy Ass Thompson?

As confused as the democratic base appears at the moment, it's good to realize how much more discombobulated the republicans are.

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 11:17am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 08/31/2007 @ 10:16am

Really aside from "The Bible", little else you'll hear from the anti-gay marriage guys BUT "tradition!"

BTW, do me a solid, Jerry (Kramer)...ask ZERO to give his view on gay marriage (I'm on the exhaustive ZERO Ignore list), and curious as to his view.

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 11:22am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/31/2007 @ 08:47am

john, have you ever stopped to think that maybe one (or two) of those founding fathers might have been gay*?

they had bathrooms back then. and their were plenty of stocky, scantily clad black men hanging around.

let's see: (freakin' numbers again) 55 delegates x 4.5% = 2.475 gay delegates.

2.475 gay delegates (which one was bisexual?)

well, at least they had big closets back then.

*In general, surveys quoted by anti-gay activists tend to show figures nearer 1%, while surveys quoted by gay activists tend to show figures nearer 10%, with a mean of 4-5% figure most often cited in mainstream media reports.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2007 @ 11:43am
What is so bad about consensual sex?

There is something very BAD about a lying government!

Posted by RESE 08/31/2007 @ 09:18am

nice segue mr REESE'S PIECES.

however...............................

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2007 @ 11:48am
well, this is great news for y'all.

¿saben? two years ago i played a wedding for an american newlywed couple

she was "she". and he wasn't "he" anymore.

in some ways i hope gay marriage is never allowed in the u.s.

it's been great for business. :+}

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2007 @ 11:58am
gay marriage is an important issue (for gay people)

permission to carry ceremonial daggers is an important issue (for sikhs)

open buffets is an important issue (for musicians)

i don't mean to trivialize this in any way.

nevertheless, i beg of thee (american public)--please do not let this issue railroad your election. you'd be playing right into mr rove's hands.

iraq, sub-prime, global climate f#@k up, destroyed constitution,...........

thank you for your eyes and brains and hearts and time.

Frosty Zoom

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2007 @ 12:06pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/31/2007 @ 08:47am

Hanson ruled that the law violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Iowa Constitution.

Not that I believe in strict constructionalist views on law - but even in that framework, it you have to do quite a bit of work to argue that gays are not entitled to equal protection.

But, let's go the other way with it. There was a time when some places defined marriage as defined as only between white men and white women, black men and black women, etc.? Do you support this view? If not, why is it correct to discriminate based on sex and not on race?

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/31/2007 @ 11:43am

While I sympthize with your point, there is an error in your reasoning. You are making the implicit assumption that the delegates were representative of the general population - which you can't do because of both sample size and self-selection bias. If I were to guess, I'd figure the number was higher. But, it still doesn't change the fact your reasoning is off.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/31/2007 @ 12:09pm
i think we otta just insinnerate these flag-burnin, abortion lovin', commie phagguts in a stack of cure-anns.

yep! that'll teach 'em.

then r nayshun will be truly grate once again.

Posted by LOVEROVESPLAN 08/31/2007 @ 12:08pm | ignore this person

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2007 @ 12:11pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/31/2007 @ 12:09pm

guess your right. should have asked my wife; she just got an A+ in statistics.

how's this:

2.475 gay delegates 17 times out of 20 with a margin of error of 5 delegates.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2007 @ 12:14pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/31/2007 @ 11:48am

FZ, forgot you're new. RESE doesn't segue.

If the topic was David Corn's favorite jam recipes, RESE would say "Well, I'll tell you what won't solidify like pectin...it's the 'official' story of 9/11" and then 10 Cut & Pastes (2000 words minimum each) from www.zionistscontrolyourmind.org.

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 12:33pm
BTW, do me a solid, Jerry (Kramer)...ask ZERO to give his view on gay marriage (I'm on the exhaustive ZERO Ignore list), and curious as to his view.

Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 11:22am

ZERO, I've been summoned to forward a question to you. As to whether you answer the question is up to you, but I've done my part.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/31/2007 @ 12:44pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 08/31/2007 @ 12:44pm

Thanks, WOLF. Have a feeling he won't answer (go after me, of course, but no answer to his opinion on gay rights)...just a hunch.

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 12:51pm
"Gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman"

-Arnold Schwartzenegger

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 1:14pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/31/2007 @ 12:14pm

Since this gay marriage issue is pretty much covered for the day, what style of music do you play?

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 1:22pm
Posted by MATTMAN 08/31/2007 @ 1:14pm

"If it bleeds, we can kill it."

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 1:48pm
Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 1:48pm

This topic, or is that another Gropernator quote?

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 1:57pm
So, then, can anybody here come up with an argument against allowing polygamy? Or allowing two men and three women (or more) to intermarry?

Posted by usc1 at 08/31/2007 @ 1:58pm
Majority rule doesn't trump minority rights. What is so hard to understand?

This is nothing but a hot botton issue that both parties use to divdide the electorate. It's a diversion, nothing else.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 2:00pm
USC1-Too many jealousy problems with those types of marriages.Too many laws would have to be written in order to cover all the possible legal problems that would arise from those marriages.Gay marriage would fall under existing laws.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/31/2007 @ 2:01pm
So, then, can anybody here come up with an argument against allowing polygamy? Or allowing two men and three women (or more) to intermarry?

Posted by USC1

You should check with Romney on that one.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 2:01pm
I'm:

Jealousy problems belong to the "married" to sort out. It's not the government's business.

And it's OK to discriminate against SOME groups because our law-makers are lazy?

Posted by usc1 at 08/31/2007 @ 2:06pm
So, then, can anybody here come up with an argument against allowing polygamy? Or allowing two men and three women (or more) to intermarry?

Posted by USC1

Read the Constitution, see for yourself.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 2:07pm
Posted by USC1 08/31/2007 @ 1:58pm

You forgot to include the other conservative fear: that after gay marriage the next thing we'll see is beastiallity. I mean, first homosexuality tramples the 'sanctity' of marriage, then all rules of morality are out the window. Man marries Pig, woman marries self....Have I got it?

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 2:13pm
Mask and others,

I am not for or against Gays or marriage..and as far as my being marriied with children "really means" something else...

strange,

I might, if I were in the same emotion as the author of that statement, question my own name...JOHN_SHAFT ....SHAFT? Couldn't that mean he is really wanting to view his penis as a shaft and wants to , well, does that mean Big John Shaft is GAY and wants to get married?

I am only questioning "rights" that are continuiously being found in documents that only judges seem to "discover",...

Does the _ in Big Johns name stand for something? Lets try something..

I don't care what the Big John "needs a" Shaft,(it fits and works) is doing with his Shaft..as long as he keeps it away from me,my family, and my pets...including the livestock.

Posted by john maasch at 08/31/2007 @ 2:14pm
Matt

Nice attempt at misdirection, but you'll find I'm a bit of a bulldog on issues like this. So...I guess you can't come up with a reason why we shouldn't stomp on the "rights" of polygamists either, huh?

