Top Stories

Open letter to readers: Today and tomorrow

By Lynda Waddington | 11.17.11

Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.

ACS lockout continues; plan emerges to repeal sugar protections

crystal_sugar_80
By Virginia Chamlee | 11.15.11

A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.

Cain campaign: Farmers know more about regulations than EPA

hermancain_80x80
By Andrew Duffelmeyer | 11.15.11

The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.

Mathis wins, Democrats maintain Senate control

Liz Mathis
By Lynda Waddington | 11.08.11

The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.

Press Release

PR: Nation should work to address veterans’ challenges

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

BRUCE BRALEY RELEASE — As US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan ends, it’s more important than ever that our nation works to address the challenges faced by the men and women who fought there.

PR: Honoring veterans, help in hiring

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

CHUCK GRASSLEY RELEASE — A difficult job market is challenging the soldiers, sailors and airmen who have protected America’s interests by serving in the Armed Forces.

PR: In honor of America’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

TOM LATHAM RELEASE — No one has done more to secure the freedom enjoyed by every single American than our veterans and those currently serving in the armed services.

PR: Honoring and supporting our nation’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

DAVE LOEBSACK RELEASE — Veterans Day is an opportunity to reflect on the service of generations of veterans and to honor the sacrifices they and their families have made so that we may live in peace and freedom here at home.

Chuck Hurley (File Photo: The Iowa Independent)
Chuck Hurley (File Photo: The Iowa Independent)

Hurley says gay marriage offends God, calls for laws curbing homosexual acts

By Douglas Burns | 10.27.10 | 11:08 am

CARROLL — Within the span of an hour Tuesday, advocates on both sides of a raging debate over the retention of Iowa Supreme Court judges in next week’s elections made passionate pitches.

On a blustery basketball court at Southside Park, leaders in the push to oust three justices for their role in a decision that legalized gay marriage in Iowa — led by the Washington, D.C., based Family Research Council and the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage – departed a touring “Judge Bus” emblazoned with “vote no” slogans and spoke to a crowd of about 15 people.

Gay marriage is tearing society asunder, and the decision to allow it runs afoul of the Constitution, said Chuck Hurley, president of the highly influential Christian organization Iowa Family Policy Center, which is a local affiliate of the Family Research Council.

“It’s a degradation of God’s best design for the family,” said Hurley, who was on the tour representing the center’s political action arm.

Hurley said gay activity degrades and alters the family structure, concluding that the debate is about stable homes.

“An intact father-and- mother marriage is by far more important than a good education, by far more important than their physical health in the well-being of a child,” Hurley said.

Hurley goes further than opposition to gay marriage, though.

“For millennia every sane culture has had restraints on behavior,” Hurley said.

Stable societies have always had restraints on incest and pedophilia, he said, and that should extend to homosexual acts as well.

“Every culture should have safe and sane laws regarding sexuality,” Hurley said.

A few minutes later, a group of supporters of the judges — organized by the group Fair Courts for Us — said sending the three justices home on a single, emotional issue would jeopardize Iowa’s stable, politically detached judiciary. They should not be targets in a culture war, they contend.

“Iowa has a superb judiciary,” said Carroll attorney and former Lt. Gov. Art Neu. “It’s served us well.”

Neu, a Republican, is joined by former GOP Gov. Robert Ray and another former lieutenant governor, Democrat Sally Pederson, as co-chairs of Fair Courts.

Neu said voters should contrast the often dysfunctional federal courts appointment process with Iowa’s system.

“The point is they (Iowa Supreme Court judges) are doing it based on what they see the law to be — not some political agenda they have,” Neu said.

Voters who want to go single-issue on gay marriage can do so, Neu said, by training their anger on legislative candidates, those who make the laws.

“It shouldn’t be directed at the judiciary,” Neu said.

Republican legislative hopeful Dan Dirkx.

At the anti-judge rally, Republican Statehouse candidate Dan Dirkx said the justices’ decision is jeopardizing Iowa’s way of life.

“I see this ruling as a frontal attack on our culture,” Dirkx said. “America is suffering a heart attack. The rest of the nation looks to us to have good sense.”

Dirkx of rural Auburn, who is running for the House District 51 seat now held by State Rep. Rod Roberts, R-Carroll, compared the marriage case to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, and noted that legalized abortion is the result of court action, not the vote of the public or their representatives.

“We need to rise up and let them know that we understand why our form of government works,” Dirkx said.

Simply put, society should not give a stamp of approval to gay marriage, Dirkx said.

“When you offend God individually God will deal with you individually,” Dirkx said. “But when you offend God as a nation, that’s a different category.”

Pederson said the judicial system in Iowa is set up to be free of politics and money.

“Now what has happened is really a group funded by people from other states and from national organizations is trying to convince Iowans to change their system,” Pederson said. “This has never been done in the history of our state.”

Iowa voters have not tossed out a Supreme Court justice in the state’s history.

National anti-gay groups have spent around $700,000 to remove the justices, with the National Organization For Marriage contributing $435,000. Those working to retain the justices have spent around $227,000.

A “yes” vote maintains the integrity over the courts, and places that above anger over one decision, Pederson said. The judges have done their duties, she said.

“These justices have handed down thousands of decisions and over five decades Iowans have understood that you can disagree with any one decision but that doesn’t mean that you oppose a judge or a justice,” Pederson said. “You look at their record in totality.”

Iowans, she said, need to consider to the long term and what they want to motivate judges: a steely eyed look at the law or political consideration and contemporary public sentiments that at one point supported slavery and the subjugation of women, both issues with which the Iowa Supreme Court took a leading role in combating.

“We don’t want judges looking over their shoulders and holding their finger to the wind to find out what would the public want on this issue or that issue,” Pederson said.

Comments

  • Anonymous

    I think it is abhorred what these right wingers are putting these IA Supreme Court Judges through…..

    They did their jobs. We might not agree with all of their decisions. But they did their jobs.

    These jobs should be retained. I applaud former Governor Ray, former Lt. Governor Art Neu for standing up what is right.

    I chastize current Governor candidate Terry Branstad for “skirting” the issue….. he should show some backbone like Ray and Neu and take a stand that the judges should be retained.

    • Anonymous

      How on earth is it ‘doing their jobs” when they try to force gay marriage on the state against the wishes of the voters. They should all be voted off the bench and replaced by people with common decency and common sense.

      • http://twitter.com/Martialyss Martialyss Hamilton

        Because in the end it has nothing to do with the state. It has everything to do with the individuals who have a right to be themselves and love who they wish, freely. In the end, it is about walking in the spirit and not judging because it is not your place. It is not my place to say that you have no right to marry whom you wish just because I have an opinion about your choices. Just as it is not your place, or anyone elses to say that someone else does not deserve to form a union with another. John 15:17 “This is my command. Love each other”. It does not say Love each other unless the other person has done something you don’t like, then it is ok to persecute them and destroy their chance at happiness. Stop judging. Stop hating. Begin to love and show kindness and compassion.

        • Anonymous

          You just pointed out why this whole push for the acceptance of the gay agenda and gay marriage in particular, is wrong and will lose.
          If ‘love’ were the criteria for marriage, then we’d have older men marrying pre-teens, multiple marriages and all of that. We will NOT open that door.
          Marriage is about a man and a woman and the children that ONLY their union, without the outside interference of a third party donor, can bring into the world. It’s about the need of children to know who their fathers are, who their mothers are and to have a real bond with their biological parents, and to not intentionally deprive them of the ability to know them and be raised by them, which is what gay marriage does. Every kid needs a mom and a dad. That’s not too hard a concept to grasp. It’s not about what adults choose for their own lives; its’ about the choices we make for the betterment of our society and for our children. And NO, it absolutely doesn’t matter if a man and woman choose not to have children or cannot, because it is still, as it will always be, only the union of one man and one woman that is capable of producing a child without outside interference. That’s how our bodies were made. When two men or two women can make a baby, then you might have an agrument. Until then, I’ll go along with how our bodies were created, thank you very much.
          Besides that, no one says people can’t fall in love or be who they are. We just won’t call it marriage unless its a man and a woman, and we will continue to honor the traditional family with our laws and our social traditions. That’s what the people of Iowa are saying with their votes.

          • Anonymous

            Thank you I was tired..and reading your comment put me to sleep…Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

          • Anonymous

            Unfortunately for your ignorant position, all legal precedent in the United States regarding who can get married and why basically says your entire argument is wrong legally.

            Regardless of if it is or is not right religiously.

            According to SCOTUS, in the United States, the right to get married has nothing to do with the intention or ability to have kids. Get over it.

      • Anonymous

        No one is forcing you to enter into a gay marriage.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000264240305 Bob Equality Barnes

        Oh Karen Grube, such the alarmist. We know you are anti-gay, so how can we respect your thoughts with your obvious bias? All eleven judges agreed on the constitutionality of a marriage ban. Sorry your knuckle-dragging perspective can’t quite grasp that. But it’s a big old grownup world, come join us.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, and we grown-ups have said NO. What part of this do you not understand?

          • Anonymous

            The part you do not understand, and that ALL your judges did, is that thanks for the US constitutions 14th amendment, the majority cannot vote to take away fundamental rights from any class of citizens.

          • Anonymous

            Neither can they grant so-called ‘rights’ never extended to them that are not guaranteed by the Constitution, And there is absolutely no constitutional right to gay marriage.

          • Anonymous

            marriage is not defined in the constitution as being between one man and one woman.

            Just as it wasn’t defined as being between two people of the same ethnicity/relgion, etc.

            All the language in the SCOTUS rules around marriage also do not specify one man/one woman. They do however say things around the right to marry the person of your choice, if they mutuall accept.

            While it is true, that none of the cases involved in those precedents involved SS couples. It is also true that before Loving vs Virginia, none of the SCOTUS cases around marriage involved interracial couples.

      • Anonymous

        Forse Gay Marriage on You..? REALLY..? So how was your wedding to a Man? I mean, you said they forced gay marriage on you…so then you obviosuly Married a Man..right? The Honeymoon must have been hard for you dear…..what, couldn’t get it up? Having regrets..since THEY FORCED YOU INTO GAY MARRIAGE?

      • Anonymous

        Are you kidding me? They in no way “forced” gay marriage on you, unless all the people in the state were by law made to marry people of the same gender. and no old men would not be allowed to marry under age people, even now you have to be 18 to get married without the consent of your parent or guardian. There have been plenty of studies that prove your whole idea that a child needs their birth parents is bull shit. They just need to be raised properly, gay parents can be just as good parents if not better (seeing as they aren’t usually as judgmental) as straight parents.Whether or not they are elected it is their job to interpret the law, regardless of the voters. Politicians have to worry about the voters. You clearly need better education, marriage is a right on the constituation but “straight” marriage is not. It does not include specific genders. Please think before you talk next and then don’t say what you thought of.

      • Anonymous

        Are you kidding me? They in no way “forced” gay marriage on you, unless all the people in the state were by law made to marry people of the same gender. and no old men would not be allowed to marry under age people, even now you have to be 18 to get married without the consent of your parent or guardian. There have been plenty of studies that prove your whole idea that a child needs their birth parents is bull shit. They just need to be raised properly, gay parents can be just as good parents if not better (seeing as they aren’t usually as judgmental) as straight parents.Whether or not they are elected it is their job to interpret the law, regardless of the voters. Politicians have to worry about the voters. You clearly need better education, marriage is a right on the constituation but “straight” marriage is not. It does not include specific genders. Please think before you talk next and then don’t say what you thought of.

