Iowa Legalizes Gay Marriage: Have the Floodgates Opened?
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
Yes, Sir, I am the same person. Thanks for the welcome.
We can and are planning on getting married in New Brunswick although when is still up in the air. To me, the fact we could get married in Iowa as well is the bonus. To see our marriage recognized in both places will be a plus.
Vermont is a surprise - quite honestly, anywhere in the sates that SSM is allowed is a surprise still - but it's good to see the change happening.
IMO, California was tricked into voting as it did and had things been made clearer on the ballot and the fear tactics used be set straight, the result might not have been the same.
We can and are planning on getting married in New Brunswick although when is still up in the air. To me, the fact we could get married in Iowa as well is the bonus. To see our marriage recognized in both places will be a plus.
Vermont is a surprise - quite honestly, anywhere in the sates that SSM is allowed is a surprise still - but it's good to see the change happening.
IMO, California was tricked into voting as it did and had things been made clearer on the ballot and the fear tactics used be set straight, the result might not have been the same.
Still it must happen on the U.S. Federal level before it has any real legal meaning.
Quite right, ironsides.
We can and are planning on getting married in New Brunswick although when is still up in the air. To me, the fact we could get married in Iowa as well is the bonus. To see our marriage recognized in both places will be a plus.
Serryah, it is still much better to get married in New Brunswick and live in Canada than get married in Iowa and live in USA. While Iowa recognizes same sex marriage, the marriage would not be recognized by the federal government. Any benefits that federal government grants to the married couples will not be available to you. I really think Democrats should try to pass a bill federally, recognizing a gay marriage if it is recognized by the state. I think that would only be fair.
In Canada on the other hand, there will be no difference between you and a heterosexual couple.
Quite right, ironsides.
We can and are planning on getting married in New Brunswick although when is still up in the air. To me, the fact we could get married in Iowa as well is the bonus. To see our marriage recognized in both places will be a plus.
Serryah, it is still much better to get married in New Brunswick and live in Canada than get married in Iowa and live in USA. While Iowa recognizes same sex marriage, the marriage would not be recognized by the federal government. Any benefits that federal government grants to the married couples will not be available to you. I really think Democrats should try to pass a bill federally, recognizing a gay marriage if it is recognized by the state. I think that would only be fair.
In Canada on the other hand, there will be no difference between you and a heterosexual couple.
Vermont is a surprise - quite honestly, anywhere in the sates that SSM is allowed is a surprise still - but it's good to see the change happening.
Vermont was not really much of a surprise; it is a very liberal state. It was the first state in the country to grant civil unions, and I have always held that civil union is a stepping stone to full marriage.
The original court decision, which legalized civil unions, gave the legislatures an option, either legalize civil unions or legalize civil marriage. So the courts have already said that gay marriage does not violate Vermont constitution.
I think it was only a matter of time.
Vermont was not really much of a surprise; it is a very liberal state. It was the first state in the country to grant civil unions, and I have always held that civil union is a stepping stone to full marriage.
The original court decision, which legalized civil unions, gave the legislatures an option, either legalize civil unions or legalize civil marriage. So the courts have already said that gay marriage does not violate Vermont constitution.
I think it was only a matter of time.
That is not the point. The point is, issues of human rights should not be decided by voters in a referendum. Human rights issues are for the courts and legislatures to decide.
Sir;
I agree and that's why we'll live in NB despite everything now with Iowa. Besides, there are other considerations too, like the fact I have a stable, well paying job, that helps the decision. The world the way it is, stable jobs are a rarity these days.
As for the Vermont decision; it surprised me (as much as the Iowan decision did) precisely because I thought I'd never see it so soon after the last election and the Cal. debacle. Even after these two states have accepted it - and DC looks poised to add their name to the list - it's still a shock. While my fiancee believes SSM is all a matter of time, I'm slightly more pessamistic about it all. Not only will I believe it when I see it, but when it's been around and unchallenge for a few years, that's when I'll be of the opinion that SSM is in the US to stay.
I agree and that's why we'll live in NB despite everything now with Iowa. Besides, there are other considerations too, like the fact I have a stable, well paying job, that helps the decision. The world the way it is, stable jobs are a rarity these days.
As for the Vermont decision; it surprised me (as much as the Iowan decision did) precisely because I thought I'd never see it so soon after the last election and the Cal. debacle. Even after these two states have accepted it - and DC looks poised to add their name to the list - it's still a shock. While my fiancee believes SSM is all a matter of time, I'm slightly more pessamistic about it all. Not only will I believe it when I see it, but when it's been around and unchallenge for a few years, that's when I'll be of the opinion that SSM is in the US to stay.
Serryah, I agree with your fiancée, I also think it is only a matter of time. Any civil rights movement takes a long time to succeed. How long ago was Rosa Parks? It took a long time for blacks to achieve equality in the eyes of the law (they still have not achieved equality in the eyes of the society).
You should not judge the success of the movement in terms of weeks or months, but in terms of years or even decades. Where was gay marriage ten years ago? It was nowhere; even Canada did not recognize gay marriage. Now several countries in the world recognize it, some states in USA recognize it.