Posted by usc1 at 08/31/2007 @ 2:18pm
Posted by MATTMAN 08/31/2007 @ 1:57pm

Just kidding around.

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 2:18pm
MT

Does the constitution specifically prohibit polygamy?

Posted by usc1 at 08/31/2007 @ 2:19pm
Just kidding around.

Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 2:18pm

That's cool. I was just curious who you were quoting.

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 2:22pm
Posted by USC1 08/31/2007 @ 2:18pm

I'll answer. Nothing. Nothing in the Constitution about marriage. So yes, you're right. No reason for polygamy to not be legal.

So what's your argument then? For polygamy? Doubt it. Against gay marriage? Then you just undercut your own argument.

If the State (states and Fed) authorizes that marriage licenses are required to receive marital benefits, tax status, etc. then they cannot deny any person (or persons) that right....period.

As noted "tradition" and "Christian values" are un-important where the Constitution is involved and the Const. is the law of the land.

So sure, "three women can get married" and the legal wrangling of property dispersal after death or divorce has to be worked out, as well as child custody, etc.

Perhaps the solution would be elimination of marriage licenses entirely and making it a contract that has to be drawn up by lawyers....it might even do something to prevent the FIFTY PERCENT failure rate of just heterosexual marriage!

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 2:24pm
That's cool. I was just curious who you were quoting.

Posted by MATTMAN 08/31/2007 @ 2:22pm

Ah'nuld in "Predator"....also features the classic Jesse "the First Governor" Ventura line (when informed he had been shot in the arm and was bleeding)

"I ain't got time to bleed!"

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 2:25pm
A sad thought but the constitution will uphold that perversity.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/31/2007 @ 2:24

Sadness aside...LVLIB just agreed with my point. Nothing CONSTITUTIONAL to oppose gay marriage.

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 2:27pm
Posted by USC1 08/31/2007 @ 2:18pm

Quite honestly, I can't think of a good enough reason to legally bar a polygymous marriage. If everyone's consenting, why not. I'm married, but fail to see the tradition or sanctity of anything beyond what's between my wife and me. It's atypical of how the overwhelming majority define romantic love, as being between 2 people, but why not? I'd be careful in using it as a challenge to the gay argument though, you just may end up seeing 3 and more gay people tying the knot.

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 2:27pm
USC1-No one mentioned discriminating against any group or lazy lawmakers.I mentioned why it would be quite complicated to allow such marriages.Straight people can already marry so there is no group that would be discriminated against.You're desperately trying to use a silly argument rather than look at how very complicated it would be to come up with laws that would cover every possible problem that would arise with those types of marriages.Gay marriage would go under existing laws rather than a ton of new and quite complex laws.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/31/2007 @ 2:31pm
Posted by USC1 08/31/2007 @ 2:06pm

I can't think of a reason.

Posted by MATTMAN 08/31/2007 @ 1:57pm

It's a quote from Predator.

Posted by MATTMAN 08/31/2007 @ 2:13pm

Gays are people not beasts. Obvious relevent difference here.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/31/2007 @ 2:32pm
Wow! Just what we need! Another homophobic wedge issue designed to be the "ooh, shiny!" subject in the presidential debate that brings out all of the so-called "values" voters who think that we as a country haven't been screwed over quite enough by the Republican party and their cronies in the closet!

As a fairly-pragmatically married friend of mine put it once, "Why not let gays and lesbians get married? They should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us!"

I agree with him if for no other reason but the opportunity that legalizing gay marriage would give us to discuss the stuff that's really important in this country. Stuff like making sure that folks don't die from infected teeth due to lack of health care or rebuilding New Orleans, or allowing folks the chance to earn a paycheck that they can actually fucking live off of.

While I understand that for some of you the image of two men or two women forming a family and living in peace just rankles you beyond comprehension, to me it's about as important as knowing which drug or alcohol addled starlet is heading off to the L.A. County Jail. I see too damned many homeless folks here in Philly to sweat what I consider the small stuff of gay marriage.

If only those of you for whom it is an issue would take your head out of your asses long enough, you'd see gay marriage's marked irrelevance in comparison to everything else.

Posted by edwriter at 08/31/2007 @ 2:33pm
LvLiberty-Marriage is not a religious institution and homosexuality is not perverse.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/31/2007 @ 2:38pm
I mentioned why it would be quite complicated to allow such marriages.

Posted by I'M NOBODY 08/31/2007 @ 2:31pm

I'm appalled at your lack of compassion for those who are having their "rights" violated. Why do you insist on discriminating against certain groups? Apparently, discrimination is acceptable to you as long as our law-makers aren't inconvenienced by "complications". Heart-warming sentiment, there.

Posted by usc1 at 08/31/2007 @ 2:39pm
Gays are people not beasts. Obvious relevent difference here.

Posted by SRJENKINS 08/31/2007 @ 2:32pm |

Of course. I was being facetious. I'm often not clear enough in my attempts at sarcasm.

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 2:43pm
What Nichols, the leftist bloggers, and Mask are conveniently overlooking is that among the Democratic candidates, only Kucinich and Gravel support gay marriage.

The majority of the people will continue to demand that perverse lifestyles not be enjoined with the sacrament of marriage which is a religious institution.

I have no doubt we will see Civil Unions as the rule within the next 10 years. A sad thought but the constitution will uphold that perversity.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1

The rule of the majority does not trump the rights of the minority. Why is that so difficult to grasp? Either you honor all of the Constitution or none of it; you don't get to pick and choose what you will adhere to and what you'll simply ignore (it's the Constitution not your bible).

But as Mary pointed out not too long ago, what is legal and illegal have nothing to do with right and wrong. It is a political process, Mary told us in reference to holding this administration responsible for its crimes through impeachment; all governance is a political process. If enough of the population is willing to condone, ignore, support unjust practises, then it happens, regardless of whether it's legal or illegal.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 2:48pm
Posted by EDWRITER 08/31/2007 @ 2:33pm

I agree with you. There are much more pressing issues to the health of the nation, but this is one of those divisive ones that repeatedly needs attention (apparently). Whatever happened to flag burning?

This weekend I think I'll drive my electric car to a gay wedding where we'll smoke lots of pot and burn a flag. Or I may just go buy some steaks at Wal-Mart and celebrate whatever reason I don't have to go to work on Monday.

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 2:48pm
USC1-I'm not discriminating against any group.Straights can already get married.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/31/2007 @ 2:49pm
LvLiberty-Marriage is 100% a legal matter that has no relevance to religion unless the two people getting married happen to be religious.I can go to Vegas and have an Elvis impersonator perform the ceremony and be just as married as people married in a church by a preacher.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/31/2007 @ 3:07pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/31/2007 @ 3:02pm

Thanks for giving us that twice, by the way. So now I'm concerned whether we should allow any non-Christians the right to marry since you've pointed out that marriage is pretty much a "Christian thang."