  • http://en-gb.facebook.com/onanov Donald Baxter

    Iowa is not immune to wingnuts, even if their bills are being paid by largely out of state interests. Time to show the NOM and the AFA that their money is no good in Iowa! Vote to retain!

  • Anonymous

    God’s so-called “best design” also says Keeping the Sabbath holy is the 2nd Commandment, and therefore working on the Sabbath is punishable by death, no exceptions (Exodus 35:2). Hurley is arguing that police officers, emergency EMS, military personnel, hospital workers, religious leaders, and politcal leaders (all of whom are paid to work on the Sabbath) should be executed by the public in keeping with the so-called unerring Word of God. That is pathetic and horrific. He should step down immediately.

  • http://twitter.com/NYEdger Milton

    The anti-Christian Family Research Council hides its agenda of hate by lying about the Bible and God. Along with the well known hate group NOM, they would very much like to destroy the American system by taking control of the courts, elected officials and the legislature and filling the voters heads with lies. It is time the people of Iowa took control back from those who would harm the citizens of the state and destroy the government. Good Christian Iowans should reject any association with the so called “Family” Research Council and the degenerate NOM.

    • Anonymous

      ANY Iowa voter should ignore all the hype and decide with their heads and their hearts whether or not they think having a small group of people making decisions like this against their wishes is what they want. It has nothing to do with the FRC or NOM. It’s common sense to expect the people you elect to LISTEN to you. I don’t think that’s an unrealistic expectation. If they had struck down abortion, for example, wouldn’t you liberals want them booted out? You can’t have it both ways. I choose to let the voters decide. You would have a small handful of judges force their decision on us. And by the way, I am a VERY PROUD supporter of both NOM and the FRC. They’re among the few groups actually standing up for the voters in Iowa.

      • Anonymous

        Please idiot- TAKE A CIVICS LESSON…after you brush your tooth.

      • Anonymous

        For someone so enthusiastic, you certainly lack a basic understanding of your own civics or the relevant facts.

        People you elect should definately listen to their constituents.
        You DON’T elect your judges.
        Judges should listen to the law.

        I find it hilarious that your anti-liberal argument is based on something that you imagine liberals MIGHT do, and so therefore what you are doing it ok.

        I hate to break it to you, but making decisions about laws and their constitutionality is exactly what their constitutionally defined job description is. It is why they were hired, and what they have been doing for the last 100+ years.

        As far as NOM and FRC go. They don’t care about voters in Iowa. They are 2 linked groups, from OUT OF STATE, spending over 1million dollars combined in an effort to intimidate judiciary nationwide. If Iowa winds up letting them succeed, I don’t think that’s going to be a very proud moment for the state.

        • Anonymous

          Actually, in Iowa, they do elect judges. That’s what this is all about. So, yeah, they need to listen to the voters. There is a huge difference between guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary and allowing a small group of extremely partisan judges to force their OWN agenda on us. HUGE difference. We shouldn’t – and won’t – let that happen.

          My whole reason for supporting NOM and FRC is precisely because they DO support the voters on these issues. They have always pushed for allowing the voters of each state to be able to make the decision on gay marriage. And they have supported ads and grassroots efforts to stop those who would prevent the people from being allowed to make this decision and to encourage voters to vote for who would allow that. THEY TRUST THE VOTERS! That’s the difference.

          • Anonymous

            No seriously, you don’t elect your judges. They are appointed.

            You elect the officials who appoint them.

            NOM and FRC only ‘trust the voters’ when the voters agree with them.

  • Anonymous

    “…People are suffering and dying because some self-promoting asshole was telling a lie.” -Outrage

    People like Hurley are lost causes. They are long past the point of redemption and saving. We must simply wait for their selfishness and greed to die with them.

  • Anonymous

    Upchuck Hurley is an abomination unto all the gods. I pray he receives tenfold what he wishes on others.

  • Guest

    Hurley & his kind are sad excuses for human beings.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you, Chuck, for having the courage to say what the voters of Iowa truly believe! Marriage is ONLY between one man and one woman. These judges need to be booted off the bench. They just don’t get to force gay marriage on the state against the wishes of the voters!

    • Anonymous

      Marriage equality is coming, and in your case is already here. Get used to it.

      • Anonymous

        Actually, it isn’t. First of all, the Iowa legislature hasn’t done their job in ‘passing’ gay marriage, which is required before it’s really legal in Iowa. Besides that, there is no such thing as “marriage equality.” It’s lib-speak and has absolutely no meaning. In those few states where there are currently laws permitting same-sex couples to marry, those will soon be repealed by the legislature or constitutional amendmentments written and passed effectively repealing them. Count on it. At least three of the five states that currently permit gay marriage will no longer do so by or very soon after the 2012 election.

        • Anonymous

          No.. it is ‘Really Legal’, right now in Iowa. I’m sure any of those same sex couples who have gotten married would be happy to show you their marriage licenses.
          That you personally respect them, or even think they will be repealed does not invalidate them.

          • Anonymous

            I apologize. You’re correct. Their marriages are legal in Iowa. One hopes this change in judges and electing a less biased group of legislators will help move forward the process of passing a state Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman.

          • Anonymous

            Whoa.. so.. you just admitted that Iowa law would require a state constitutional amendment to make SSM illegal.

            So.. then, by extension, you admit that Iowa state constitution, as it stands says that SSM is legal.

            And you want to oust these 3 judges because… they were upholding the constitution? To me, that is exact kind of judges that I would want to KEEP. Exactly what kind of judge do YOU want? One that ignores the constitution?

            You see where I’m going with this…

          • Anonymous

            Whoa.. so.. you just admitted that Iowa law would require a state constitutional amendment to make SSM illegal.

            So.. then, by extension, you admit that Iowa state constitution, as it stands says that SSM is legal.

            And you want to oust these 3 judges because… they were upholding the constitution? To me, that is exact kind of judges that I would want to KEEP. Exactly what kind of judge do YOU want? One that ignores the constitution?

            You see where I’m going with this…

          • Anonymous

            Iowa State law currently allows gay marriage. The State Constituion is likely to be modified to remedy that as soon as it possibly can be. Why do you think these gay activst groups picked their fight in Iowa? Becaus they thought the people actually supported what they were doing? No, it was because it is more time-consuming to change the Iowa State Constitution than it is in many other states and they knew they could get a set of judges to do it for them. Don’t think for two seconds this wasn’t planned well thought-out strategy to force the gay agenda on this country. I think the voters of Iowas see through that now and don’t like it. We’ll see how the vote comes out on Tuesday, but I’m betting the voters will use this vote to say what they REALLY think about what these judges did.

          • Anonymous

            I’m having a hard time trying to find right words to describe the kind of bad person you are.

            You want to oust Iowa state judges, who in your opinion, correctly upheld the constitution of Iowa.

            That’s just freakin’ brilliant.

          • Anonymous

            I’m having a hard time trying to find right words to describe the kind of bad person you are.

            You want to oust Iowa state judges, who in your opinion, correctly upheld the constitution of Iowa.

            That’s just freakin’ brilliant.

          • Anonymous

            “I’m having a hard time trying to find right words to describe the kind of bad person you are.”

            12 letter word, rhymes with preservative.

          • Anonymous

            “I’m having a hard time trying to find right words to describe the kind of bad person you are.”

            12 letter word, rhymes with preservative.

          • Anonymous

            Iowa State law currently allows gay marriage. The State Constituion is likely to be modified to remedy that as soon as it possibly can be. Why do you think these gay activst groups picked their fight in Iowa? Becaus they thought the people actually supported what they were doing? No, it was because it is more time-consuming to change the Iowa State Constitution than it is in many other states and they knew they could get a set of judges to do it for them. Don’t think for two seconds this wasn’t planned well thought-out strategy to force the gay agenda on this country. I think the voters of Iowas see through that now and don’t like it. We’ll see how the vote comes out on Tuesday, but I’m betting the voters will use this vote to say what they REALLY think about what these judges did.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000264240305 Bob Equality Barnes

    “Hurley said gay activity degrades and alters the family structure, concluding that the debate is about stable homes.”

    So, exactly how does God feel about lying? I've yet to see any of the usual anti-gay folks spout anything that they have proof to back. We just had the Prop 8 trial where the anti-gay defenders of Prop 8 had zilch, nothing to back their words.

    These fringe fundies will be quite at home in the hell they've created.

    • klgrube

      Actually, the Prop 8 supporters had all of history to back their words. Every successlful society throughout history has honored the traditional family as the center of their culture. It is only those who opposed Prop 8 who had nothing of any legal substance except teary whining and stomping their feet like two-year olds crying 'unfair' to support their attempt to overturn the decision of the voters. Jugde Walker's decision will not stand, by the way. It is unlikely to even make it out of the Appeals court. And should it by some miracle make it to the Supreme court, they will definitely NOT take this decision away from the states. They just won't.

      • Anonymous

        I’m afraid you’re in for a rather large disappointment on Prop 8, based on the enthusiasm of your position. But I agree with you, that it likely won’t make it out of appeals court.

        It is far more likely that the appeals court will not even grant standing for an appeal on the merits on Prop 8, especially given that Brown looks like the likely next governor of California. Then that’s it for California. (unless they try to appeal the standing issue.. good luck with that)

        Your only shot at a federal ruling in your favor are the Massachusetts DOMA challenges. Which, based on the makeup of the court, and Kennedy’s track record regarding gay rights issues, makes it unlikely it will be overturned either.

        I suggest you actually look at the case and trial record and depositions and witness testimony and past SCOTUS ruling and current standing precedent before you spout your rhetoric and ad hominem attacks.

        • Anonymous

          The question of standing in the Prop 8 case has still to be ruled on, that’s true. But there are two groups – one California city as well as the Protect Marriage group – asking to be granted standing. It is likely one of the two or both will be granted standing. There is precedent on that.
          I have to say, though, that probably the MAIN reason for the 9th circuit granting standing, aside from the legitimacy of the request, would be how embarrassing it would be for them to let Judge Walkers rambling, incredibly biased decision stand in any way! He should have recused himself. They know this and absolutely will not let this stand.
          We disagree about the two Mass DOMA cases. I think they have a very good chance of being overturned. The same with the Washington DC attempt to stop the voters from voting on this issue.
          It’s going to be an interesting election, and an interesting year for the Supreme Court.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WBBKKSJKAMEBB2U5HIWNTQE5FE alguien

            dude, why don’t you just admit you’re a bigoted homophobe. it’ll make it all so much easier for all concerned.

          • Anonymous

            When reality finally breaks through the fragile mental defenses surrounding your fantasy world, you’re not going to go do anything foolish are you?
            Can black judges rule on civil rights trials?
            Can women judges rule on women’s right trials?
            Is there a history of pro-gay bias in Walkers rulings or past?
            Can you point to the ‘rambling’ part of Walker’s ruling? What qualifies it has ‘rambling’? BTW, even IF it could possibly be considered rambling (which it isn’t), that doesn’t make it wrong.

