|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 3, 2009 13:46:29 GMT -5
Alright, hooray (kind of) for West Virginia for recognizing civil rights (sort of)! LOL. My reaction completely. To me, the fact that they stated outright the killed the bill because it is discrimination and there is an equality issue is the bigger progress, even though the law exists. The law just "defines" marriage. I don't think it prohibits marriage. It's just a token, stupid nod at the bigots in the state. The difference here, though, is that the people did not vote on it; that route was purposely bypassed. But still, I'm glad most of the legislature had the balls to do the right thing--they still get elected by "those" people.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 3, 2009 13:55:18 GMT -5
When Iowa is more liberal than California on something, this country is incredibly messed up. I hope the trend of non-asshattery continues to spread. Was it Iowa that had a congressman or senator or somebody put forward a bill outlawing adoption by Republicans in protest of a bill outlawing adoption by gays? I can't remember, but after seeing this I wouldn't be too surprised. Either way, whoo!
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 3, 2009 13:58:21 GMT -5
I really think it's all in how these laws are decided upon. In California, the people vote in referendums a lot more than other states--when you have a mass of people, sometimes you have decisions that are more reflective of mob mentality than you do well thought out positions. After all, Iowa and WV didn't have the LDS spending a shit ton of money to influence the vote. If they put it to the people and an election was imminent, the results might be different because the tactics would be different.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Apr 3, 2009 14:02:10 GMT -5
Post 'moved' here due to it being the first of the two threads created on the subject. My bad. As happy as I am for Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts, I'm sad for my own state (California) that it's apparently filled with so many bigots. A this rate Georgia and Texas will have gay marriage before we do.
|
|
|
Post by Jebediah on Apr 3, 2009 14:05:29 GMT -5
I'm so excited. Yay Iowa!
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Apr 3, 2009 15:01:24 GMT -5
...inappropriate use of fap. No. Such. Thing.
|
|
|
Post by wackadoodle on Apr 3, 2009 15:32:43 GMT -5
Was it Iowa that had a congressman or senator or somebody put forward a bill outlawing adoption by Republicans in protest of a bill outlawing adoption by gays? I can't remember, but after seeing this I wouldn't be too surprised. Either way, whoo! Post it if you find a link to something about this, it sounds F-in hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Apr 3, 2009 15:34:22 GMT -5
A mid-western state? I didn't see that one coming. Good for Iowa, and all Iowanians.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Apr 3, 2009 15:46:31 GMT -5
The awesome part of this is that last night I was reading some statistics showing how much further we have to go before gay marriage is accepted everywhere.
One more down. 47 to go.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 3, 2009 15:51:40 GMT -5
I really think it's all in how these laws are decided upon. In California, the people vote in referendums a lot more than other states--when you have a mass of people, sometimes you have decisions that are more reflective of mob mentality than you do well thought out positions. After all, Iowa and WV didn't have the LDS spending a shit ton of money to influence the vote. If they put it to the people and an election was imminent, the results might be different because the tactics would be different. Not to mention CA only needs a simple majority vote to amend the Constitution, for example. Change is easier in some cases, for that reason as well.
|
|
|
Post by Trevelyan on Apr 3, 2009 16:29:36 GMT -5
I just can't wait for the fundies to start bitching about how the judges unconstitutionally uphold this law despite it being against the "majority will" and thereby demonstrate their complete ignorance of how the system is suppose to work.
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Apr 3, 2009 18:50:58 GMT -5
I just can't wait for the fundies to start bitching about how the judges unconstitutionally uphold this law despite it being against the "majority will" and thereby demonstrate their complete ignorance of how the system is suppose to work. Oi, you have no idea. I LIVE in Des Moines, and I can almost hear the fundies singing for God to take them away now. Also, I live behind a church. STILL... Also, it'll be interesting to see what question will be asked when apologetic Josh McDowell comes to campus.
|
|
|
Post by manauser on Apr 3, 2009 20:01:30 GMT -5
Not to mention CA only needs a simple majority vote to amend the Constitution, for example. Change is easier in some cases, for that reason as well. Yes indeed. I don't think it should be that easy. In fact whole the direct democracy thing hasn't worked out so great here. We've acquired quite a few particularly bad laws that way. Notably the infamous three-strikes law, and some other poorly thought out tough on crime laws. Not to mention the previous anti-gay mariage law that was ruled unconstitutional. Anyway, it's pretty sad that Iowa is ahead of us now. On the other hand Prop 8 only barely passed (52%) so maybe there's hope it will be reversed before terribly long.
|
|
|
Post by pdc1987 on Apr 3, 2009 20:26:06 GMT -5
americansfortruth.com/“Today Iowa becomes the first state not on either of the nation’s two liberal coasts to impose homosexual ‘marriage’ or its mischievous twin, ‘civil unions,’ on its citizens through judicial tyranny. To call this decision bankrupt is to understate its perniciousness,” said LaBarbera, president of the Illinois-based Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. “The evil genius of the pro-sodomy movement is that it targets noble institutions like marriage and adoption in the name of ‘rights,’ and then perverts them to normalize aberrant behaviors.”
|
|
|
Post by Moondog on Apr 3, 2009 20:26:37 GMT -5
I predict we'll be seeing as much about Iowa allowing same-sex marriage as we have been about Obama (supposedly) being a Muslim or nort a natural-born citizen, and soon. This strikes a little too close to home for fundiehood. Who next? Texas? Tennessee?
|
|