Rep. Steve Howard, D-Rutland, who is gay, right, hugs Rep. Rep. Lucy Leriche, D-Hardwick, following preliminary approval of a gay marriage bill in Montpelier, Vt., Thursday, April 2, 2009.
Rep. Steve Howard, D-Rutland, who is gay, right, hugs Rep. Rep. Lucy Leriche, D-Hardwick, following preliminary approval of a gay marriage bill in Montpelier, Vt., Thursday, April 2, 2009.
Gay and Lesbian is a state of mind, not a gender.
Bisexual people are discriminated against too because they can't have a spouse of "each" gender.
This is actually going to be easy to reverse. Just like in California, it will be easy to get a huge majority of voters to agree to change the State Constitution to ban homosexual ‘marriage’. This won’t even last a month.
Press release: Iowa Supreme Court Rules in Marriage Case
Iowa Supreme Court | 04/03/2009 | Iowa Supreme Court
Posted on 04/03/2009 8:01:29 AM PDT by iowamark
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2221548/posts
Homosexual Agenda Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com
Welcome to the land of judicial tyranny. Soon to be the land of legislative and executive tyranny as well.
>>The Polk County attorney’s office claimed that Judge Robert Hanson’s ruling violated the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.<<
Well that’s not gonna work because of the Loving v. Virginia federal precedent.
>>Gay marriage opponents have no other legal options to appeal the case to the state or federal level because they were not parties to the lawsuit, and there is no federal issue raised in the case, Sarcone said. <<
And that’s makes for a heck of a conundrum -
>>Todd Pettys, a University of Iowa law professor, said the state’s equal protection clause on which Friday’s ruling was based is worded slightly differently than the U.S. Constitution. But Iowa’s language means almost “exactly the same thing.”
Still, he said, it’s difficult to predict whether the U.S. Supreme Court would view the issue the same way as the Iowa justices. <<
Before today I would have said that’s what it will come to - will the U.S. supreme court apply a similar interpretation like they did in Loving.
But this is state case only and fill faith and credit is not gonna leave much choice - other states are are almost going to have to honor these gay marriages the same way they honor contracts from other states.
This is how revolutions get started.
Alright Iowans time to assert your power and get to work on amending the state constitution.
This is the inevitable culmination of a culture that has steadily degraded and marginalized a once lofty institution. Marriage has been steadily weakened as cohabitation, illegitimacy, no-fault divorce, adultery, and serial marriages have intruded and fought for societal acceptance. The age-old concept of marriage being a sacred union between a man and a woman before God and man has been rejected as unworkable, laughable, hopelessly old fashioned and contrary to the basest of human sexual urges. Homosexual marriage is the silver bullet that will destroy the last vestiges of both legitimacy and honor that marriage has held for thousands of years going back to the very origins of Western civilization.
Marriage has never been anything other than between males and females. Now we are expected to accept the notion that marriage is whatever one wants it to be and defined by the whims of popular culture and liberal judges. For once marriage is something other that what it has always been, then it must become anything and everything. The same simplistic arguments monotonously repeated over and over by advocates of same-sex marriage can, and will, be used to justify multiple wives, bi-sexual trios, incest, group marriage, animal-human and adult-child partnerships, and whatever other twisted formations the human mind is capable of dreaming up.
The backlash against same-sex marriage is not about hate, discrimination or a denial of equal rights. Homosexuals are not forced to sit in the back of the bus or counted as three-fifths of a person. They are forcing their lifestyle, sexual activities, and agenda down the throat of those who oppose homosexuality for a host of natural, biological, religious, moral, or cultural reasons. It is the homosexual lobby and their allies who are actively attempting to steal and redefine the institution of marriage. It is they who have emerged from the closet, taken to the streets and are attempting to snatch legal, cultural, and moral legitimacy for their lifestyle.
Some photographer probably got it wrong in the photo you posted. The MSM template is to show scenes of joyous gay or lesbian “couples” hugging after some kind of legal victory for their perverse cause. But here you have a man and a woman. How strange!
This is BS.
Marriage IS a union of a man and woman.
It cannot therefore be a union of man-man or woman-woman or dog-cat for that matter.
Thus, if the homos want some sort of institution, they will have to invent a new word for it. It is NOT marriage by definition. While courts can rule as stupidly as they want, the fact is they don't erase the meaning of the word.
how did Iowa go freak state?