            I think it is far from coincidence that every single judge in the last year or so, from all over the country, that has had to deal with a gay rights issue, have come down on the side of striking down the unjustifiable prejudice.
            ALL of them. (Prop 8, DOMA, DADT, DC SSM) Maybe ALL of our judges are activist?

          • Anonymous

            Actually, that’s what this election is all about. We need to elect judges who understand that laws are based on the common good, the best interests of society, and not the lifestyle choices and wishes of a very, very tiny minority, despite their money, political influence, loud-mouthed yelling and vitriolic name-calling. We shouldn’t base our laws or our definition of marriage on someone’s personal lifestyle choice. That’s just wrong.

            Oh, this is why Judge Walker should have recused himself. He has a personal stake in the outcome of the case. It’s not that he’s gay, it’s that he has a same-sex partner. He and his partner would be allowed to marry if his decision goes forward. He would personally therefore benefit from his own decision. That’s the precise definition of “conflict of interest.” He should have recused himself.

          • Anonymous

            Listen carefully. This will require some effort on your part, because you will need to admit you are wrong. Not as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of fact.Iowa Supreme Court judges are NOT elected. They are appointed. Even half of the appointers are NOT elected.Here’s a reference for you: http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Iowa_Judicial_Nominating_and_Qualifications_Commission#Selecting_Supreme_Court_Justices_in_IowaAnd here’s the Iowa State Constitution Amendment 21 (1962): http://publications.iowa.gov/135/1/history/7-8.htmlThere is no indication that Walker has a SS partner he wishes to marry. On TOP of that, the lawyers on the pro-Prop8 side had absolutely NO objection to Walker as their jurist until AFTER he made his decision.

          • Anonymous

            Listen carefully. This will require some effort on your part, because you will need to admit you are wrong. Not as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of fact.Iowa Supreme Court judges are NOT elected. They are appointed. Even half of the appointers are NOT elected.Here’s a reference for you: http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Iowa_Judicial_Nominating_and_Qualifications_Commission#Selecting_Supreme_Court_Justices_in_IowaAnd here’s the Iowa State Constitution Amendment 21 (1962): http://publications.iowa.gov/135/1/history/7-8.htmlThere is no indication that Walker has a SS partner he wishes to marry. On TOP of that, the lawyers on the pro-Prop8 side had absolutely NO objection to Walker as their jurist until AFTER he made his decision.

      • Anonymous

        How has ANYONE Marrying affected YOU personally? Please – do Tell…we’re all ears……and won’t your Fundy head explode when LGBT TAX PAYING Americans HAVE EVERY Right That YOU Obviously TAKE FOR GRANTED…you’re on the WRONG side of History…and YOU and others LIke you make America Look like Neanderthals,backward Hillbillies.

        • Anonymous

          I’ll repeat this: THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. It just isn’t there. The Constitution gives that authority to the states, where it will remain. And the states will ultimately allow the voters to make this decision, either through legislation or Constitutional Amendment.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WBBKKSJKAMEBB2U5HIWNTQE5FE alguien

            woweee. that’s one helluva reply to her question. she asked HOW IT AFFECTED YOU ACE! why don’t you try answering her doofus.

          • Anonymous

            The push for gay ‘marriage’ is only partly about gay ‘marriage;’ it’s ALL about forcing the acceptance of the gay lifestyle on socieity. The pro-gay-marriage movement is basically anti-faith. That’s how it affects me.
            When a gay couple sues a wedding photographer because he doesn’t want to photograph their gay wedding because gay marriage is against his faith, that makes his right to exercise his first amendment right to freely exercise his religious faith subject to this gay couple’s wish to force him to photograph their wedding. That is, we have the right to freedom of religious expression in this country, and the right of association. That should NEVER be subject to someone’s whims.
            When a school Bible club is told they can’t meet on a school campus or advertise their events on the school bulletin board, but there’s no problem in allowing the school’s GLBT group in doing that, THAT affects me.
            When gay activists get together and prevent a pro-family group from speaking at a ‘marriage’ conference on a college campus, THAT kind of silencing of opinions affects me.
            When a public school district is forced to teach about gay marriage and homosexual relationships and CANNOT allow parents to remove their children from those classes even if it is against their faith, that affects me.
            When big gay activist groups like the HRC and the Gill foundation who have financial resources that dwarf the FRC’s and NOM’s, uses those resouorces to try to buy elections or elected officials like Mike Gronstal and Pat Murphy so they won’t allow the voters to vote on this issue, THAT affects me.
            I don’t like bullies, and these huge out-of-state gay activist groups that funded the court legislation that resulted in gay marriage being legal in Iowa are acting like playground bullies. Instead of baseball bats, they use law books and political influence to force the other kids off the playing field so they can change the rules so only THEY can win and no one else can play! That’s how gay marriage affects me.
            When gay activist groups get lists of pro-marriage supporters and publish their names on web-sites as ‘haters and bigots’ with the whole single intent of either getting them fired from their jobs or preventing them from obtaining a new job or promotion, that affects me.

            When a gay activist group tries to force a bakery out of business because they didn’t want to bake rainbow cookies for a gay-pride gathering,,THAT affects me.
            And everyone else! This is why these judges need to be voted out.

          • Anonymous

            There is only one proper response to someone who says their 1st amendment right to free speech is justification for actual harm/disenfranchisement of another group. But I am too polite to say it here.

            If a wedding photographer refused to take pictures at an black wedding because it violated their ‘faith’, i don’t think anyone would argue that it was discriminating. Perhaps she should have been aware of New Mexico’s Human Rights Act if she was going to operate a public service there.

            Endorsement of religion by the state is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution of the United States (in case you hadn’t heard). Public schools are extensions of the state. GLBT groups are not religiouns.

            If a school has an anti-discrimination policy that prevents discrimination against GLBT, then it is hardly surprising it prevents groups that are anti-GLBT from speaking.

            Gay and Homosexual relationships exist. Whether or not your church likes it. It is states responsibility to educate children, and some children are gay. Many states teach sexual education, and part of that involves teaching about safe sex. People whose faith dictates that the Sun revolves around the earth cannot keep their kids of our physics class either. Your RELIGION cannot dictate public school curriculum

            People’s civil rights cannot be put to a vote. Marriage is a basic civil right. Any expectation to the contrary is fantasy and or bigotry.

            Gay activist groups are trying to enforce -existing- laws about public disclosure of political funding or public documents. These laws were not put on the books for GLBT people. They were put on the books to protect ALL people. It is those that try to prevent such disclosure that are breaking the law. I think Scalia (ironically) said it best in responding to Washington’s Ref 71 (Doe v Reed) when he said “Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage. The First Amendment offers no protection against criticism or even nasty phone calls”

          • Anonymous

            Neither should omeone’s personal lifestyle choice dictate what my children are taught in school. It is totally unacceptable that a public school should be allowed to practice religious discrimination by preventing parents from opting their kids out of anti-religious instruction.

            Gay activists are not simply trying to enforce existing laws; they’re trying to twist existing laws to suit their own lifestyle choices! I will NOT have a guy walking into a women’s restroom because he ‘feels like a woman today’, for example, and calling it a hate crime for a woman to yell “Get out of here, jerk! This is the ladies room!” as she shoves him out the door.

            Courts have already ruled many times that clubs of all kinds can use school facilites. They aren’t allowed to prevent religious groups from organizing and meeting on their facilities. Some schools haven’t gotten the message, though, and they still try to stop them.

            I could go on, but you get the idea. This push for so-called ‘gay rights’ is really a push for the acceptance of the lifestyle choices of a very few people. And the country has basically said NO. And so will the voters of Iowa next week.

          • Anonymous

            Fact of the matter is, homosexuals exist.

            Homosexuals are citizens of the United States, and are entitled to all the rights and privileges thereof.

            Homosexuals are people.

            Your personal disapproval, or the disapproval of the church, or even a majority of the people of a given state, cannot take away their rights.

            And if you don’t like it, that’s really just going to be too bad for you. Better get used to disappointment.

            When you pass a US constitutional amendment that allows for this specific discrimination, then you may have a legal leg to stand on.

          • Anonymous

            Fact of the matter is, homosexuals exist.

            Homosexuals are citizens of the United States, and are entitled to all the rights and privileges thereof.

            Homosexuals are people.

            Your personal disapproval, or the disapproval of the church, or even a majority of the people of a given state, cannot take away their rights.

            And if you don’t like it, that’s really just going to be too bad for you. Better get used to disappointment.

            When you pass a US constitutional amendment that allows for this specific discrimination, then you may have a legal leg to stand on.

          • Anonymous

            Neither should omeone’s personal lifestyle choice dictate what my children are taught in school. It is totally unacceptable that a public school should be allowed to practice religious discrimination by preventing parents from opting their kids out of anti-religious instruction.

            Gay activists are not simply trying to enforce existing laws; they’re trying to twist existing laws to suit their own lifestyle choices! I will NOT have a guy walking into a women’s restroom because he ‘feels like a woman today’, for example, and calling it a hate crime for a woman to yell “Get out of here, jerk! This is the ladies room!” as she shoves him out the door.

            Courts have already ruled many times that clubs of all kinds can use school facilites. They aren’t allowed to prevent religious groups from organizing and meeting on their facilities. Some schools haven’t gotten the message, though, and they still try to stop them.

            I could go on, but you get the idea. This push for so-called ‘gay rights’ is really a push for the acceptance of the lifestyle choices of a very few people. And the country has basically said NO. And so will the voters of Iowa next week.

          • Anonymous

            There is only one proper response to someone who says their 1st amendment right to free speech is justification for actual harm/disenfranchisement of another group. But I am too polite to say it here.

            If a wedding photographer refused to take pictures at an black wedding because it violated their ‘faith’, i don’t think anyone would argue that it was discriminating. Perhaps she should have been aware of New Mexico’s Human Rights Act if she was going to operate a public service there.

            Endorsement of religion by the state is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution of the United States (in case you hadn’t heard). Public schools are extensions of the state. GLBT groups are not religiouns.

            If a school has an anti-discrimination policy that prevents discrimination against GLBT, then it is hardly surprising it prevents groups that are anti-GLBT from speaking.

            Gay and Homosexual relationships exist. Whether or not your church likes it. It is states responsibility to educate children, and some children are gay. Many states teach sexual education, and part of that involves teaching about safe sex. People whose faith dictates that the Sun revolves around the earth cannot keep their kids of our physics class either. Your RELIGION cannot dictate public school curriculum

            People’s civil rights cannot be put to a vote. Marriage is a basic civil right. Any expectation to the contrary is fantasy and or bigotry.

            Gay activist groups are trying to enforce -existing- laws about public disclosure of political funding or public documents. These laws were not put on the books for GLBT people. They were put on the books to protect ALL people. It is those that try to prevent such disclosure that are breaking the law. I think Scalia (ironically) said it best in responding to Washington’s Ref 71 (Doe v Reed) when he said “Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage. The First Amendment offers no protection against criticism or even nasty phone calls”

          • Aunt Hagatha

            Now I understand where you are getting your talking points! Please note that when NOM and FRC tell a story of people who are having a gay “lifestyle” forced on them, they are usually leaving out some very important facts. For example, parents can opt there children out of sex education. But if a child brings in a book for show and tell that discusses same sex couples, the school does not have to run that by the parents first. If you don’t like, place your kids in a private school where they will teach only what you want.

            I could also also go on and on for each of your examples and provide you with a few facts left out of the stories that you were told.

            And if you really believe Brian Browns spin job on how he’s just running a sparsely funded, little grass roots organization and the big bad HRC with all there money is trying to silence him, you are pretty gullible.

            You are aware that FRC and NOM are multi-million dollar organizations functioning as out-of-state activitists pushing their agenda in places like California and Maine and Iowa and Minnesota, right?

          • Aunt Hagatha

            Now I understand where you are getting your talking points! Please note that when NOM and FRC tell a story of people who are having a gay “lifestyle” forced on them, they are usually leaving out some very important facts. For example, parents can opt there children out of sex education. But if a child brings in a book for show and tell that discusses same sex couples, the school does not have to run that by the parents first. If you don’t like, place your kids in a private school where they will teach only what you want.

            I could also also go on and on for each of your examples and provide you with a few facts left out of the stories that you were told.

            And if you really believe Brian Browns spin job on how he’s just running a sparsely funded, little grass roots organization and the big bad HRC with all there money is trying to silence him, you are pretty gullible.

            You are aware that FRC and NOM are multi-million dollar organizations functioning as out-of-state activitists pushing their agenda in places like California and Maine and Iowa and Minnesota, right?

          • Anonymous

            So, you are afraid that your “right” to preach hatred and fear of homosexuals from the pulpit will be “taken away”? You desperately want to preserve your institutional intolerance? What a disgusting position.

          • Anonymous

            again nitwit….Look up the name Alice Paul…tho obviously to you education means very little. Look up the Prop 8 case…its documents that the Supreme Crt said “MARRIAGE” is a Fundimental RIGHT of / for EVERY citizen (its been mentioned by the SC 12 – 14 times) …..again – MARRIAGE is a RIGHT for ALL Citizens…NOt just heterosexual citizens….we shall see, won’t we dear…and you will be where you are now, on the WRONG SIDE of History. ..and Please….do NOT have Children, cause you could NEVER be a Truly LOVING Mother who loves her children Unconditionally…you’d be a child’s Nightmare.

          • Aunt Hagatha

            There is no constitutional right to heterosexual marriage either

          • Anonymous

            Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.

          • Anonymous

            Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.

          • Aunt Hagatha

            Agreed. I was trying to point out the flaw in her “logic” If ss marraige is denied becasue it’s not specifically stated in the Constitution, then there is also no right for a man and a woman to marry. Seems simple enough.

          • Anonymous

            The point was that marriage was intentionally left up to the states. Wha part of this do you not understand? The fact that marriage is NOT mentioned in the Bill of Rights or anywhere in the Constitution means that the responsibility for overseeing marriage laws was left up to the states. So, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRAGE.

          • Anonymous

            This is really very simple. The following is a short list of factual statements, no opinions of my own presented.

            There is a constitutional right to marriage. (numerous SCOTUS rulings)

            No SCOTUS rulings do define marriage as exclusivly between a man and a woman.

            Here is how SCOTUS defined marriage in Griswald v Connecticut (1965) “Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.”

            SS couples entering marriage meet that criteria.

          • Anonymous

            This is really very simple. The following is a short list of factual statements, no opinions of my own presented.

            There is a constitutional right to marriage. (numerous SCOTUS rulings)

            No SCOTUS rulings do define marriage as exclusivly between a man and a woman.

            Here is how SCOTUS defined marriage in Griswald v Connecticut (1965) “Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.”

            SS couples entering marriage meet that criteria.

          • Anonymous

            The point was that marriage was intentionally left up to the states. Wha part of this do you not understand? The fact that marriage is NOT mentioned in the Bill of Rights or anywhere in the Constitution means that the responsibility for overseeing marriage laws was left up to the states. So, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRAGE.

          • Aunt Hagatha

            Agreed. I was trying to point out the flaw in her “logic” If ss marraige is denied becasue it’s not specifically stated in the Constitution, then there is also no right for a man and a woman to marry. Seems simple enough.

          • Anonymous

            Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. The Prop 8 case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution…

          • Anonymous

            Yes, marriage is a fundamental right. Absolutely. But the Supreme Court never went as far as defining marriage, and they will not. This will continue to be left up to the states.

            The Prop 8 case is more about the right of the voters of a state to amend their state constitution to define marriage. Hey, if the vote had gone the other way on Prop 8, would you argue that the voters had no right to redefine marriage?

          • Anonymous

            It never should have been voted upon, regardless of outcome. Civil rights should not be put up to a vote. Interestingly, Californians voted on civil rights in 1964: 65% of Californians passed Prop 14, which amended the state constitution to ALLOW racial discrimination in housing. Like Prop 8, it was declared unconstitutional by the state courts. Eventually, it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and in violation of the 14th Amendment.

          • Anonymous

            We don’t legislate based on someone’s personal lifstlye choice or behavior. Last time I looked, being Black isn’t a choice, a lifestyle, or a behavior. Big difference. Please do hope we never find a gay gene, by the way, to prove that being gay is genetic, at least not one that can be tested for in-utero prior to birth.

          • Anonymous

            Hate to break it to you, but all the expert testimony at trial presented by psychological experts stated that homosexuality is not a choice.

            You are the one choosing to ignore the experts, because what they say is inconvenient to your argument.

            Something doesn’t need to be ‘genetic’ to not be a choice. It doesn’t even need to be ‘not a choice’ to be protected. Your CHOICE of religion is protected, for example.

            Read your constitution, and the history around the writing of the 14th amendment. It was specifically designed to be ALL encompassing. To not allow any group of people, who are citizens, to become disenfranchised.

          • Anonymous

            Hate to break it to you, but all the expert testimony at trial presented by psychological experts stated that homosexuality is not a choice.

            You are the one choosing to ignore the experts, because what they say is inconvenient to your argument.

            Something doesn’t need to be ‘genetic’ to not be a choice. It doesn’t even need to be ‘not a choice’ to be protected. Your CHOICE of religion is protected, for example.

            Read your constitution, and the history around the writing of the 14th amendment. It was specifically designed to be ALL encompassing. To not allow any group of people, who are citizens, to become disenfranchised.

          • Anonymous

            We don’t legislate based on someone’s personal lifstlye choice or behavior. Last time I looked, being Black isn’t a choice, a lifestyle, or a behavior. Big difference. Please do hope we never find a gay gene, by the way, to prove that being gay is genetic, at least not one that can be tested for in-utero prior to birth.

          • Anonymous

            Violations of human rights should never be resolved by popular vote. Had the rights of racial minorities and women been determined by popular vote, those folks might still be second class citizens today. We don’t get to vote on the issues of straight marriage or the family-ruining straight divorce that often results of it. Why not? As you said, marriage is a “fundamental right, ABSOLUTELY.” The Constitution protected marriage rights for interracial couples during the civil rights movement and one day, sooner than you may like, it will give the same protection to gays.

          • Anonymous

            Interracial, yes. Being born of a given race is NOT by choice. Preventing interracial marriage was preposterous. But choosing the gay lifestyle is.NOT the same. It is a CHOICE! At least one hopes it is a choice. The minute they actually find a gay gene, we’ll have to start legislating that no genetic tests can be run before abortions to insure that no one ‘chooses’ the gender (or lack thereof) of their child. So, until we have to deal with THAT issue, it is equally as preposterous to think we should legislate or define marriage based on one’s sexual preference and lifestyle choice rather than one’s gender.

          • Anonymous

            I’m only going to reply to one of your comments this time so you won’t have to repeat yourself. (though you seem to like it)

            Being gay is no more a choice than being straight. Whether orientation is determined by genes, environment, or something else, the fact that it cannot be changed despite great efforts to do so is proof alone that it isn’t a choice. In the end, it doesn’t really matter what causes homosexuality. Humans legally partake in destructive unnatural things everyday and yet the focus is on a consenting union between two loving adults who only wish to spend their life together? Warped priorities man. You are right that it’s preposterous to define marriage by orientation–which means heterosexuality shouldn’t hog the spotlight. Works both ways.

            Gender and sexuality are two different things. I’m not even sure what you’re implying here. No human rights advancements should be made until scientists can explain all of human behavior and biology? Oi….

          • Anonymous

            I’m only going to reply to one of your comments this time so you won’t have to repeat yourself. (though you seem to like it)

            Being gay is no more a choice than being straight. Whether orientation is determined by genes, environment, or something else, the fact that it cannot be changed despite great efforts to do so is proof alone that it isn’t a choice. In the end, it doesn’t really matter what causes homosexuality. Humans legally partake in destructive unnatural things everyday and yet the focus is on a consenting union between two loving adults who only wish to spend their life together? Warped priorities man. You are right that it’s preposterous to define marriage by orientation–which means heterosexuality shouldn’t hog the spotlight. Works both ways.

            Gender and sexuality are two different things. I’m not even sure what you’re implying here. No human rights advancements should be made until scientists can explain all of human behavior and biology? Oi….

          • Anonymous

            I fully believe that you hope is it a choice. That would mean that you actually have a way out of your moral cunnundrum. Afterall, if its not a choice, that just makes you a mean person. Or worse, wrong. Or worse, your entire belief system wrong.

            Fortunatly for me, I don’t need to protect you from your delusions.

            Unfortunatly, all the scientific and psycological evidence says its not a choice. You, and NOM and FRC can say it as loud as they want. Screaming the earth is flat doesn’t make that true either.

            I have never anyone.. ANYONE.. that can tell me when they ever made a ‘choice’ to be attracted to another person.

            But back to your more interesting falacies. You once again venture into fantasy land when you postulate what the homosexuals would do if some hypothetical thing were to occur. You did this with the ‘liberals would try to oust the judges if they outlawed abortion’ thing before, if you will recall.

            I have an idea.. why don’t you try basing you believe system on things people -actually- do and say, instead of what they do in your imagination? It makes for a more interesting conversation. I don’t care what the little people in your head do.

            As a final note against your last set of rhetoric, it is notable that it is actually the anti-gay folks who want to change legislation to define marriage. All the cases that I have seen just involved the pro-gay side trying to enforce the laws as they are already written.

          • Anonymous

            I fully believe that you hope is it a choice. That would mean that you actually have a way out of your moral cunnundrum. Afterall, if its not a choice, that just makes you a mean person. Or worse, wrong. Or worse, your entire belief system wrong.

            Fortunatly for me, I don’t need to protect you from your delusions.

            Unfortunatly, all the scientific and psycological evidence says its not a choice. You, and NOM and FRC can say it as loud as they want. Screaming the earth is flat doesn’t make that true either.

            I have never anyone.. ANYONE.. that can tell me when they ever made a ‘choice’ to be attracted to another person.

            But back to your more interesting falacies. You once again venture into fantasy land when you postulate what the homosexuals would do if some hypothetical thing were to occur. You did this with the ‘liberals would try to oust the judges if they outlawed abortion’ thing before, if you will recall.

            I have an idea.. why don’t you try basing you believe system on things people -actually- do and say, instead of what they do in your imagination? It makes for a more interesting conversation. I don’t care what the little people in your head do.

            As a final note against your last set of rhetoric, it is notable that it is actually the anti-gay folks who want to change legislation to define marriage. All the cases that I have seen just involved the pro-gay side trying to enforce the laws as they are already written.

          • Anonymous

            Interracial, yes. Being born of a given race is NOT by choice. Preventing interracial marriage was preposterous. But choosing the gay lifestyle is.NOT the same. It is a CHOICE! At least one hopes it is a choice. The minute they actually find a gay gene, we’ll have to start legislating that no genetic tests can be run before abortions to insure that no one ‘chooses’ the gender (or lack thereof) of their child. So, until we have to deal with THAT issue, it is equally as preposterous to think we should legislate or define marriage based on one’s sexual preference and lifestyle choice rather than one’s gender.

          • Anonymous

            Violations of human rights should never be resolved by popular vote. Had the rights of racial minorities and women been determined by popular vote, those folks might still be second class citizens today. We don’t get to vote on the issues of straight marriage or the family-ruining straight divorce that often results of it. Why not? As you said, marriage is a “fundamental right, ABSOLUTELY.” The Constitution protected marriage rights for interracial couples during the civil rights movement and one day, sooner than you may like, it will give the same protection to gays.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, marriage is a fundamental right. Absolutely. But the Supreme Court never went as far as defining marriage, and they will not. This will continue to be left up to the states.

            The Prop 8 case is more about the right of the voters of a state to amend their state constitution to define marriage. Hey, if the vote had gone the other way on Prop 8, would you argue that the voters had no right to redefine marriage?

          • http://underwhelm.livejournal.com/ underwhelm

            Only someone with no background in constitutional law could make such a bald pronouncement. Fortunately most judges have a formal legal education and are not prone to such legal error.

      • Anonymous

        sorry dear…..History means squat in a court of law……EVIDENCE DEARY…E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. If we were to make all laws regarding Your beloved “History” – Honey, You’d have NO RIGHTS…cause according to History….Women had NO SAY IN ANYTHING, thier families or gov’t…..I mean, it’s history, right? Look up the name Alice Paul…and count your lucky stars – Real women fought for your rights.

        • Anonymous

          Part of the so-called evidence on which the prop 8 case was based was social history – a so called history of anti-gay discrimination which we passed laws to protect against long ago. I agree, the supporters of traditional marriage didn’t do enough to show evidence of the historical benefit to society of traditional marriage the traditional family and the state’s legitimate stake in NOT redefining marriage (like the needs of children to connect with and know their real biological parents and how gay marriage would be the ONLY legislation effectively denying a child the right to be raised by his or her real parents), and so on. That IS part of the evidence.

          • Aunt Hagatha

            Needs of children to connect with and know their real biological parents? What about children who are adopted? Or how about my friends Juanita and Macaulay, who used an egg donor to have a child. Are you saying their daughter is worse off for not knowing her “biological” mother?

            The only legislation effectively denying a child the right to be raised by his or her real parents? Way off for two reasons: 1) you don’t know that the gay parents are excluding the biological parent/parents AND 2) children can be removed from their biological parents home if the parents are abusive. Try again. What you consider evidence is not only weak legal footing, it’s laughable.

            And what laws did we pass to protect anit-gay discrimination so long ago?

          • Anonymous

            Let me be clear. In gay marriages, children aren’t raised by both biological parents. I get it that there are divorces and re-marriages and that we have wonderful fertility methods now for couples who cannot have children. What I said was that gay marriage is the only legally sanctioned UNION that intentionally disadvantages children by not allowing them to be raised by their biological parents. I get it that a few gay or lesbian couples might be nice and allow the real mommy or daddy into a child’s life, but we all know, deep down, that’s not the same. We have fundamental connection with our biological parents, like it or not. Denying that doesn’t make it any less true. I won’t even go into othe medical reason children need to know who their REAL parents are.

          • Aunt Hagatha

            You do realize you are esposing stereotypes and uneducated opnions not rooted in any kind of fact, right? Every reputable psychological or psychiatric association in this country (and many other countries) finds no shred of evidence that children who are not raised by their biological parents are “disadvantaged” in any way. They have also never found a shred of evidence that children being raised by a ss couple are “disadvantaged” in any way.

            “..we all know, deep down, that’s not the same.” I don’t believe that so we don’t all know it’s not the same. And we don’t have “a fundamental connection with our biological parents,” we have a biological connection. Not the same thing.

            Denying that doesn’t make it any less true? You think you’re dealing in truth? Your opinion doesn’t make anything true or a lie, It’s just your opinion. Which, as I mentioned before, it totally out of step with conventional professional wisdom.

            Where are you getting this stuff? Do you know any kids being raised by ss couples who are so disadvantaged? I know several children being raised by two men or two women and they don’t seem to lacking for anything, except legal protections of their families.

          • Aunt Hagatha

            You do realize you are esposing stereotypes and uneducated opnions not rooted in any kind of fact, right? Every reputable psychological or psychiatric association in this country (and many other countries) finds no shred of evidence that children who are not raised by their biological parents are “disadvantaged” in any way. They have also never found a shred of evidence that children being raised by a ss couple are “disadvantaged” in any way.

            “..we all know, deep down, that’s not the same.” I don’t believe that so we don’t all know it’s not the same. And we don’t have “a fundamental connection with our biological parents,” we have a biological connection. Not the same thing.

            Denying that doesn’t make it any less true? You think you’re dealing in truth? Your opinion doesn’t make anything true or a lie, It’s just your opinion. Which, as I mentioned before, it totally out of step with conventional professional wisdom.

            Where are you getting this stuff? Do you know any kids being raised by ss couples who are so disadvantaged? I know several children being raised by two men or two women and they don’t seem to lacking for anything, except legal protections of their families.

          • Anonymous

            What you say doesn’t even make sense.

            How does anyone’s SSM disadvantage any child? What child is suddenly not going to be able to be raised by their biological parents because that SS couple down the block got married?

            Please just describe ONE even theoretical example of HOW that could possibly happen. Just one.

          • Anonymous

            What you say doesn’t even make sense.

            How does anyone’s SSM disadvantage any child? What child is suddenly not going to be able to be raised by their biological parents because that SS couple down the block got married?

            Please just describe ONE even theoretical example of HOW that could possibly happen. Just one.

          • Anonymous

            Would you agree to let gays marry so long as they don’t raise any children?

            Adoption intentionally separates parents from their biological kids. Are you against that too?

          • Anonymous

            I’m sorry. I guess I have to reapeat it more clearly. The ‘marriage’ of two same-sex partners automatically precludes that any child they raise will be raised by its biological parents. This is a simple fact. And study after study has shown that children unquestionably do better overall when they are raised by their married biological parents. Today, kids are growing up in same-sex parent families wondering who their real parent or parents are. Yes, adopted kids wonder that too, but usually there’s a reason why children are adopted; their parents die, they are given up by a single mom at birth, etc. This isn’t the same as enshrining in the state Constitution that two people can ‘marry’ knowing full well that any children they raise will be, de facto, not raised by their real parents. That’s selfish and only serves the interest of the gay couple, not the children who definitely need their real parents. We should just NEVER do that.
            To answer your question, I don’t think gays should ‘marry’ at all. I think domestic partnerships provide all the necessary rights such a couple needs.

          • Anonymous

            You have this uncanny ability to talk your way around a question. You -still- haven’t provided the answer to the question of what child is being denied the ability to be raised by their biological parents?

            You do understand that any child up for adoption is already not going to be raised by their biological parents, yes? Regardless of whether or not SSM exists, right?

            You already know that SS couples are having and adopting children yes?

            You realize that Iowa already sanctioned the adoption of children by SS couples BEFORE their marriages were made legal, yes? And that this is now true in all 50 states (Floria was the last hold out, and that was ruled unconstitutional)

            SO PLEASE, describe the situation that you have conceived of, where some poor child is somehow being deprived/prevented/denied their being raised by their biological parents.

            I know you cannot do this, because it doesn’t exist.

            Besides which, this entire ‘raised by their real parents’ argument is a load of crap and irrelevant. According to SCOTUS, the intention or ability to raise children is NOT a constitutionally valid reason to prevent two people from getting married. Turner v Safley (1987),

            Your entire line of reasoning here, even if true, is entirely besides the point and does not hold water in a court of law.

          • Anonymous

            I’ve answerd your question several times. You just don’t like my answer. ANY child being raised in a same-sex marriage home is, by definition, not being raised by its biological parents. It would be a biological impossibility for that NOT to be the case. But the point isn’t children being raised by non-biological parents. It is the STATE, by sanctioning gay marriage, creating the only ‘legal’ union where children, by the very definition of that union, CANNOT be raised by their biological parents, that I find reprehensible. That is unless you somehow want to start promoting multiple marriages and that other nonsense where all three or however many outside donors or surrogates there are, all create one huge (un)happy family.

          • Anonymous

            You once again side-stepped the question. Good job.

            The state -already- sanctions children being raised by gay couples. Regardless of their marital status.

            SSM does not introduce a new state sanctioned institution that does this.

            Not allowing SS couples to marry (at least those that want to) does hurt the children in those families. It does so in demonstrable ways as evidenced in the Prop 8 Trial.
            * Unclear inheritance rights
            * Unclear medical/visitation rights of the parents
            * Lack of demonstrably ‘better’ family of marriage (over civil union)

            .. those are the only ones I can think of.

            In fact, all the evidence at trial said that not allowing SSM only -hurts- kids. Show me any evidence (presented or otherwise) that shows different

          • Anonymous

            You once again side-stepped the question. Good job.

            The state -already- sanctions children being raised by gay couples. Regardless of their marital status.

            SSM does not introduce a new state sanctioned institution that does this.

            Not allowing SS couples to marry (at least those that want to) does hurt the children in those families. It does so in demonstrable ways as evidenced in the Prop 8 Trial.
            * Unclear inheritance rights
            * Unclear medical/visitation rights of the parents
            * Lack of demonstrably ‘better’ family of marriage (over civil union)

            .. those are the only ones I can think of.

            In fact, all the evidence at trial said that not allowing SSM only -hurts- kids. Show me any evidence (presented or otherwise) that shows different

          • Anonymous

            I’ve answerd your question several times. You just don’t like my answer. ANY child being raised in a same-sex marriage home is, by definition, not being raised by its biological parents. It would be a biological impossibility for that NOT to be the case. But the point isn’t children being raised by non-biological parents. It is the STATE, by sanctioning gay marriage, creating the only ‘legal’ union where children, by the very definition of that union, CANNOT be raised by their biological parents, that I find reprehensible. That is unless you somehow want to start promoting multiple marriages and that other nonsense where all three or however many outside donors or surrogates there are, all create one huge (un)happy family.

          • Anonymous

            You have this uncanny ability to talk your way around a question. You -still- haven’t provided the answer to the question of what child is being denied the ability to be raised by their biological parents?

            You do understand that any child up for adoption is already not going to be raised by their biological parents, yes? Regardless of whether or not SSM exists, right?

            You already know that SS couples are having and adopting children yes?

            You realize that Iowa already sanctioned the adoption of children by SS couples BEFORE their marriages were made legal, yes? And that this is now true in all 50 states (Floria was the last hold out, and that was ruled unconstitutional)

            SO PLEASE, describe the situation that you have conceived of, where some poor child is somehow being deprived/prevented/denied their being raised by their biological parents.

            I know you cannot do this, because it doesn’t exist.

            Besides which, this entire ‘raised by their real parents’ argument is a load of crap and irrelevant. According to SCOTUS, the intention or ability to raise children is NOT a constitutionally valid reason to prevent two people from getting married. Turner v Safley (1987),

            Your entire line of reasoning here, even if true, is entirely besides the point and does not hold water in a court of law.

          • Anonymous

            I’m not arguing about who makes a better parent because a marriage is between two consenting adults, not two adults and however many kids. Parenting abilities or the expectation to have kids at all is not a requirement for marriage.

            You need to get educated. Domestic partnerships and civil unions don’t provide even half the protection and are only recognized in state.

          • Anonymous

            I’m sorry. I guess I have to reapeat it more clearly. The ‘marriage’ of two same-sex partners automatically precludes that any child they raise will be raised by its biological parents. This is a simple fact. And study after study has shown that children unquestionably do better overall when they are raised by their married biological parents. Today, kids are growing up in same-sex parent families wondering who their real parent or parents are. Yes, adopted kids wonder that too, but usually there’s a reason why children are adopted; their parents die, they are given up by a single mom at birth, etc. This isn’t the same as enshrining in the state Constitution that two people can ‘marry’ knowing full well that any children they raise will be, de facto, not raised by their real parents. That’s selfish and only serves the interest of the gay couple, not the children who definitely need their real parents. We should just NEVER do that.
            To answer your question, I don’t think gays should ‘marry’ at all. I think domestic partnerships provide all the necessary rights such a couple needs.

          • Anonymous

            Would you agree to let gays marry so long as they don’t raise any children?

            Adoption intentionally separates parents from their biological kids. Are you against that too?

          • Anonymous

            Let me be clear. In gay marriages, children aren’t raised by both biological parents. I get it that there are divorces and re-marriages and that we have wonderful fertility methods now for couples who cannot have children. What I said was that gay marriage is the only legally sanctioned UNION that intentionally disadvantages children by not allowing them to be raised by their biological parents. I get it that a few gay or lesbian couples might be nice and allow the real mommy or daddy into a child’s life, but we all know, deep down, that’s not the same. We have fundamental connection with our biological parents, like it or not. Denying that doesn’t make it any less true. I won’t even go into othe medical reason children need to know who their REAL parents are.

          • Aunt Hagatha

            Needs of children to connect with and know their real biological parents? What about children who are adopted? Or how about my friends Juanita and Macaulay, who used an egg donor to have a child. Are you saying their daughter is worse off for not knowing her “biological” mother?

            The only legislation effectively denying a child the right to be raised by his or her real parents? Way off for two reasons: 1) you don’t know that the gay parents are excluding the biological parent/parents AND 2) children can be removed from their biological parents home if the parents are abusive. Try again. What you consider evidence is not only weak legal footing, it’s laughable.

            And what laws did we pass to protect anit-gay discrimination so long ago?

          • Anonymous

            I find it incredible that you actually believe the complete falsehoods you are espousing.

            Marriage equality in no way ‘denies’ a child the right to be raised by their biological parents. IN NO WAY. Please describe a scenario.. ANY scenario.. unique to a SSM where a child is being DENIED the right to be raised by their biological parents. It does not exist. Your statement is complete BS.

            Not to mention the fact that children in SS couples are often biologically related to one of the parents.

            Children adopted by SS couples are ALREADY separated from their biological parents in the same way as if they were adopted by opposite sex couples.

          • Anonymous

            I find it incredible that you actually believe the complete falsehoods you are espousing.

            Marriage equality in no way ‘denies’ a child the right to be raised by their biological parents. IN NO WAY. Please describe a scenario.. ANY scenario.. unique to a SSM where a child is being DENIED the right to be raised by their biological parents. It does not exist. Your statement is complete BS.

            Not to mention the fact that children in SS couples are often biologically related to one of the parents.

            Children adopted by SS couples are ALREADY separated from their biological parents in the same way as if they were adopted by opposite sex couples.

      • Aunt_Hagatha

        I'm laughing so hard I almost can't type. You CLEARLY didn't read the trial transcripts or the judges ruling, did you? The team opposing Prop 8 had all the evidence. It's the Protect Marriage team that didn't have anything. In fact, let me sum up their entire arguement in one word: cuz. Why is Prop 8 constitutional: because. That's not evidence. And history isn't a legally defensible reason either.

        Judge Walker's ruling will stand in the court of appeal. I'll bet my retirement account on it. It's the Supreme Court who won't touch it.

        • klgrube

          Actually, you're right. The REAL evidence to support traditional families and traditional marriage wasn't presented in court in the Prop 8 case. That evidence is so obvious and so absolutely central to who we are as a society and as human beings – in our biology and anatomy, that the attorneys supporting Prop 8 may have thought such a fundamental truth didn't need defending. I agree, though for the purposes of this trial, they could had should have done a better job of presenting the reasons why the state has a vested interest in preserving the traditional family.

          • Aunt Hagatha

            The reason they didn’t present any evidence is because there is none.In a purely unemotional, legal setting there are only a few reasons to deny gay marriage that seem to surface: 1) belief that homosexuality is a choice, that’s it’s not in our biology or anatomy, as you put it. Which is ridiculous. 2) The bible, which has absolutely no business guiding legal precident 3) Tradition, which is no legal ground at all. The “evidence” you claim is so central to who we are as a society and human beings is not “evidence” it’s tradition, religious bigotry or just plain ignorance.

            And the state doesn’t have an interest in preserving the “traditional” family (there’s that word again). They have an interest in preserving families. Whether that means two childless men, two women raising their biological children, or a man and woman raising their adopted children is not relevant to the state’s interest.

          • Anonymous

            There are some truths that are so obvious and part of nature that they should NEVER need defending.

            It takes sperm and and egg to make a baby. We’re not to the point where we’re cloning human beings yet. That’s how our bodies were made, like it or not. Simple biology. The other truth is that two men can’t make a baby, and neither can to women. This natural biological truth forms the basis for traditional marriage and traditional families.

            There is a reason why biological families have been the center of every successful society throughout history, and why they have been honored and protected by their rules, their laws, and their traditions. This isn’t rocket science. It’s a simple natural instinct for preservation.

            The other truth is that people are absolutely allowed to let their religious faith or lack thereof to help them decide how to vote. We don’t tell people they have to set aside their faith when they walk in to cast their ballot. It doesn’t matter WHY people voted the way they did unless there was abject fraud, which no one alleges. Actually, I think the way Jerry Brown re-titled Prop 8 in negative language for the first time of any ballot initiative in over 50 years borders on intentional fraud, but that’s another issue. Voters are allowed to make their decisions any way they want.

            The other truth that wasn’t hammered as hard as I thought it should have been is that states have the absolute right to amend their constitution. Right now, in California, there is a ballot initiative to allow pot to be legal. That is a clear, unquestionable violation of federal law. Will anyone bother taking that to court after the election should the voters of that state be stuipd enough to pass it? Well, the Justice Department may. We’ll see. Still, the point is that when a right or responsibility was delegated to the states in the U.S. Constitution, it becomes a matter for the state courts and legislatures.

            In this case, there is a question about whether or not the state constitution as amended by the voters violates the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is precisely what the Federal and Supreme Court will be in line to decide, whether the Equal Protection clause relates to gay marriage. My take on the situation is that they will say No, that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman does NOT violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

            Rights only go so far, until they begin to become detrimental to society or take away someone else’s rights. The freedom of speech doesn’t allow you to incite someone to pick up a gun and shoot someone else. The question here is whether allowing gay marriage would open the door for multiple marriages, child marriage, and other kinds of ‘unions’ that we, as a society, have said are absolutely unacceptable. I sincerely believe the Supreme Court will not open that door by declaring a constitutional right to gay marriage.

            I hope that clears up a few questions.

          • Anonymous

            “The question here is whether allowing gay marriage would open the door for multiple marriages, child marriage, and other kinds of ‘unions’ that we, as a society, have said are absolutely unacceptable.”

            Child marriages and “other unions” (I’m assuming you mean with animals or inanimate objects) only involve the consent of one person. There are a billion other differences but even if we point them out, you won’t care. Can’t teach someone who isn’t willing to learn.

          • Aunt Hagatha

            The reason they didn’t present any evidence is because there is none.In a purely unemotional, legal setting there are only a few reasons to deny gay marriage that seem to surface: 1) belief that homosexuality is a choice, that’s it’s not in our biology or anatomy, as you put it. Which is ridiculous. 2) The bible, which has absolutely no business guiding legal precident 3) Tradition, which is no legal ground at all. The “evidence” you claim is so central to who we are as a society and human beings is not “evidence” it’s tradition, religious bigotry or just plain ignorance.

            And the state doesn’t have an interest in preserving the “traditional” family (there’s that word again). They have an interest in preserving families. Whether that means two childless men, two women raising their biological children, or a man and woman raising their adopted children is not relevant to the state’s interest.

          • Anonymous

            Please enlighten us as to what the vested interest is that the state has in preventing SSM couples to marry.

            No one argues that there is value in being raised by your biological parents. Heck, I’d even concede (though some may not) that that is the optimal environment for kids to be raised in.

            But so what? What does that have to do with SSM?

            How does allowing SSM impact, for better or worse, who is going to be raised by their biological parents?

            This argument doesn’t even make sense.

          • Anonymous

            Please enlighten us as to what the vested interest is that the state has in preventing SSM couples to marry.

            No one argues that there is value in being raised by your biological parents. Heck, I’d even concede (though some may not) that that is the optimal environment for kids to be raised in.

            But so what? What does that have to do with SSM?

            How does allowing SSM impact, for better or worse, who is going to be raised by their biological parents?

            This argument doesn’t even make sense.

          • Anonymous

            You wanna preserve YOUR Tradional family – Seal yourself in a Jar

            There’s NO such thing as Traditional families….America is made up of ALL types of people/families of every color,stripe,orientation etc etc

          • http://underwhelm.livejournal.com/ underwhelm

            Yeah, so the people who were paid to be zealous advocates for your position and to win in court decided to withhold the REAL evidence. That’s so credible I can hardly believe it. I hope that someday this REAL evidence sees the light of day!

      • rextrek1

        thats funny – your line saying “And should it by some miracle make it to the Supreme court, they will definitely NOT take this decision away from the states. They just won't.” was said by those Opposed to Inter-racial Marriage 45yrs ago…..hmmm, we shall see won't we…IF the SC interprets the Constitution of the USA the way its written….you wittle iddy bitty head will explode when LGBT TAX PAYING AMERicans have FULL EQUALITY. Ahh the day I look forward too!

      • Anonymous

        I’ve read several of your comments, and in each one I’m afraid you’ve been off base. I’m sure you’re an intelligent person and a good person at that, but in this case, you’ve been somewhat,… off.

        The “traditional family” is a highly relative concept, and not one that stands up to much historical scrutiny. Furthermore, any honest and careful study of history will show that numerous societies throughout that history (including ones which flourished much longer than our own country has been in existence) legally recognized same~sex relationships for a variety of reasons. Human sexuality is not the kind of “cut and dry” dichotomy that we are often led to believe. Rather, it is a spectrum, with a great deal of nuance and variability, despite societal pressure that boys be boys (which differs somewhat from society to society) and girls be girls (see comment after “boys be boys”) In terms of preserving the “traditional family”, states which have either recognized same~sex marriages by name and legal provisions, or which have afforded the same legal provisions under a different name, have seen no degradation of the “traditional family” resulting from expanded rights for homosexuals.

        Those who opposed Proposition 8 had a tremendous amount of legal substance. If the due process requirements of our federal Constitution are teary whining and stomping of feet, then you’re right.

        I would suggest that you read Judge Walker’s actual opinion on Perry v. Schwarzenegger. That case was a textbook example of law in multiple ways. First, it was a textbook example of excellent case preparation and prosecution on the part of Olson and Boies. Second, it was a textbook example of how NOT to run a defense on the part of the Prop 8 supporters. Third, it was a textbook example of a solid and thoroughly~reasoned ruling based on the evidence presented in court. I have said this about court rulings with which I disagreed as well. Time will tell how far the case gets, but the existence of the United States Supreme Court is to serve as final review of the constitutionality of state decisions, as well as an arbiter regarding which rights states do in~fact have. While the constitution does in fact state that rights not therein enumerated are reserved for the states, our judicial system exists to determine when a limit has been crossed, as state’s rights do not trump the core provisions of the U.S. Constitution. You say that the Supreme Court will not take this decision away from the states. However, you fail to account for the shear number of times they *have* taken the decision away from states. Segregation, anti~miscegenation laws, sodomy laws, etc. to name but a few. When there is found to be a violation of the due process clause, state autonomy has been duly superseded. What I find especially funny about the “states’ decision” argument, when used by those in opposition to same~sex marriage, is that their darling Defense of Marriage Act does explicitly that.

        As for religion, it is logically untenable to claim that the pro~same sex marriage movement is “anti faith”. Many religious folks are supportive of same~sex marriage. In fact, the continued increase in the number of supporters has largely been due to evolving opinions within more traditional religious communities. A large point of importance here is that we are not talking about religious law, but civil law, which is inherently secular not just due to the 1st Amendment, but also due to the fact that courts have long maintained that a law at the federal or subordinate levels cannot stand simply because a certain community claims “because our god said so”. All laws must have a legitimate secular purpose. It has been and continues to be sufficiently demonstrated through sociological and scientific inquiry that laws discriminating against homosexuals have no legitimate secular purpose.

    • Mexjewel

      Jesus defines ALL sin as lack of love (Mt.22:36-40). So what is unloving about a homosexual relationship? Who is unloved, hurt and ready to file suit?

  • rextrek1

    Again..for the Stupid:

    In Our Galaxy with 100's of BILLIONS of Stars/Suns/Planets..which is 100,000 light yrs across, in a Universe with 100's of Billions of Galaxies…NO Imaginary Sky God cares what Us Humans do with Our Hoo-hoos or Pee-pees, It's Man-made Gobbly-gook- written BY MEN (not women) to keep the People/Sheeple in line, In Fear,and the Coffers Full $$$$$ – Wake up to Science and Reality!

    • klgrube

      You just made a really big point: The pro-gay marriage movement is an anti-faith movement. Thank you for clarifying that. I get it now. Being pro-gay means you're anti-faith. Thought so. The evidence was always there – especially in Judge Walker's ruling on Prop 8, but it was nice to hear it from someone who really understands.

      This is another reason why these judges need to be voted out and the state constitution needs to be amended to define marriage as only the union one man and one woman – to help protect our religious liberties.

      • Apelni

        Seriously? You think your religious liberties are in jeopardy? I hear that a lot from the anti-marriage equality crowd. Exactly how are your religious liberties in danger?

        • Anonymous

          Because eventually, religions will lose the right to condemn homosexuals. This is the precious “right” they cherish and fear losing. Disgusting.

          • Anonymous

            But the problem is that Taliban-acting religous individuals such as Hurley and his anti-gay militia such as NOM and other false religious groups have constructed a false argument against homosexuality, as has the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church. Your are not a religious scholar nor I doubt you have a formal unbiased education in religous matters to actually comment whether homosexuality is even a sin which it is not if you actually dig deep in the passages (see Shadow_Man’s post above or I highly recommend you go to the following site to learn the truth: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm). Hopefully, you will enlighten your small mind to the lies you have been fed all your life about varioius religious beliefs. The hatred that comes from your so called “Christian” groups or should I specify more like the “Anti-Christ” groups is they hate gay people because they tell the truth and cannot be mind controlled by the American religous Taliban. Also, the majority of gay people believe in God and have a strong faith and still love their country even though their country treats them like shit. The next time you spew your anti-gay hate speech, remember that gay soliders are dying in Iraq and Afganistan, not to mention the many that have sacrficied their lives in previous wars, so you can spew your hate. If you are such a tough guy, then why don’t you go fight along with them….I didn’t think so. And finally, religions have no right to condemn homosexuals because it goes against God’s teachings. This is a falsehood. What exact teachings? Did God talk you recently to spell out his teachings. Learn to show respect and dignity towards all human beings. So, if you remotely want to walk in Christ’s footsteps, then don’t act like the oppressors that crucified him. I doubt He would side with your religious beliefs.

      • Vilous

        Your absolute uncontested right to the opinion that gay marriage is wrong should have the same effect on preventing gay marriage as MY opinion that you are a hateful, anti-gay bigot should have on your ability to post here.

      • averagemainer

        Yes, because the pro-gay folk are asking the government to take away your marriage rights, legal family protections, kids, and possibly job… all because of your faith. That's what they're really doing here. It's all about you, you special person you!

        • klgrube

          No one is advocating taking away any rights already granted by states to gay couples. Well, we are expecting that the voters will overturn the 'right' to same-sex marriage forced into the laws in some states. But to be VERY clear, in all but a few states, there is no right to same-sex marriage, so there' NOTHING to take away. Most states have discrimination laws protecting gays and even forcing companies to provide benefits to gay couples. I get it that that's not marriage. And it never really will be, but I have the feeling it'll do, compared to the horrible discrimination gays find in other countries.

          There is no such thing as same-sex 'marriage'. That is a complete contradiction in terms. It's lib-speak for “let everyone do what ever they want with whomever they want no matter who it hurts, and we'll force anyone who doesn't like it to go along by shutting down their businesses or getting them fired or suing them!” I'm really sick and tired of this nonsense. It has to stop, and it all begins with next week's election.

          • Vilous

            Actually, the reason that SSM is illegal in most states is because the voters in those states (either by amendment or law) took away those rights from homosexual couples. (thus doing exactly what you say they didn't) It is those states where such 'taking away' laws were struck down for their unconstitutionality that SSM is legal.

            And this is entirely the reason that Prop 8 (and all other such laws) will fall as unconstitutional. Because the majority cannot do that in this country.

            Next weeks election isn't going to change that, no matter how things fall.

          • Anonymous

            Of course no one is trying to take away rights already granted by states to gay couples…. because in the vast majority of states (39) already refuse to extend to gay couples any rights at all. Additionally please check your facts, ‘most states’ do not extend anti-discrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation. They do however define religion as a protected class… Something about this has always confused me though. People protest the inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected class using the argument that sexual orientation is not an inherent (genetic) trait like race, or gender. Last time I checked a person’s religion was not a genetically inherent trait either. People can be born to parents of a specific religious orientation, and the offspring can then at a later time make the choice to change that religious orientation. If the only things that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws are traits that a person cannot change then religion should also be excluded as a protected class because of it’s voluntary assumption… If you can discriminate against me for being a self defined lesbian I should have the same right to discriminate against you because of your self determined religious orientation. And you should also check exactly what those discrimination laws you’re throwing around actually say… they do not ‘force’ companies to provide benefits to gay couples… those states that so have any form of ‘partner’ benefits also ‘force’ companies to offer those benefits to unmarried straight couples. And in fact most of those ‘partner’ benefits were first extended to unmarried straight couples then to partners of gay employees…. And some of those states will still allow those benefits to be extended to the partners of unmarried straight employees and allow for discrimination against partners of gay employees by not requiring equal offers to gay employees… And because it happens in a couple of places gay couples should be happy and stop trying to ruin straight marriages, right?

            You fail to explain why same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. So because you fail to make your case for this statement I will make an assumption about what your argument would be, and I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that NOM sent you a postcard in the mail and explained that same sex couples can’t get married because they can’t produce offspring and that is of course the reason for marriage… Well, okay let’s go with that line of thought… same sex couples can actually produce offspring, using the same technological methods that straight couples use in the event of the infertility of one of the partners. Under your requirements for marriage these couples should also be disallowed marriages, as should couples married after the female has entered menopause. Offspring can’t be produced in those unions either so they would also be a contradiction in terms.

            I truly fail to see how state acknowledgement and protection of my committed relationship with my girlfriend harms anyone’s relationship or hurts families.

            You are correct though, I am really sick and tired of this nonsense. It does have to stop and it does all begin with next week’s election.

            One quick final note… I have no problem with you, or the fact that you express your views… The First Amendment protects offensive speech, but it does not protect you from being offended. I believe in the freedom of speech and I’m not seeking to limit your ability to speak, all I ask is that you extend me the same respect, and allow those people who are exposed to our messages the respect and freedom to form their opinions as both you and I have already done.

          • Anonymous

            I’ve read several of your comments, and in each one I’m afraid you’ve been off base. I’m sure you’re an intelligent person and a good person at that, but in this case, you’ve been somewhat,… off.

            The “traditional family” is a highly relative concept, and not one that stands up to much historical scrutiny. Furthermore, any honest and careful study of history will show that numerous societies throughout that history (including ones which flourished much longer than our own country has been in existence) legally recognized same~sex relationships for a variety of reasons. Human sexuality is not the kind of “cut and dry” dichotomy that we are often led to believe. Rather, it is a spectrum, with a great deal of nuance and variability, despite societal pressure that boys be boys (which differs somewhat from society to society) and girls be girls (see comment after “boys be boys”) In terms of preserving the “traditional family”, states which have either recognized same~sex marriages by name and legal provisions, or which have afforded the same legal provisions under a different name, have seen no degradation of the “traditional family” resulting from expanded rights for homosexuals.

            Those who opposed Proposition 8 had a tremendous amount of legal substance. If the due process requirements of our federal Constitution are teary whining and stomping of feet, then you’re right.

