Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional
Associated Press ^ | April 3, 2009

Posted on 04/03/2009 7:10:08 AM PDT by Zakeet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-117 last
To: Zakeet

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.


101 posted on 04/03/2009 9:14:51 PM PDT by TheConservativeCitizen (www.constitutionclub.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

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!


102 posted on 04/03/2009 10:02:26 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OpeEdMunkey
Please try to comment substantively. This is serious.
103 posted on 04/03/2009 11:52:47 PM PDT by fwdude ("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Pietro

Academia,Liberalism,Judges?


104 posted on 04/04/2009 12:12:33 AM PDT by TheDailyChange (Politics,Conservatism,Liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
our Founding Father knew damn well about the FDRQ and made no provision for them... end of story.
105 posted on 04/04/2009 6:33:20 AM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - Obama is basically Jim Jones with a teleprompter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
The Iowa Supreme Court says the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples

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.

106 posted on 04/04/2009 8:06:05 AM PDT by SteamShovel (Global Warming, the New Patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seatrout

USSR WAS COMMUNIST.
Communism destroys the economy.
It’s nothing to do with attacking religion, its everything to do with attacking economic freedom.


107 posted on 04/04/2009 1:15:04 PM PDT by WOSG (Why is Obama trying to bankrupt America with $16 trillion in spending over the next 4 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: cspackler
There was one. The black robe mafia just ruled it unconstitutional and threw it out.

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.

108 posted on 04/04/2009 8:39:55 PM PDT by JohnBovenmyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
No, judges can't rule that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.

I know, already corrected myself earlier.

109 posted on 04/04/2009 8:41:13 PM PDT by cspackler (There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
The constitution, or any element of it, can not be declared unconstitutional.

I know, already corrected myself earlier.

110 posted on 04/04/2009 8:41:52 PM PDT by cspackler (There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
I'm talking about agriculture, not economics. Tsarist Russia was no economic powerhouse, but had a much easier time growing food.
111 posted on 04/05/2009 6:38:27 AM PDT by seatrout (I wouldn't know most "American Idol" winners if I tripped over them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
"Please try to comment substantively. This is serious."

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?

112 posted on 04/05/2009 7:36:30 PM PDT by OpeEdMunkey (We seem to have reached a critical mass of stupid people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: OpeEdMunkey
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.

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.

113 posted on 04/06/2009 3:29:44 PM PDT by fwdude ("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

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’.


114 posted on 04/07/2009 7:21:52 PM PDT by OpeEdMunkey (We seem to have reached a critical mass of stupid people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: OpeEdMunkey
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.

115 posted on 04/07/2009 9:16:46 PM PDT by fwdude ("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

how did Iowa go freak state?


116 posted on 04/07/2009 9:19:07 PM PDT by wardaddy (America, Ship of Fools)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude; OpeEdMunkey
That said, I still take courage in the sea of states with constitutional protection against radical social redefinition. And the DOMA, so far, is still intact. Let careless states fall to the delusion, by their own lack of vigilance. Those states who had the insight of wisdom to see the inevitable attack against their cultural values preemptively reinforced the door against the onslaught.

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.

117 posted on 04/07/2009 9:36:56 PM PDT by fwdude ("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-117 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson