our Founding Father knew damn well about the FDRQ and made no provision for them... end of story.
Posted on 04/03/2009 7:10:08 AM PDT by Zakeet
The Iowa Supreme Court says the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making it the third state where gay marriage is legal.
In a unanimous ruling issued Friday, the court upheld a 2007 Polk County District Court judge's ruling that the law was unconstitutional.
The case stems from a 2005 lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization. The group filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses.
The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.
The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and the issue should be left to the Legislature.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
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!
Academia,Liberalism,Judges?
our Founding Father knew damn well about the FDRQ and made no provision for them... end of story.
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.
USSR WAS COMMUNIST.
Communism destroys the economy.
It’s nothing to do with attacking religion, its everything to do with attacking economic freedom.
Sounds like we need an extra clause or an extra amendment to put before the voters. Saying that judges that overrule such constitutional amendments either are automatically removed from office or at least all automatically face a prompt recall election associated with a re-vote on the amendment.
I know, already corrected myself earlier.
I know, already corrected myself earlier.
No, it's a joke. From South Park's "Butt Buddies" episode to the very real support of the divorce attorneys it has always been a joke. But contrary to popular belief it may not be on us.
Once this was successfully cast as a civil rights issue the war was over. You don't get to vote on people's civil rights. There are still battles to be fought, but legally it's a losing effort. And eventually 'defining marriage as a union between a man and woman so as to preclude someone's civil rights (or something like that)' will be overturned.
So what's so damn funny?
This is as huge of a mistake as the gay movement has ever made. Illustrative of people who just don't know when to quit. In their lust to take on more trappings of normalcy they have managed to bind themselves with all of the legal and social issues associated with marriage.
So it comes as a disagreeable surprise to the lesbian who has given birth that the lesbian she is divorcing has visitation rights. Of course nothing is more fun than finding out all about alimony—and support payments if there has been an adoption. That of course leads to custody questions and on and on and on.
The lawyers and GALs are laughing all the way to the bank.
Meanwhile the liberal whackos now find themselves needing to spend money on a government initiative encouraging marriage. The law of unintended consequences is in full swing.
So as I wrote earlier, let them get married. What the hell. Why should they be any happier than the rest of us?
Exactly. And the vehicle for this fallacy is Lawrence v. Texas in which a court majority gave Carte Blanche to any and all desires that a person may want to express as giving "meaning to life." By such reasoning, is there now any "self expression" that can't be construed as being protected by the U.S. Constitution? This court decision was the flushing of all societal norms down the drain.
Yep. No argument from me.
But as a movement they just took careful aim and blew both feet off. It will take awhile but it will boomerang. ‘Gay marriage’ will be seen as their ‘bridge too far’.
I wish I had your optimism. But I believe the delusion is now too deep. People believe the homo-rhetoric and are buying the whole Trojan horse. It will be too late when the deviants are in their houses.
how did Iowa go freak state?
Let the homo-leftists come to our states and demand we honor their perversion. We will just say NO. And when the courts scold us and the federal government comes to make us comply, LET THE SECOND AMENDMENT BE FULLY EMPLOYED.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.