            I would suggest that you read Judge Walker’s actual opinion on Perry v. Schwarzenegger. That case was a textbook example of law in multiple ways. First, it was a textbook example of excellent case preparation and prosecution on the part of Olson and Boies. Second, it was a textbook example of how NOT to run a defense on the part of the Prop 8 supporters. Third, it was a textbook example of a solid and thoroughly~reasoned ruling based on the evidence presented in court. I have said this about court rulings with which I disagreed as well. Time will tell how far the case gets, but the existence of the United States Supreme Court is to serve as final review of the constitutionality of state decisions, as well as an arbiter regarding which rights states do in~fact have. While the constitution does in fact state that rights not therein enumerated are reserved for the states, our judicial system exists to determine when a limit has been crossed, as state’s rights do not trump the core provisions of the U.S. Constitution. You say that the Supreme Court will not take this decision away from the states. However, you fail to account for the shear number of times they *have* taken the decision away from states. Segregation, anti~miscegenation laws, sodomy laws, etc. to name but a few. When there is found to be a violation of the due process clause, state autonomy has been duly superseded. What I find especially funny about the “states’ decision” argument, when used by those in opposition to same~sex marriage, is that their darling Defense of Marriage Act does explicitly that.

            As for religion, it is logically untenable to claim that the pro~same sex marriage movement is “anti faith”. Many religious folks are supportive of same~sex marriage. In fact, the continued increase in the number of supporters has largely been due to evolving opinions within more traditional religious communities. A large point of importance here is that we are not talking about religious law, but civil law, which is inherently secular not just due to the 1st Amendment, but also due to the fact that courts have long maintained that a law at the federal or subordinate levels cannot stand simply because a certain community claims “because our god said so”. All laws must have a legitimate secular purpose. It has been and continues to be sufficiently demonstrated through sociological and scientific inquiry that laws discriminating against homosexuals have no legitimate secular purpose.

            You may not believe there is such a thing as same~sex marriage in your own solipsism, but “marriage” is a very general term which is applicable even to inanimate objects. Same~sex unions have hurt neither limb nor property nor purses/wallets, and so your accusation that it is “lib~speak for ‘let everyone do what ever they want with whomever they want no matter who it hurts,….’ ” is comically incorrect.

      • WesternIowan

        You routinely use the phone, electricity, gas up your vehicle, watch television, buy grocery and countless other things on Sundays that cause the Sabbath to be violated because all those things take commerce (the phone company, electric company, gas company, television network/cable company, grocery store, etc.). Exodus 35:2 says commerce on the Sabbath is punishable by death, no exceptions, because Keeping the Sabbath holy is one of the Ten Commandments. Unless you kill yourself or your neighbors kill you in keeping with the so-called unerring Word of God – which would be horrific – you are just a hypocrite. Jesus specifically said Hypocrites and pharisees cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. So as a hypocrite you are not even a Christian according to Christ Himself. There is no religious liberty at stake here, only hypocrisy at its worst. Long ago, Christian slaveowners used the bible to justify slavery and then turned around and had their slaves work on the Sabbath (which means the slaveowners should have been executed according to Exodus 35:2) – this is just as pathetic, horrific and atrocious. You want to apply parts of the bible to others to dictate their lives but God-forbid you be held to passages from the same exact bible. No wonder Jesus condemned hypocrites and pharisees above all others. Nothing changes after 2000 years for hypocrites.

      • Anonymous

        Personally, I’ll tell you that I am anti-religion and I would hope the “pro-gay marriage movement” would be an anti-faith movement but it’s not. I’ve never understood why any gay individual would not just reject religion because of religion’s serious anti-gay bias and tenious grip on reality, but sadly that is not the way it works.

        There are a significant number of people in the “pro-gay marriage movement” who are just as faithful as you.

      • rextrek1

        your gobbly-gook hokus pokus voodoo is protected……only in your little mind is it not….please READ the Constitution…..America is for EVERYBODY, including agnostics and athiests and witches…and yes..even Muslims….Booo Booooooo

      • Anonymous

        I would say I fall on the pro-gay side, mostly because I am gay, but I’m not anti-faith. I believe strongly in freedom of religion and the right of all people to practice their faith, or lack thereof, as they see fit.

        What I am against is religious doctrine being used as a reason to deny rights to any group of people. Your freedom to worship according to your beliefs should never be abridged, but I also agree with Thomas Jefferson’s statement from Notes on Virginia, 1782 that said “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

        Jefferson’s point is still valid today, that the way I live my life has limited effect on yours. I truly fail to see how me living my life with the same rights and responsibilities available to you harms you in any provable way.

  • WesternIowan

    God's so-called “best design” also says Keeping the Sabbath holy is the 2nd Commandment, and therefore working on the Sabbath is punishable by death, no exceptions (Exodus 35:2). Hurley is arguing that police officers, emergency EMS, military personnel, hospital workers, religious leaders, and politcal leaders (all of whom are paid to work on the Sabbath) should be executed by the public in keeping with the so-called unerring Word of God. That is pathetic and horrific. He should step down immediately.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Donaway/100000165407437 Michael Donaway

    Mr Hurley, I do not appreciate being called a criminal because the man I love and I want to enjoy the same benefits you and your spouse have. Comparing gays to pedophiles and people who sexually abuse family members is slanderous. By the way, outlawing homosexuality WILL NOT save heterosexual marriage. You CANNOT force a person who is BORN gay or lesbian to engage in opposite sex marriage because you say they must. Do some research; you'll gays, like me, were created by God, but not the God of hate you seem to follow. My God is kind and loving and doesn't teach hatred the way, judging by your actions, your God does.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697451994 Todd Cardwell

    Let's see, God created man, God created me. I'm a man who is gay, so God created gay people. But you say you speak for God… hmm…

  • Freday63

    Ok Mr Hurley, as soon as we ban all the acts you do in your bedroom you can come inspect mine.

  • hudbandguy

    Dammit Chuck, will you come out of your freaking closet and be honest about yourself!

  • hudbandguy

    As a straight guy, I would just like to point out those of us who are comfortable with our sexuality are not threatened by same-sex marriage. My nearly 30-year marriage has not been affected by the Varnum v Brien ruling and nobody else's has either.

  • shadow_man

    Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.

    (Change *** to www)
    ***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
    ***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
    ***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
    ***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
    ***.gaychristian101.com/
    ***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
    ***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
    ***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
    ***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

    • shadow_man

      test

  • shadow_man

    Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

    (Change *** to www)
    ***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
    ***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
    Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
    ***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
    ***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
    ***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

    There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. “Nurture” may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

    • shadow_man

      test

  • Anonymous

    I find it so interesting these people claim to speak for God. What incredible hubris! No wonder my prayers aren’t answered; I’ve been praying to the wrong entity! I start my prayer with Dear God, and I should have been starting it with Dear Chuck.
    Actually, that is the part I find most offensive about this argument: since the beginning of time, bullies young and old get off on attacking those they view as inferior and it’s a pipe dream to think that is ever going to change; there are always going to be Chucks who use any means necessary to attack the opponent, whether they use the bible, fists or money. Gays will always be a minority and the vocal majority who lack any empathy will always bully. But the gall! There are 6 billion people on the earth,(6,000,000,000) yet God has chosen Chuck as his mouthpiece? Really? That is absurd.
    And they have spent close to 3/4 of a million dollars of other people’s money to be that self proclaimed mouthpiece? Throughout the nation, there are non-profit organizations going out of business leaving people starving, homeless and hopeless; couldn’t $750,000 be better spent?
    Just sayin…

  • SCVMalcolm

    I cannot understand what causes these beanbags to be so afraid of gay people (actually men!). I cannot understand why they never rant against pedophile child rapists or other child abusers or spousal abusers. Maybe there are skeletons in their closets – unlike the gays who are trying to get out of their own. Why are they so paranoid of tax-paying American citizens who happen to be gay getting their freedom to BE?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IYCZHXRFSX3Z3HZ6UACFW745DI m m

    Exactly how does gay activity degrade and alters the family structure Mr Hurley? How about sharing these facts that your seem to be solely privy too? Seems to me you seek to divide and destroy our state. Sounds more like your working for Satan then God.

  • Anonymous

    What Mr. Hurley seems to leave out is the fact that over 90% of all pedophiles are HETEROSEXUAL!!!!!! And pedophiles are usually known to the innocent child.

    Pedophiles ARE NOT GAY. They are a group of men/women who desire young children of both sexes.

    So, why doesn’t Mr. Hurley want to outlaw heterosexual acts?? I agree with the current post, Hurley and his bozo supporters actually work for Satan against God, dividing and spewing forth fearmongering/hate/intolerance, to blind the soul from receiving LOVE, the one gift from God that transcends all lifeforces of Mother Earth.

    God loves anything and everthing in creation, of all species and sub-species….you cannot change that. Only Satan/Evil would have you believe that equality and love are against “God’s Plan.” But which God???

    There are so many, “My God’s better than your God” fanatics out there and ironically NOT ONE IS EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO THE ONE TRUE GOD OF LOVE! “Beware the wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

  • Anonymous

    In OUR Galaxy with 100′s of BILLIONS of Stars/Suns & Planets….which is 100,000 light yrs across..in a Universe with 100′s of Billions of Galaxies….No Mythical Sky-God gives a Ratz behind what we Humans do with Our Private Parts (hoo-hoos or Pee-pees) ..we are NOT that Important in the size and scope & Vastness of the Universe. We Humans are a mere spec of dust. There ARE More Stars/suns in the sky/universe then there are..grains of sand on all the earth…..get it….There ARE More Stars/suns in the sky/universe then there are..grains of sand on all the earth…..this man-made Goblly-gook,written BY Men (not women) is to feep the Sheeple/people in line,in Fear, and the Coffers full $$$ ….this Mr Hurley needs to stop worrying about Gay sex so much,he obsessed….

  • George

    I am real tired of the american taliban forcing their brand of religion on me. We are supposed to be a free country. Free from persecution from government or religion. This needs to stop

  • George

    Maybe for Chuck it is a choice. Maybe he is a flip flopper.

  • Anonymous

    Look at Chuck Hurley…he looks like a weasly little turd. In my opinon…the people talking about banning it the most, are the ones doing it. Like “Do as I say, not as I do”….I think he’s a closeted gay person. I think he needs to just come out and embrace it. I don’t care what religion you are, this was still a free country last time I looked, and what he has to say shouldn’t matter at all. He is like a grain of cat litter in the sandbox of life.

  • Anonymous

    I believe that just as the biblical eunuch in Jesus time was either born that way, made that way by man, or chose to be one, so it goes in our age relative to homosexuality. Jesus said, those who can accept this will but that not all can accept this. Jesus understood so well the human condition — his focus was on restoring the fallen human condition to attainment of spiritual wholeness because the physical body is but temporary housing. Christians mean well in attempting to preserve marriage – one flesh – between one man and one woman. [Exactly how do two males or two females become 'one sanctified flesh' and thereby sanctify their offspring?] The church’s concern is the sanctification of children – as it should be. Christ’s concern is saving souls for eternal life and sexual immorality (of all types) corrupts ones spirit and destroys flesh. He could neither be for or against homosexuality because in His Kingdom there is no male, nor female; and no marriage. I wish the government would stay out of the ‘marriage’ business. I wish gays would be happy with ‘civil unions’ for their own protection from hurt and disease. Marriage is a holy sacrament and civil unions are socially responsible. I also wish that American discourse was more dignified and a lot less ‘snarky’.

Switch to our mobile site