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 3:07pm
As noted "tradition" and "Christian values" are un-important where the Constitution is involved and the Const. is the law of the land.

Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 2:24pm

Disagree w/you there, MASK! The Constitution alone, is not the ONLY law of the land! Read your arguments, good ones, on Karl Marx......now, put "that" hat on for this...

The Constitution did NOT have a chance to take into consideration the "tradition" and "Christian values" of the American nation! This does NOT mean the "traditions" and "Christian values" that has evolved, should NOT be taken into consideration! Herein lies one of the most fundamental differences between the Libs and Conservatives! The Libs are resented and often despised by the strident Traditionalists......unfortunately, the Supreme Court has tended to be Liberal in recent decades!

However, not all "traditions" should carry on for all ages. We all know that 200+ years ago, it was quite common for young teens to get married....yet, those "traditions" went by the wayside and laws evolved to set minimum bars of `maturity'!

On gay marriages, we can all agree that even "traditional" marriage is NOT covered under the Constitution, so, the battle today is between long (as in centuries) established "traditional" understanding of marriage vs. the more expansive one sought by the Libs, and many indies and moderates. Frankly, had the founding fathers thought of it, they surely would have established marriage as between opposite sexes--but they never would have thought of sex changes and how to deal w/that :)))))

Neither side is technically wrong when consulting the Constitution but neither is right either......that being a draw, we as a nation with 200+ years of history, should NOT deny the "traditions" and "Christian values" as our heritage nor trash them w/disrespect!

Posted by Happy at 08/31/2007 @ 3:08pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/31/2007 @ 2:42pm

LVLIB, what will be the exact GOVERNMENTAL difference between "civil unions" and "marriage"?

If any, it won't be Constitutional.

If none, it's "marriage" if not called that.

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 3:09pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/31/2007 @ 2:48pm |

Empty, seriously, don't you think it would just be better if you AVOIDED any discussion of gay rights here at "The Nation"?

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 3:10pm
It is interesting that in attacking conservatives, none of you seem willing to acknowledge that the Democratic candidates don't support your views, except Kucinich and Gravel.

So where are you going to get legs with this?

Posted by LVLIBERTY1

It has nothing to do with which Dems support equal rights for gays and lesbians and which chickenshit Dems do not. This is about right and wrong. It's that simple. I don't care if 99% of the population is against equal rights for gays and lesbians, it doesn't make it right--or legal!

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 3:10pm
Posted by HAPPY 08/31/2007 @ 3:08pm

HAPPY, go back and re-read that 3:08pm post...I did twice, and aside from repeating yourself it came out like this...

"There's nothing in the Constitution saying gay marriage can't be legal".

"There are traditions and Christian values that say it shouldn't be!"

Aside from mind-reading men dead 200 years, you offered NOTHING to show that the 14th Amendment, Section One of the U.S. Constitution can be over-ridden by "tradition" and "Christian values".

Which was my point.

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 3:14pm
Empty, seriously, don't you think it would just be better if you AVOIDED any discussion of gay rights here at "The Nation"?

Posted by MARY

Shut your damn dickhole, bitch. Go whine all you want, mary, I don't care. This is not about ridiculing your punk, lying, ass; this is about the Constitution.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 3:15pm
Posted by HAPPY 08/31/2007 @ 3:08pm

You make a good point--that our traditions tend to evolve to the left. In 50 years gay marriage will probagbly be common. For now, we'll just call them 'civil unions' with a wink and a nod to appease those whose common sense have been poisoned by religion.

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 3:21pm
Instead of GAY marriage, we could call it HAPPY marriage! That wouldn't offend anybody's religion would it?

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 3:23pm
It is interesting that in attacking conservatives, none of you seem willing to acknowledge that the Democratic candidates don't support your views, except Kucinich and Gravel.

So where are you going to get legs with this?

Posted by LVLIBERTY1

LVL- I guess conservatives get the blame here because they use words like "perversity" and the Santorums compare homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality. Democrats need plenty of improvement on this issue as well, but similarly to pot legalization and ending the war, politics trumps reason. Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not when you said "sad thought" referring to civil unions- basic dignity, but if not, I hope you rot in hell. Only the lowest form of bilious hatred brings that out in me- thanks. Have a nice weekend everyone.

Posted by phillymark at 08/31/2007 @ 3:26pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/31/2007 @ 3:15pm

Okay, just offering some friendly advice. Nobody would notice ('cept me) if you failed to comment on article dealing with gay rights...just "didn't show up".

Otherwise, the opinion on gay rights of somebody who throws around "mary", "fruit", "fag" comments....might not have much credibility.

Once again...with feeling---

BLOG | Posted 05/24/2007 @ 11:36am Comments for "Blogging for Business" by Ari Berman

But this constant barrage of "little fruit" or other gay allusions or epithets as insults or put-downs....is rather strange from someone who purportedly is a "progressive"?!?!?---Posted by MASK

Says you. I'm not all that concerned with the speech police.

And fruit is not something I would call a gay man. Fruit, faggot, butt pirate, sucker of cocks--these are epiteths for people like you. You intentionally distort, fabricate, play little games that are not characteristic of what I consider a man.----Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/25/2007 @ 11:16am

BTW, ever noticed that "NOT characteristic of what I consider a man"????....ergo "fags", "fruit", etc. applies to those Empty "doesn't consider a man".

While his "real, not Empty" homophobic buddies back at Arlington TX High School probably felt.....the same exact way!

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 3:38pm
Posted by MARY

Are you gonna whine all day again. This isn't about your punk ass, mary. This is about equal rights for fellow Americans.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 3:41pm
And I suppose, mary, that we should vote for a Dem even if it refuses to speak up for the rights of all Americans, including gay and lesbian Americans, right? Isn't that how your reasoning comes out in the end? If you are a Dem, as you say.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 3:45pm
Which was my point.

Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 3:14p

I guess instead of beating about the Bush, I should've just added: expand old "traditions" by coming out w/legislations and get it PASSED by The People! Even more formal than what MATTMAN thinks/proposes will happen and besides, will put a lot of arguments to bed. This is a BIG issue, not unlike women's and blacks' right to vote!

Like Quebec independence, put it up for a vote every, say 4 yrs, state by state or via amending the Constitution w/each POTUS election!

Posted by Happy at 08/31/2007 @ 3:47pm
I guess instead of beating about the Bush, I should've just added: expand old "traditions" by coming out w/legislations and get it PASSED by The People! Even more formal than what MATTMAN thinks/proposes will happen and besides, will put a lot of arguments to bed. This is a BIG issue, not unlike women's and blacks' right to vote!

Posted by HAPPY

In other words, institute a legalized tyranny of the majority.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 3:56pm
Like Quebec independence, put it up for a vote every, say 4 yrs, state by state or via amending the Constitution w/each POTUS election!

Posted by HAPPY 08/31/2007 @ 3:47pm

We could learn a lot from Canadians. I also appreciate their parliamentary styley. But right now I'm more interested in the daily bickering between Empty and Mary. Fascinating discourse as always.