Indeed, there is strong support in younger generation for gay marriage; they support gay marriage by a big majority. As the older generation dies out, more and more states will legalize gay marriage.
There has already been a substantial movement in public acceptance of gay marriage. Until recently, 65% of Americans were opposed to gay marriage, recent polls put it at 55%. So currently the opposition stands at 55:45. A movement of just two or three points (a relatively small movement) and it will be 50:50.
No civil rights are ever obtained in a straight line; it is always three steps forward, two steps back. However, the long term trend is clear, gay marriage is here to stay. Eventually it will be legal all over USA (though Bible Belt states may not legalize it for perhaps another 50 or 100 years).
You should not judge the success of the movement in terms of weeks or months, but in terms of years or even decades. Where was gay marriage ten years ago? It was nowhere; even Canada did not recognize gay marriage. Now several countries in the world recognize it, some states in USA recognize it.
Indeed, there is strong support in younger generation for gay marriage; they support gay marriage by a big majority. As the older generation dies out, more and more states will legalize gay marriage.
There has already been a substantial movement in public acceptance of gay marriage. Until recently, 65% of Americans were opposed to gay marriage, recent polls put it at 55%. So currently the opposition stands at 55:45. A movement of just two or three points (a relatively small movement) and it will be 50:50.
No civil rights are ever obtained in a straight line; it is always three steps forward, two steps back. However, the long term trend is clear, gay marriage is here to stay. Eventually it will be legal all over USA (though Bible Belt states may not legalize it for perhaps another 50 or 100 years).
You do make good points Sir.
I honestly never thought to see SSM in the US at all in my lifetime, despite being a "youngin". In this case, I'm glad that I'm wrong, for me and for the other gays out there.
A part of me is still not convinced though I guess; mainly because of how California turned out; the only way I can see SSM being legal all over is to wait until the "older gen" dies off and hope that there's enough in my generation that hasn't changed their minds over the issue to agree to let it be.
I honestly never thought to see SSM in the US at all in my lifetime, despite being a "youngin". In this case, I'm glad that I'm wrong, for me and for the other gays out there.
A part of me is still not convinced though I guess; mainly because of how California turned out; the only way I can see SSM being legal all over is to wait until the "older gen" dies off and hope that there's enough in my generation that hasn't changed their minds over the issue to agree to let it be.
And since legislatures are elected by the voters (and judges are either elected by the voters or appointed by the elected legislators), it would seem that rights granted or stripped are for the voters to decide.
So before we know it, the government decides everything and the republic becomes worthless. This is the greatest fallacy for elitist left wingers who believe an education and an articulate wherewithal makes one person superior to another. Politicians should have no greater right to decide what is right and wrong than an intelligent citizen with an opinion. Or is your ideal world one which the government gives rights to the people instead of the people giving rights to the government. You can have your bureaucracy, I'll have my freedom.
So tell me....how is extending equal rights to GBLT's, women, minority's, infringing on your freedom?
Did you read what I wrote? I'm talking about my vote as a citizen having an influence over legislation. SirJoseph thinks that as a citizen I don't have that right because politicians are morally superior or have some element that grants them that authority. Pure bull. I have my reasons to be against gay marriage, if that is the topic of discussion then maybe you should reread what I posted.
So...you feel YOUR personal freedom should supercede the rights of others. If the majority "voted" to allow slavery again, that would be fine with you? Voted to repeal women's right to vote, that would be fine with you?
Majority rule is just fine and dandy but not when it stomps on the rights of a minority or the disenfranchised.
Iowa + corn cobs = happy gays
At least Iowa's same sex marriage law will give some dignity back to Toronto.
At least Iowa's same sex marriage law will give some dignity back to Toronto.
This is bad news for Canadian tourism.
Niagara Falls and other Canadian tourist destinations have experienced a mini-boom since SSM became legal in Ontario in 2003.
BBC NEWS | Americas | US gay couples head to Canada to wed
Niagara Falls and other Canadian tourist destinations have experienced a mini-boom since SSM became legal in Ontario in 2003.
BBC NEWS | Americas | US gay couples head to Canada to wed
You are probably right. If one’s intention is to get married, it is much easier to go to Iowa (especially if one lives in the Midwest), rather than go to Canada. Also, since they will be getting married within USA, they stand a better chance of their marriage being recognized by their own state, as opposed to if they go abroad (to Canada) and get married.
I remember the same thing happened with casinos. Windsor opened its casino, and for a few years it did a brisk business, it got customers from across the border. Then Detroit opened three casinos and the business fell off in Windsor.
But there are a couple of things about this. One, the couple may want to visit Canada on vacation. Getting married while in Canada may be an added bonus, rather than the main purpose of the visit. Such a couple may not be deterred by legalized gay marriage in Iowa.
Also, if one lives in Michigan, Minnesota etc., Canada is right next door, much nearer than Iowa. So tourism will fall, Toronto has thrived as gay marriage capital of North America. But gay market may not disappear completely, Canada my still get some gay business.
I say go Iowa! Every Iowan I've met since moving here has been a very cool person. This is just further example of their coolness.