One year after Iowa same-sex marriage ruling, Varnums still focused on equality

I had forgotten it’s already been a year! :D Hooray for equality!

Keep up the good work, Varnums! Minnesota supports you!

PQ,
Hope you have a nice Easter bro or bra as it may be. I’m gonna’ hang w/my gay cousin and fight over ham.
God Bless
-D

Seeking validation from the government. Is that what this is about?

Hey, Dano! :D

Thanks, I hope you have a pleasent Easter as well! ^_^

I prefer bro. ;)

Tell your cousin I said hi. Maybe instead of fighting over ham, you two could talk? Haha. Or, at the very least, you can talk while fighting over ham.

See you around!

Oh, and Jimmy, this is about making sure the government is treating all American citizens equally, gay and straight. As of right now, there are 1138 documented marital benefits that married same-sex couples cannot claim because the federal government discriminates against same-sex marriages.

Ahhh, it’s about $$$$$$$. So all that stuff about validation and honor is BS?

Oh, you are a sneaky one. ;) However, the logical fallacy you’re making is that this is a black-and-white issue, as if it can’t be both about money and validation.

Jimmy, not all of the marital benefits are about money and validation. Examples include hospital visitation, medical power of attorney and immunity from testifying against spouse.

I am sorry that marriage didn’t work out too well for you in the past. Judging from your comments I’ve come across, perhaps you should take a look at yourself rather than continue posting comments that are frankly pathetic.

PQ,
Sorry BRO, I get in my LA/HI moments… We mo’ definitely shoot the shit being that he lives in Assie land and i only see him a couple times a year.
-D

What’s frankly pathetic is seeking validation from the government. Seeking to gain financially via the cash strapped taxpayer, well there are better adjectives for that.

Same sex couples asking to be declared married is like asking to be declared fish. Feel free to call yourself a fish, but in reality, you’ll never be a fish.

Jimmy, what’s frankly pathetic is your narrow-mindedness and support of discriminatory practices in government.

//Seeking to gain financially via the cash strapped taxpayer, well there are better adjectives for that.//

If the taxpayer is so cash strapped, perhaps the government should remove itself from marriage altogether and leave it to the churches?

And perhaps government should stop funding a failed War on Drugs? Or withdraw troops from Iraq? Or a dozen other useless things Republicans don’t seem to mind spending money on that don’t actually benefit anyone?

And yet, this isn’t about money. Because if it were, you’d know that legalizing same-sex marriage would actually be a boost to the economy rather than a burden.

This is about your intolerance and prejudice towards same-sex couples.

//Same sex couples asking to be declared married is like asking to be declared fish. Feel free to call yourself a fish, but in reality, you’ll never be a fish.//

No one’s asking YOU to accept LGBT couples. The queer community is demanding the government treat every couple equally, because that is the law of the land, no matter how much you wail and gnash your teeth.

Tootles,
-Progressively Queer

Start a movement to remove government from marriage and I’ll join in. Meanwhile, the law of the land says nothing about treating couples equally. Please cite documentation supporting your claim.

“This is about your intolerance….”
“No one’s asking YOU to accept LGBT couples.”

Contradictory statements. This is about money, AND about your intolerance of my prejudism, about which you needn’t concern yourself.

Finally don’t blame Republicans for the war on drugs and the war in Iraq. Democrites were in those every bit as much.

Jimmy,

//Start a movement to remove government from marriage and I’ll join in.//

Personally, I don’t care either way. While I support equal marriage rights for those who want them, I haven’t decided yet whether or not I would want a marriage. I suppose I should focus on finding a boyfriend, first. My politics are more queer than mainstream.

//Meanwhile, the law of the land says nothing about treating couples equally. Please cite documentation supporting your claim.//

9th Amendment of the Constitution, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

This means that although some are rights listed in the Constitution, there are other rights which haven’t been listed which still exist and which are still retained by the people. The non-enumeration of those rights does not mean they do not exist.

For example, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, in Griswold v. Conneticut (1965) that a couple has a right to contraception. The right to contraception, although nowhere listed in the U.S. Constitution, is a right the Supreme Court recognized.

The right to contraception is an extension of the right to privacy, which the Court interprets from a combination of the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment.

You take it for granted that you have a right to marry the person of your choosing. You don’t live in a world where someone else’s religious or moral beliefs can legally say, “Your relationship with that person is sick and sinful.” Same-sex couples, however, do.

We’re saying that this right extends to homosexuals and bisexuals.

In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that no State can create a law discriminating against inter-racial couples, despite the fact that nearly everyone thought inter-racial couples were an abomination to God. Inter-racial couples were to be treated equally as non-inter-racial couples under the law of the land.

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court ruled that consensual sex between two adults of the same-sex could not be banned by State laws (sodomy laws), because of the right to privacy.

If, then, homosexuals have the right to marry (as granted by the 9th Amendment), if then same-sex sexual relationships are not illegal (as proven by Lawrence v. Texas), if then States cannot discriminate in marriage laws based solely on religious or moral beliefs (as proven by Loving v. Virginia), and if all couples are to be treated equally (as proven by the 14th Amendment), then there certainly is no reason to continue banning same-sex couples from marriage.