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 4:00pm
MT

Are you concerned about "tyranny of the majority" when it involves, oh I don't know, smokers? Or class envy (lots more poor than wealthy after all)? I'm guessing not. Hypocrite.

Posted by usc1 at 08/31/2007 @ 4:12pm
Are you concerned about "tyranny of the majority" when it involves, oh I don't know, smokers? Or class envy (lots more poor than wealthy after all)? I'm guessing not. Hypocrite.

Posted by USC1

Class envy? Can you define that for me?

Smoking? I smoke cigars.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 4:15pm
Are you concerned about "tyranny of the majority" when it involves, oh I don't know, smokers? Or class envy (lots more poor than wealthy after all)? I'm guessing not. Hypocrite.

Posted by USC1

And so what is your argument, anyway? Let's just say you're right and I'm one of those opposed to smoking any and every where. So what? That would make it alright for people like you to discriminate against gays and lesbians? Is that what you're saying?

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 4:18pm
Another idiotic column from the Nation's biggest fool.

Posted by nationwatch at 08/31/2007 @ 4:32pm
Posted by HAPPY 08/31/2007 @ 3:47pm

Sorry, HAPPY, but can't "vote" on people's rights as citizens. Again...14th Amendment, Section 1.

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 4:33pm
Are you concerned about "tyranny of the majority" when it involves, oh I don't know, smokers? Or class envy (lots more poor than wealthy after all)? I'm guessing not. Hypocrite.

Posted by USC1

It's an equality issue. Period. Gay people want to be able to marry the person they love just as their straight siblings do.

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 4:35pm
Smoking? I smoke cigars.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/31/2007 @ 4:15pm

I wonder what Freud would say about this.

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 4:36pm
Another idiotic column from the Nation's biggest fool.

Posted by NATIONWATCH 08/31/2007 @ 4:32pm

"Idiotic" and "fool". As if by saying it's so, you make it so. Is that the best you can do, or could you elaborate by stating WHY the column is idiotic, or why its writer is a fool?

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 4:38pm
Posted by MATTMAN

Did Freud know the difference between a Marxist and a capitalist?

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 4:38pm
"I've noted that marriage is a judeo-christian sacrament..."

Posted by LVLIBERTY1

So Muslims, Bhuddists, Mormons, and every other non-Christian is sol?

It's comforting to see such a "lover" of liberty rationalize discrimination against fellow Americans.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 4:43pm
Did Freud know the difference between a Marxist and a capitalist?

Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/31/2007 @ 4:38pm

I'm pretty sure I didn't equate the two in our previous conversation, but if you care to pour over the contents of past comments to find out what I said and show it to me, please do so. I don't think a Marxist and a capitalist, liberal or otherwise, are synonymous. I believe what I said was something to the extent of that the ideals of modern liberalism borrow aspects from the principles of Marxism. I felt I should clear that up since you've referenced it a couple of times now.

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 4:51pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/31/2007 @ 4:18pm

Nope. You brought up "tyranny of the majority." With smokers (and others) it's no different.

Posted by usc1 at 08/31/2007 @ 4:51pm
I'm not arguing that it was Christians that slaughtered the American Indians and stole their land. That's not what being contested. The Constitution is very clear and mentions nothing about only straights or Christians.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 4:52pm
Nope. You brought up "tyranny of the majority." With smokers (and others) it's no different.

Posted by USC1

So you've got no argument, is that it?

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 4:54pm
History is history. This nation was not founded by Muslims or Hindus, or Buddhists. The religious institution of marriage was brought and instituted in this country by Christians, that is a fact of history.-----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/31/2007 @ 4:46pm

LVLIB....given the importance you place on the religious affiliation of those who founded this country...are the REST of us (Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, athiest/agnostic) obliged to only act in accordance to the affiliations of Jefferson, Madison, and Washington?

For instance, as Christians they also brought the institution of slavery to this country....so any problem opposing that or do we risk offending the Founders?

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 4:56pm
It's an equality issue. Period. Gay people want to be able to marry the person they love just as their straight siblings do.

Posted by MATTMAN 08/31/2007 @ 4:35pm

Then why can't smokers enjoy a cigarette (or cigar) in restaurants in many cities in this country? They just want what everyone else has.

We could apply so many other arguments to this--seatbelt laws, helmet laws, child safety seat laws, etc. Why do you allow government to intrude in these areas but not others?

Posted by usc1 at 08/31/2007 @ 4:57pm
BTW, can I just again point out that LVLIB and others ....

offer NOTHING Constitutional to oppose giving gays the equal right to marry under our legal system.

Just "tradition" and "the Bible". So...unless they want to abolish ALL marriage licensing, Constitutionally, the issue (outside of politics) is settled.

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 4:58pm
We could apply so many other arguments to this--seatbelt laws, helmet laws, child safety seat laws, etc. Why do you allow government to intrude in these areas but not others?

Posted by USC1

Apples and oranges. You're simply searching for a rationale to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 5:00pm
Then why can't smokers enjoy a cigarette (or cigar) in restaurants in many cities in this country? They just want what everyone else has.

We could apply so many other arguments to this--seatbelt laws, helmet laws, child safety seat laws, etc. Why do you allow government to intrude in these areas but not others?

Posted by USC1 08/31/2007 @ 4:57pm

Well, second hand smoke tends to harm innocent bystanders. Gay marriage harms no one.

There is one good point you bring up. I'm tired of the government requiring child safety seats. Who are they to attempt to save children's lives? It should be left up to the child!

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 5:04pm
So, then, can anybody here come up with an argument against allowing polygamy? Or allowing two men and three women (or more) to intermarry?

Posted by USC1

Yes. Marriage laws provide societal benefits to two people who wish to form a legal union. Allowing two people of the opposite sex to enter into this union to obtain these benefits, while prohibiting two people of the same sex from doing it does not provide for equal protection under the law. On the other hand, polygamy complicates exactly those matters marriage is supposed to make simple.

Posted by Hman23 at 08/31/2007 @ 5:06pm
Hence, there is a compelling state interest in outlawing polygamy.

Posted by Hman23 at 08/31/2007 @ 5:10pm
If consenting adults want to engage in polygamous marriages, it's their business.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 5:11pm
Well, second hand smoke tends to harm innocent bystanders.

Posted by MATTMAN 08/31/2007 @ 5:04pm

Really? How? Do you have a link that proves that sitting in a restaurant 50 feet away from a smoker for 1-2 hours causes cancer?

And on top of that, it still begs the question, why are you discriminating against the smoker? The non-smoker could just as easily AVOID going to those restaurants where smoking is allowed. Let the individual choose, not the government. You're supposed to be the pro-choice folks, aren't you?

Same goes for the child safety seat. Let the parents choose how to best care for their child. Not government.

Posted by usc1 at 08/31/2007 @ 5:27pm
On the other hand, polygamy complicates exactly those matters marriage is supposed to make simple.

