Is the Iowa decision the beginning of the end for anti-Gay Marriage folks?

Separate but equal or unequal under the law are principles which seem to be on their way out (thankfully!). The unanimous supreme court decision in the heartland seems to signal the end of any legislated inequalities. What say you?Is the Iowa decision the beginning of the end for anti-Gay Marriage folks?
I guess the ';heartland'; has some heart after all.





Hooray for the good people of Iowa!





And the fact that their state put Obama in the running is another sign that not all rural white people are totally conservative.Is the Iowa decision the beginning of the end for anti-Gay Marriage folks?
As goes Iowa, so goes the nation.





[ “Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.





“In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue.





“In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated “separate but equal” schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.





“In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.





“In 1869, Iowa became the first state in the union to admit women to the practice of law.





“In the case of recognizing loving relationships between two adults, the Iowa Supreme Court is once again taking a leadership position on civil rights.





“Today, we congratulate the thousands of Iowans who now can express their love for each other and have it recognized by our laws.”]





I guess we all ought to get used to Bed %26amp; Breakfast's with antique furniture. I am detecting a trend.
No.


Tell me, how is not allowing homosexual marriage separate but unequal? Homosexuals can marry any unmarried member of the opposite sex that agrees to it (as can heterosexuals) or they can stay single and not be able to claim ';marriage benefits'; on their taxes (same as single heterosexuals, even those cohabiting). Please explain what is unequal.
It isn't over, just gave a window for marriage until the appeal.





This has been upheld in other states so it won't stand.





I think most people are confuse why Gays want to take part in a religious Christian ceremony when they are clearly not interested in that aspect.





They are insisting on using the biblical term marriage.





And they will have a long hard fight to get it. Noone is against something with equal rights but not a religious one since Christianity teaches that lifestyle is a sin.





Not saying that is my belief but, the wrong fight to fight in my opinion.
This is the type of controversy that inevitably comes up whenever government gets involved in any issue. Once upon a time government was not involved in marriage at all. Get government out of the way and religious people who opposed gay marriage could simply get married in a church that did not recognize it and gay people could say their vows in one that did. Why need the government be involved at all?
I say I am proud to be an Iowan!!! Our Judges looked at our constitution


. ';All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.';


They voted to keep our constitution in tact. There was no other way the vote could go!
Hopefully it is,then we can get on to worrying about more important things.Like trying to stop Comrade Obama from bankrupting the US,that's a hell of a lot more important than worrying about Gay Marriage.





AD
I was suprised it was republicans that voted this law into effect- they have legal rights for marriage from the republicans- we don't many conservative left.
Congratulations, now you can marry your man crush and live in Iowa





There are a lot of corn holes in Iowa - you'll fit in just fine !
If you truly believes in Freedom (Liberal or Conservatives) you should be happy for this. 47 more to go!
I always felt that homosexuals are just as human as the rest of us and should marry whom they please.
It's not an issue I really care about but I guess it's a good thing, I don't want the government telling me who I can marry.
No


No more than Roe v Wade ended the debate about abortion.





I don't think the back lash from this is going to help the gay community at all.
Nope, we'll just pass constitutional amendments rather than simple legislation.
I hope not.
it's deviant behavior...what next--? I can marry my dog?
I agree with the argument that any member of one sex can marry or not marry someone of the other sex, then how is that unequal? I am a man and cannot marry another man. I am straight, so what's unequal?


If the PEOPLE vote AGAINST it, then that's how it should be. It;s not FAIR to have the say of MILLIONS of people overturned by 4 to 5 judges.


I am tired of hearing that this is akin to the struggle of the blacks in the 1960's. That right there makes me want to puke, because you are born with the skin you have and you can't change that. FACT.


It is and always will be debatable if you are born homosexual, I don't know, but I do know there are people who have gone from gay to straight to gay again and vice versa. I don't know of any black people qwho went from black to white to black again.


There have been civil unions for quite sometime. If you are gay that's cool. If you want to enter into a contract with your partner and share your undying love for each other and leave your will and money legally to them then that's cool.


But I don't think it should be the position of our or ANY governing body to either promote or detract from the Gay issue. They should have strict neutrality.


I'm sorry, but heterosexuality IS THE CONORSTONE of ANY SOCICETY! That is inarguable, because if you don;t reproduce then you are as good as extinct. So it SHOULD be the position of GOVERNMENT to promote behaviour that will increase the population and solidify us as a people to keep populating.


We NEED laws to protect gays from physical abuse. I disagree that if an employer dosen't agree with homosexual lifestyle, then he shouldn't have to employ them. If a homosexual employer dosen;t want to hire straights, then that's their objective.


But unfortunatley for them, gays are in the GREAT minority, because HETEROSEXUAL behaviour over HETEROSEXUAL in UNNATURAL by the very laws of nature!


Notice how that is a LOGICAL argument and not RELIGIOUS? I could keep on but I think that's enough. LOGICAL but I KNOW people will accuse these statements of intolerance, a choice word to use when you don;t get what you want.


Just like Mick and the stones sang...... You don't always get what you want.....


Source(s):


My Brain
I doubt it. For one, people who object to gay marriage will always object to gay marriage. Secondly, one of the biggest objections to gay marriage, after it being a sin, is that it should not be a federal decision.





I'm against gay marriage but in favor of civil unions. However, I think it needs to be decided by the people of each state. If the majority of Californians don't want gay marriage, the state has no right to force it on them. If the majority of Iowans want it, then fine. Let the gay people who want to marry move from California to Iowa.
Nope.


History will find it hard to explain how courts keep 'overruling' citizen's votes.