//Contradictory statements. This is about money, AND about your intolerance of my prejudism, about which you needn’t concern yourself.//

Bullshit. When your prejudices go public and try to affect public policy regarding my life and who I choose or do not choose to marry, or whether or not employers should be allowed to legally deny employment to LGBT individuals solely on that basis, or whether same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt famililess children, then I need concern myself, because discrimination should never be legalized.

An injustice anywhere is an injustice every where.

And you’re right. I am intolerant of your homophobia, just as much as I am intolerant of racism. You’re free to hold your beliefs and speak out as much as you want in support of them. Far be it from me to stop that. However, when you try getting laws or keeping laws reflecting that ugly prejudice, then it becomes my business.

//Finally don’t blame Republicans for the war on drugs and the war in Iraq. Democrites were in those every bit as much.//

Oh, trust me, I know. But I daresay without the Republicans the Democrats would have been much less likely to propose/support either of those REPUBLICAN Bush policies.

TTFN,
-PQ

Perhaps you and I can simply agree that the government should play NO role in marriage, straight or otherwise.

I deny that the federal government can grant marriage privileges to anyone, but admit each state can designate rules as they see fit, as long as those rules are enacted by the respective legislatures elected by the people. That’s the 9th amendment.

I would petition my elected state reps to remove government from marriage entirely, but lacking that I would favor marriage CONTINUE to be defined as an arrangement between one man and one woman. Same sex and multiple partner arrangements have never been regarded as valid nuptials, and I see no reason to change this.

Finally, I can’t be homophobic since I am not frightened by homosexuality. Neither do I think it is wicked. Like most people I regard it as an oddity of biology, no more no less.

Jimmy, contrary to what you think about yourself, you ARE a homophobe given your steadfast denial of people who are “oddit[ies] of biology” simple recognition that they are people just like you (yes, you have a *gasp* sexual orientation …) who pay taxes, who may be raising children, who may attend church, who have jobs and bills to pay, who may have children and who enter into relationships including committed relationships that deserve to be fully recognized and protected by law on the same level as opposite-sex marriages. LGBT people are no different from everyone else, and should receive the same treatment under the law as everyone else including you, no more or no less.

Homophobia is defined as “[a]ny attitude, action or institutional structure which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their sexual orientation … The most common forms of homophobia in North America is discrimination against homosexuals and bisexuals in employment, accommodation, ordination, church membership, and freedom to marry … A secondary meaning is the belief that persons of one sexual orientation – normally heterosexuality – is inherently superior to persons who have other orientations. A tertiary meaning is fear or loathing of persons with a specific sexual orientation.” Other definitions include “antipathy towards homosexuals,” “irrational fear of gay people or any behaviour, belief or attitude in self or others which doesn’t conform to rigid sex-role stereotypes,” and so on.

I’ve denied no one recognition of humanity, so don’t start on that nonsense. But I defy anyone that assigns arbitrary definitions to words for purposes of propaganda. The roots of “homophobia” explicitly imply a fear of homosexuality which to my knowledge is fairly rare therefore the term is mostly useless if not fraudulent.

Seeking recognition or validation from government or society in general is a personality flaw regardless of the circumstances and warrants IMO therapy.

“LGBT people are no different from everyone else”

They are most certainly different than people that are not “LGBT”. Otherwise “LGBT” is meaningless. And while same sex couples may be raising children, to my knowledge it is scientifically impossible for both same sex individuals to biologically parent a child.

Finally, the idea that some people are not given equal rights under the law is just silly. EVERYONE has the right to marry an individual of the opposite sex. Everyone. Equally.

Oh, and Jimmy, here’s another annoying “Law of the land.” It’s a quote from the U.S. Constitution; it’s commonly called “The Equal Protection Clause.”

“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.”

Nice cut and paste but the Equal Protection clause does not provide for validation and honor. Nor does it provide financial benefit for groups of individuals of varied lifestyles.

Denying same-sex marriage abridges no privileges, deprives no life, liberty, or property, and denies no protection.

Did anyone here mention anything about the Iowa Constitution?

Homosexuals have the option of exercising their rights pursuant to the Contract Clause in the Iowa Constitution. The Contact Clause has always been available. I suspect that the HRC and their minions have not followed this remedy because of their unrestrained bigotry against Judaism, and Christianity, and the traditional family unit.

I am 31 years old and I am currently in a same-sex marriage. I am married to my first lover, I have lived a heterosexual lifestyle up until I met my wife. I have had many failed relationships with men and in my wife I have found love, respect, and honesty. Basically all the qualities that I wanted to find in a man I found i n her. I feel so free to tell people that I am homosexual and not care what they think. It is so great that I live in a state that legalized gay marriage, it is leaving a message that states” If you are gay than it is okay and you are not a second class citizen.” I know that in that state of Iowa my marriage is recgnoized in the same fashion as that of a heterosexual marriage and it is a great feeling.