Posted by HMAN23 08/31/2007 @ 5:06pm

Complicates it for who? You? The government? Please. Those same laws could provide societal benefits for polygamists, too. You don't want to discriminate against one group simply because you think it's too complicated, do you?

Posted by usc1 at 08/31/2007 @ 5:32pm
I don't polygamy is outlawed due to the complications of property and what not; it's a Christian thing.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 5:36pm
....but can't "vote" on people's rights as citizens. Again...14th Amendment, Section 1.

Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 4:33pm

Then, can you show us under said Amendment, where it says folks under 18 can't vote, folks can't marry if below certain age, can't be medical doctors or astronauts, can't be MASK, fetuses aren't "citizens",......and that foreigners have to be afforded rights of "citizens"? IF it is as easy as you seem to think, why is same-sex marriage such a BIG issue? Are all but two Dem POTUS candidates, including front runners, as ignorant as us Conservatives?

Posted by Happy at 08/31/2007 @ 5:42pm
USC1-Straights aren't discriminated against.We can get married,but not to more than one person at a time.Existing laws do not cover every possible marriage combination and lawmakers don't have the time to write laws that would cover every possible marriage combination.They would have to drop everything and spend years trying to figure out all the possible combinations and writing laws to protect all involved.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/31/2007 @ 5:46pm
Posted by USC1 08/31/2007 @ 5:27pm

Here: http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

I would cut and paste every one but you can just as easily do the busy work if you need the education. The one smoker in the restaurant 50 feet away for 1 to 2 hours is one thing, but when every smoker in every public place decides to light up and pollute the air, it's not an equal rights issue, it's a public health issue.

Children need advocacy in the case that the parents are not responsible. The public (i.e. government) has a common stake in ensuring the safety of our children.

I'm not sure why I'm playing along, nothing else to do I guess. Why don't you just state why you're against gay marriage? Don't agree with the lifestyle others lead, or do you really draw parallels between the gay marriage question and second hand smoke?

How them Trojans lookin this year?

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 5:53pm
Posted by HAPPY

Her you go, moron:

Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years. Ratified 7/1/1971.

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

A fetus? You're trying to drag that bs into this?

A doctor must have the proper training and other prerequisites to obtain a license to practise medicine, right? I don't know all the in's and out's of it, but having certain qualifications sounds like a good idea for someone that wants to practise medicine. I would imagine that any and all are elligible for a license so long as they meet the standards and requirements, regardless of age, sexuality, religion, etc.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 5:53pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 08/31/2007 @ 5:46pm

What's so difficult about writing a law that states anyone can marry whoever and however many they want? No restrictions. Why do you insist on stomping on the rights of others? Why? Oh WHY?!? You're deplorable for believing that some people's rights are more important than others.

Posted by usc1 at 08/31/2007 @ 7:21pm
Since this gay marriage issue is pretty much covered for the day, what style of music do you play?

Posted by MATTMAN 08/31/2007 @ 1:22pm

duke ellington said something to the effect of "there are only two kinds of music: good and bad"

that being said, i play anything i can get paid for. to me the important part isn't so much the style but the quality and attitude of my fellow players.

however, i do like american music (and brazilian, and mexican, and iranian, and senegalese, and canadian, and............) :

........coltrane, white stripes, copland, ives, muddy waters, flatt and scruggs, monk, clifton chenier, john lee hooker, duke, (oops! almost forgot nirvana!)...............

holy cow, y'all got some great players

and once again, i apologize for bryan adams

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2007 @ 7:28pm
So, then, can anybody here come up with an argument against allowing polygamy? Or allowing two men and three women (or more) to intermarry?

Posted by USC1 08/31/2007 @ 1:58pm

cool! where do i sign up?

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2007 @ 7:29pm
WOLFGANG1, MASK, I'M NOBODY, FRANKGRITS,

Let's put an end to this useless conversation once and for all and marry all fags and dykes forthwith posthaste.............

Posted by POSEIDON at 08/31/2007 @ 7:31pm
and once again, i apologize for bryan adams

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/31/2007 @ 7:28pm

Apology accepted. There's not enough room for all apologies from the U.S.

Sounds like you must be doing something right. That's a lot of great influence you listed. I play guitar and sing in a three-piece punk rock band. I won't lie and say we're great, but we have a good time at it. My bass player is a huge fan of the Vancouver band Nomeansno, ever heard of them?

Posted by MATTMAN at 08/31/2007 @ 7:35pm
Posted by HMAN23 08/31/2007 @ 5:06pm | ignore this person

First of all, polygamy already exists, legal or otherwise. As for allowing 3 or more men and/or women to intermarry, meaning that two men can be married to the same woman or one man can be married to three women plus another husband in the background, what ever knocks your socks off, dude..........Personally, I would love to see a child custody battle between three men married to one woman who has at least one child from each husband with one of the husbands also married to the wife's sister............

Posted by POSEIDON at 08/31/2007 @ 7:37pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/31/2007 @ 5:49pm

Since LVLIB quoted the Bible about marriage...

wonder what I'd find in the Bible on slavery? Pro or con?

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 7:38pm
Posted by POSEIDON 08/31/2007 @ 7:31pm |

POSEI, you shouldn't use words like that, unless you're gay...

or are Empty SPENCE and are allowed to and still remain a "progressive"!

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 7:39pm
The one smoker in the restaurant 50 feet away for 1 to 2 hours is one thing, but when every smoker in every public place decides to light up and pollute the air, it's not an equal rights issue, it's a public health issue.

Aaah. Except that they are not public places. These are restaurants that are privately owned...and the owners should be able to determine what type of clientele they will allow into their restaurants. If non-smokers don't like it, they can eat elsewhere.

And you haven't shown me a study that shows exactly how much smoke exposure puts someone at risk for health issues. After all too much of anything is bad for you. It's determining the amount that will cause cancer that is the point here. Yes, your link does say that even minute amounts of smoke can aggravate asthma, but then so can ragweed or pollen. Are you going to advocate that we shouldn't plant any more trees? Public health concerns and all.

Posted by usc1 at 08/31/2007 @ 8:00pm
I don't care what the Big John "needs a" Shaft,(it fits and works) is doing with his Shaft..as long as he keeps it away from me,my family, and my pets...including the livestock.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/31/2007 @ 2:14pm

it seems mr shaft's politics usually match mine more closely than yours. and sometimes he writes some pretty funny lines.

that being said, i found his posts today a little over the top (thus far--haven't read too much; helped a friend move).

but responding to name calling with more name calling with more name calling with more name calling with more name calling....................

i think you can see my point

BTW do you really have livestock?

to mr shaft--i realize the thrust (pun intended) of your argument is against people's hypocrisy.

however, isn't it a bit odd of you to attack people for being repressed gays when you say you support gay people? after all, they are still gay.

BTW do you write gay erotica?

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2007 @ 8:05pm
Children need advocacy in the case that the parents are not responsible. The public (i.e. government) has a common stake in ensuring the safety of our children.

Kinda brings into question the hypocritical stance on abortion, doesn't it?

Posted by usc1 at 08/31/2007 @ 8:18pm
Well, second hand smoke tends to harm innocent bystanders.

Posted by MATTMAN 08/31/2007 @ 5:04pm

Really? How? Do you have a link that proves that sitting in a restaurant 50 feet away from a smoker for 1-2 hours causes cancer?

Posted by USC1 08/31/2007 @ 5:27pm

i do.

here's the charming tale [tinyurl.com] of heather crowe to brighten up your day.

in ontario, smoking has been banned in restaurants, bars, etc.

oh happy day!

no more going home from gigs with dry eyes, headaches, stinky gear, you name it!

Same goes for the child safety seat. Let the parents choose how to best care for their child. Not government.

Posted by USC1 08/31/2007 @ 5:27pm

an anecdote:

travelling in a taxi in mexico, i see the taxi driver's wife in the passenger seat up front, holding an small infant. i told them about how in canada such an act would make them liable for a hefty fine.

their reaction: "oh, he's o.k."

less than a minute later, brakes squeal and the baby's head came within a couple of centimetres of smashing into the windshield.

they thanked me profusely and said they would buy a child safety seat asap.

i couldn't be happier that my government says my son needs such a seat and your children will be just as happy one day, too.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2007 @ 8:30pm
Galatians 3:28 (Frosty Zoom Version)

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, there is neither gay nor straight: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha or Abraham or......

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/31/2007 @ 5:42pm

i sincerely hope i haven't offended thee. the bible, like all major religious tenets, is (mostly) a work of beauty.

this quotation is very moving, especially considering when it was written.

....just trying to make a point.........

Samuel 25:6

FZ

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2007 @ 8:40pm
Posted by MATTMAN 08/31/2007 @ 7:35pm

nope.

but i do like punk (whatever that means--styles have always melded, but today, with digital technology it's crazy--why just the other day i heard some ¡serbian reggae!

who you listen to?

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2007 @ 8:45pm
Posted by USC1 08/31/2007 @ 8:00pm

tobacco is poison.

from your argument, can i construe that you wouldn't be opposed to heroin bars, for example?

bet you'd love to have one of them next door.

It's determining the amount that will cause cancer that is the point here.

impossible. everybody's different.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2007 @ 8:49pm
all apologies

Posted by MATTMAN 08/31/2007 @ 7:35pm

great tune

What else should I be

All apologies

What else could I say

EVERYONE IS GAY

What else could I write

I don't have the right

What else should I be

All Apologies

In the sun

In the sun I feel as one

In the sun

In the sun

Married

Buried

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2007 @ 8:53pm
USC1:

Considering the fact that there are literally no studies proving that pot is either addictive, toxic (or even harmful, even in large doses), I am curious to hear what your view on pot use is.

Posted by jorcheim at 08/31/2007 @ 9:01pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/31/2007 @ 8:30pm

Addresses nothing that I've posted.

Posted by usc1 at 08/31/2007 @ 9:12pm
just one question:

can anybody find what judge robert hanson's political affiliation is (i've searched--no luck, but i have learned a lot about the iowa judicial system, ¡hooray!)?

of course, a good judge is beyond partisanship, but ¿how often does that happen?

it seems like he would be a democrat, given the ruling.

yet, if he were a republican, it could actually do the party a lot of good. you know, revitalize "the base" ('al-qaeda' in arabic).

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2007 @ 9:44pm
JORCH, FROSTY....I think I get USC1's point.

If we stop banning smoking in public places...

he'll support gay marriage....uh...right, USC?

Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 10:26pm
Mask

Of course not. Folks on this site love to whine about the "oppression" of the minority, yet they can't seem to explain away multiple other "rights abuses" or tyranny of the majority that they support. It's that simple. Just looking for a little consistency.

I don't really have a dog in this fight. It's Labor Day weekend and I'm hanging around the house so I'd thought I'd have a little fun with the hypocrites tonight.

Time to turn in. Have a great weekend.

Posted by usc1 at 08/31/2007 @ 10:50pm
Oh, and Jorcheim, you might want to recheck your sources.

Posted by usc1 at 08/31/2007 @ 10:58pm
To all of you who have tried to compare gay marriage to a host of other potentially legal institutions, such as polygamy, etc., I have this to say: Gay marriage is gay marriage. It is not anything else.

Every law in existence restricts somebody's liberty in some way. Yet a law may be justified if it prevents harm, thereby in effect protecting more liberties than it threatens.

Gay marriage causes no measurable harm to heterosexual marriage. Or would some homophobe care to show me whose heterosexual marriage is imperiled by gays and lesbians who want to marry each other? My heterosexual marriage is not endangered by any homosexual person's desire to marry, and it would not dissolve if this person were as free to be married as I am. But if homosexual marriages cause no harm to anybody else's marriages, then I see no compelling reason to prohibit them. If you don't like gay marriage, well, then don't have one.

I do not have a quarrel with those who (like John Kerry, I believe) would like marriage to be church-defined, while also allowing civil unions that could be government-defined. However, I would insist (and I hope Kerry would, too) that the legal rights and responsibilities of both married couples and "civilly united" couples should be the same. Equality before the law demands no less.

While I'm on the subject of equality, it is worth mentioning that polygamous relationships generally fail to be egalitarian in their distribution of an important private good -- sexual relations. In a polygynous relationship, one man gets two sexual partners, but each woman gets only one half a partner. In a polyandrous relationship, one woman gets two sexual partners, but each man gets only one half a partner. Not fair in either case. Frankly, I don't believe any amount of government regulation could make either kind of polygamous relationship fair.

The government's business is first and foremost to encourage parents to provide the best possible care for their children, whether they do the work of caregiving alone or in pairs, and whether their children are biological or adopted.

The government cannot make all human relationships fair -- but I am happy that it provides ways for adults, at least, to escape unfair relationships, including unfair marriages. This is why divorce is also legal.

Posted by JakobFabian at 09/01/2007 @ 12:25am
I think that a number of interesting points have been made, though unfortunately some of them seem to dodge the issue (intentionally or not). Everyone seems to agree that nothing in the Constitution clearly prohibits gay marriage; that much seems pretty obvious.

The important thing, then, is whether the Constitution requires gay marriage. The only ground for such an argument, as has been pointed out, is the Equal Protection Clause. At that point, the dispute boils down to this question: what precisely does equal protection mean? It obviously doesn't mean that everyone in society is entitled by the government to precisely the same things, otherwise government subsidies that single out particular activities by particular individuals would be unconstitutional.

From the plain meaning of the words, the issue seems fairly straightfoward, so the only way to deny that the Equal Protection Clause entails gay marriage is to do one of two things: appeal to the original intent of the phrase, or argue that there is a compelling state interest in not having gay marriage.

These tend to bleed into each other, because the argument then becomes that offered by Liberty: traditional marriage is an institution of great importance to our democracy, and so it must be preserved. It was recognized as such from the beginning, and still is fundamental today. Though this is partially right, I think it misses the bigger picture. Marriage as the state recognizes it exists to encourage healthy monogamous relationships between human beings, and offers concurrent benefits for those relationships. The state values those relationships because they are important for the overall health of society and those within it. On these grounds, I think that the crucial importance of marriage provides all the more support for gay marriage to exist, as a poster briefly alluded to a while back.

Religion, of course, makes the discussion interesting, because most mainstream religions define marriage as between a man and a woman. Much of the hostility towards gay marriage comes from the interrelationship between marriage as the state bestows it and marriage as religions understand it. Ultimately, I'm beginning to think that marriage ought to be understood as a religious institution, meaning that the state can only award the equivalent of civil unions. Otherwise, the state risks diving unnecessarily into religious waters, and religion risks being told who it can and cannot marry.

Posted by Thrawn at 09/01/2007 @ 02:48am
Posted by USC1 08/31/2007 @ 10:50pm

What about two gay people getting married hurts the majority?

Posted by Mask at 09/01/2007 @ 08:53am
It obviously doesn't mean that everyone in society is entitled by the government to precisely the same things, otherwise government subsidies that single out particular activities by particular individuals would be unconstitutional. ----Posted by THRAWN 09/01/2007 @ 02:48am

THRAWN, you're not talking about welfare payments or affirmative action. If the right to marry (and the governmental benefits thereof) is granted to any citizen of legal age, then to deny it to another citizen is un-Constitutional.

Posted by Mask at 09/01/2007 @ 08:55am
Since LVLIB quoted the Bible about marriage...

wonder what I'd find in the Bible on slavery? Pro or con?

Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 7:38pm

mask:

see "evolution is texas" for some more bible action

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/01/2007 @ 09:06am
I've noted that marriage is a judeo-christian sacrament

this is a lie.it is NOT exclusively so. Liverty cheats. we are speaking not of religious marriages but state, that is secular, marriages.

in our secular society we have no law against blasphemy or heresy, for instance, though these are offenses in many religions.

keep your gutter religion, Liverty.

Posted by johannesrolf at 09/01/2007 @ 10:32am
The government's business is first and foremost to encourage parents to provide the best possible care for their children, whether they do the work of caregiving alone or in pairs, and whether their children are biological or adopted.

this is true, Jake. but it has nothing to do with marriage. many couples have children without the dubious benefits of a marriage license. at the same time many couples are childless.

Posted by johannesrolf at 09/01/2007 @ 10:38am
It obviously doesn't mean that everyone in society is entitled by the government to precisely the same things, otherwise government subsidies that single out particular activities by particular individuals would be unconstitutional. ----Posted by THRAWN 09/01/2007 @ 02:48am

THRAWN, you're not talking about welfare payments or affirmative action. If the right to marry (and the governmental benefits thereof) is granted to any citizen of legal age, then to deny it to another citizen is un-Constitutional.

Posted by MASK 09/01/2007 @ 08:55am

Why? I'm not entirely sure what the distinction is (equal-protection-wise) between something like welfare payments and marriage rights offered by the state. Constitutional jurisprudence (with regard to the Supreme Court) has generally recognized this, in that it usually requires only that policies which differentiate between people show some form of rational basis for doing so. The bar for this is generally pretty low; so long as some reasonable person could accept the differentation, it stands.

Moreover, I question the extent to which this actually is an Equal Protection issue (though I realize this sort of reverses the position I held last night). The Equal Protection clause requires that individuals be treated equally, not that all forms of association be treated equally. The state can create benefits for one particular form of association without establishing benefits for all of them, just as it can differentiate between life choices in other arenas (academic, etc.)

I want to make a a distinction, however. Though I'm skeptical of the belief that the Equal Protection Clause requires gay marriage to be legalized so long as heterosexual marriage is, I still think that some form of gay marriage is absolutely a good thing. As I mentioned before, the best scenario seems to be a clear differentiation between the contractual relationship that the state provides either to heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, and the marriage vows independently sanctified by a religious institution.

Posted by Thrawn at 09/01/2007 @ 11:46am
and the marriage vows independently sanctified by a religious institution.

Posted by THRAWN 09/01/2007 @ 11:46am | ignore this person,

there is no religious requirement in civil marriages whatsoever. nor should there be.

Posted by johannesrolf at 09/01/2007 @ 12:08pm
Well, I guess "gay marriage" is a lot easier to deal with then racism or racidal injustice.

Every time a liberal law gets passed in this country, it always has an adverse effect on people of color. (Housing, schools, voting, welfare, jobs, healthcare, finances, etc., etc., etc....)

Posted by ACook at 09/01/2007 @ 12:15pm
Every time a liberal law gets passed in this country, it always has an adverse effect on people of color. (Housing, schools, voting, welfare, jobs, healthcare, finances, etc., etc., etc....)

Posted by ACOOK 09/01/2007 @ 12:15pm | ignore this person

complete bullshit, unsupported bullshit at that.

Posted by johannesrolf at 09/01/2007 @ 12:20pm
"complete bullshit, unsupported bullshit at that."

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/01/2007 @ 12:20pm

What's the matter JR, I touched a nerve?

Posted by ACook at 09/01/2007 @ 12:30pm
Every time a liberal law gets passed in this country, it always has an adverse effect on people of color. (Housing, schools, voting, welfare, jobs, healthcare, finances, etc., etc., etc....)

Posted by ACOOK 09/01/2007 @ 12:15pm

you mean, the emancipation proclamation and desegregation.

sure sent those black folks back in time.

wisdom of the ages.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/01/2007 @ 12:40pm
USC1-Hopefully,you're just trying to be funny and that you aren't expecting to have your nonsense taken seriously.Hopefully,you really aren't so ignorant as to believe that it would be easy to come up with laws that would cover every possible marriage combination.Your groups want more than others get,but gays just want what others get so your argument wouldn't relate to this topic anyway.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/01/2007 @ 12:57pm
What's the matter JR, I touched a nerve?

Posted by ACOOK 09/01/2007 @ 12:30pm | ignore this person

no,doll. you are so dumb and uninformed that you couldn't touch a nerve with an army of dentists. you are equally clueless where black folks are concerned. ever read Malcolm X?

Posted by johannesrolf at 09/01/2007 @ 1:03pm
you couldn't touch a nerve with an army of dentists

no, but maybe he could search for cavities.

apologies to mr acook--couldn't resist (this [double entendre] is considered an art in mexico)

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/01/2007 @ 1:23pm
I'm

We got on this subject because one of you liberals was whining (again) about the "tyranny of the majority." I have given just a couple of examples showing that you folks only care about this when its one of your "pet" demographics that's affected. Again, just looking for a little consistency (and not finding much, I might add.).

Posted by usc1 at 09/01/2007 @ 2:59pm
And BTW, I have already stated that it would be easy for law-makers to write a law that states a person can marry whomever and however-many he wants. As a matter of fact, I think I just did. What was so difficult about that?

Posted by usc1 at 09/01/2007 @ 3:01pm
I'm

Why are you so frightened of polygamous marriages? Frankly, I'm concerned about your total disregard for their "rights" to enter into whatever type of union that they prefer.

Posted by usc1 at 09/01/2007 @ 3:03pm
USC1-So,you are just clowning around.I figured as much.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/01/2007 @ 3:04pm
USC1-You aren't looking for consistency.You were coming up with ludicrous nonsense that had no relevance to this topic.You seem to forget that not all marriages work out when you came up with your law about marrying anyone and everyone.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/01/2007 @ 3:10pm
"Here is something for Iowans to think about...especially FRANK...

THE BEST OF HILLARY..

"( 1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

(2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

(3) "(We) ....can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

(4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground."

(5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed." (My personal fav,in light of the modst successful economy in the world)

(6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

Now you might think these were the famous words of the Father of communism, Karl Marx........

....and you would be on the right track in thinking so.....but you would be wrong......

These pearls of socialist/Marxist wisdom are from none other than our very own, home-grown Marxist.........

Hillary Clinton!........ Comments made on: (1) 6/29/04 (2) 5/29/07 (3) 6/4/07 (4) 6/4/07 (5) 6/4/07 (6) 9/2/05

And my individual fav..." I'm gonna take those profits and give them too...."

This is frightening to anyone who can read.

Posted by john maasch at 09/01/2007 @ 4:15pm
Maasch-It's odd how people see Hillary as everything from a communist to a Republican lite and everything in between.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/01/2007 @ 4:21pm
USC1:

Pet demographics? You mean the other 73% of the country who isn't a true believer in Bush's conception of the universe?

Posted by jorcheim at 09/01/2007 @ 7:06pm
there is no religious requirement in civil marriages whatsoever. nor should there be.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/01/2007 @ 12:08pm

This is sort of true. The problem in the status quo is that both religious and civil marriages are grouped under the heading of "marriage," which is why people are able to get away with projecting religious mandates onto the way that the government treats civil marriages. My argument is that these two need to be differentiated; the state should afford civil unions to homosexual couples and to heterosexual couples.

Posted by Thrawn at 09/01/2007 @ 10:26pm
Posted by USC1 09/01/2007 @ 2:59pm

bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk!

(sound of head banging against wall)

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2007 @ 03:53am
mine by the way

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2007 @ 03:53am
Maasch-It's odd how people see Hillary as everything from a communist to a Republican lite and everything in between.

Posted by I'M NOBODY 09/01/2007

i personally see her as a threat to my sanity.

(no cheap remarks from the cheap seats, please)

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2007 @ 03:56am
My argument is that these two need to be differentiated; the state should afford civil unions to homosexual couples and to heterosexual couples.

Posted by THRAWN 09/01/2007

HEY, I'VE GOT AN IDEA

MARRIAGE

CIVIL UNION

THESE WORDS HAVE WAY TOO MUCH BAGGAGE.

I SAY WE SCRAP 'EM!

WHEN TWO PEOPLE (YES ¡TWO!) THINK THEY CAN TOLERATE EACH OTHER'S IDIOSYNCRASIES FOR THE REST OF EACH OTHER'S LIVES, THEY CAN GO TO THE NEAREST PARK, TAKE OUT A POCKET KNIFE, CARVE A GREAT BIG HEART IN AN OLD WOODEN BENCH, AND SCRAWL T.L.F. (true love forever) PLUS THEIR INITIALS (preferably with hearts over any "i"s in names such as "brandi" or "karlie" or "aice" or "gairy" [if so be it]).

THEN THEY CAN TAKE A DIGITAL SNAPPY OF IT AND E-MAIL IT TO THE CENTRAL REGISTRATION ADMINISTRATION (CRA) ALONG WITH THEIR $4,567,342.29* FEE (mc, visa, amex [sorry, no diner's]).

THEREAFTER, YE SHALL ENJOY ALL THE COOL TAX STUFF "MARRIED"** PEOPLE GET.

*hey, you ain't gonna make no mistakes and f@@k up some poor kid's life by getting divorced if it costs this much.

** married is now considered an archaic term. from hereon after, this ceremony shall be known as "benching", and the people will be referred to as being "benched"

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2007 @ 04:14am
Posted by THRAWN 09/01/2007 @ 10:26pm | ignore this person

an entirely reasonable conclusion. the state could also get out of the marriage business entirely. let them form domestic partnerships.

let's not forget that this is not just a matter of semantics, what a thing is called. we are dealing with the hatred experienced by an entire class of people, homosexuals. and the haters are more likely than not "good" religious folk.

that is the overriding issue, and it is this hatred we must oppose in loud and no uncertain terms. we know who the haters are on these threads.

Posted by johannesrolf at 09/02/2007 @ 09:04am
and once again, i apologize for bryan adams

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/31/2007 @ 7:28pm

It's OK. We still got Rush, Triumph and Saga out of the deal.

(Eric loves our 51st state).

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 09/03/2007 @ 4:23pm
Every time a liberal law gets passed in this country, it always has an adverse effect on people of color. (Housing, schools, voting, welfare, jobs, healthcare, finances, etc., etc., etc....)

Posted by ACOOK 09/01/2007 @ 12:15pm

Wow!

I quite often disagree with where you are coming from, acook. And as a beige guy, I tend to defer to your perceptions, as to racism issues.

Well, no more. That is the biggest load of crap you have ever posted on this blog. And it throws in to debate, the validity of your perception.

Care to elaborate? (I could use a good laugh)?

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 09/03/2007 @ 4:26pm
...taking that as a no.

Posted by Malcontent at 09/06/2007 @ 9:14pm

About the Authors

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)
Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)
Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)
Cora Currier (Posts | Bio)
John Nichols (Posts | Bio)
Katrina vanden Heuvel (Posts | Bio)
Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)
Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)
Max Blumenthal (Posts | Bio)
Tom Engelhardt (Posts | Bio)
Victor Navasky (Posts | Bio)

A New Frontburner Issue in Iowa: Same-Sex Marriage

posted by John Nichols on 08/31/2007 @ 04:05am

About the Authors

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Cora Currier (Posts | Bio)

John Nichols (Posts | Bio)

Katrina vanden Heuvel (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Max Blumenthal (Posts | Bio)

Tom Engelhardt (Posts | Bio)

Victor Navasky (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

A New Frontburner Issue in Iowa: Same-Sex Marriage

posted by John Nichols on 08/31/2007 @ 04:05am

Share this article

About the Authors

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Cora Currier (Posts | Bio)

John Nichols (Posts | Bio)

Katrina vanden Heuvel (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Max Blumenthal (Posts | Bio)

Tom Engelhardt (Posts | Bio)

Victor Navasky (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!