Iowa Legalizes Gay Marriage: Have the Floodgates Opened?

[SirJosephPorter]

the reason that they are not satisfied with anything less than the word marriage is that they are looking for complete social acceptance...nothing less.

You are partly right, DaSleeper. Gays are looking for acceptance, but it is legal acceptance, not social acceptance. They want to be treated equals in the eyes of the law. Social acceptance, well, you can’t legislate that. However, seeing that a comfortable majority of Canadians support gay marriage, it is safe to say that there is social acceptance by a majority of Canadians. As to the remaining minority, well, I don’t see gays gaining acceptance in their eyes for several decades yet. Many of them haven’t yet accepted blacks as total equals.

Gays are looking for legal acceptance, equality in the eyes of the law. As somebody in Clinton administration remarked (I don’t offhand recall his name), ‘we may not be able to change your attitude, but we are going to change your behavior’. As long as gays are treated equally, I don’t think they much care about social acceptance.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Let us suppose that sometime in he future the word "MARRIAGE" is surrendered to the gay/lesbian community to mean something it is not, the same way the word "GAY", meaning happy, was hijacked to denote something that it totally is not.

Let us suppose that the straight community invents and comes up with a brand new word, never hitherto heard or seen in print.

How long do you think the gay community would wait to hijack that word too?

Now that is a hypothetical question, isn’t it? Personally I don’t think gays would care much one way or the other. What they want is equality in the eyes of he law. If heterosexuals want to invent a different name for marriage and use it in the Church context (And not demand that government recognize that different name), I doubt that gays would much care.

 

[DaSleeper]

However, seeing that a comfortable majority of Canadians support gay marriage, it is safe to say that there is social acceptance by a majority of Canadians.

I wonder if a referendum... similar to the question in California....would result in a majority:?:
The majority was in the house of commons and we all know how a vote there is the same as the view of the population hey?.......with the party whip telling everyone how to vote even when they have a "free" vote.......................

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I wonder if a referendum... similar to the question in California....would result in a majority:?:
The majority was in the house of commons and we all know how a vote there is the same as the view of the population hey?.......with the party whip telling everyone how to vote even when they have a "free" vote.......................

Opinion polls indicate that if a referendum were held today, it will pass by a substantial margin. The last poll I saw showed 60 or 70% support for gay marriage. Now, if a referendum had been held when the debate was raging, the result would have been inconclusive. The support for gay marriage was around 50:50 at that time.

I am however, opposed to referendum even today (even though it probably will pass), as a matter of principle.

 

[DaSleeper]

Opinion polls indicate that if a referendum were held today, it will pass by a substantial margin. The last poll I saw showed 60 or 70% support for gay marriage. Now, if a referendum had been held when the debate was raging, the result would have been inconclusive. The support for gay marriage was around 50:50 at that time.

I am however, opposed to referendum even today (even though it probably will pass), as a matter of principle.

How about a link to one of those polls?....just for laughs and giggles:smile::lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

How about a link to one of those polls?....just for laughs and giggles:smile::lol:

No problem, DaSleeper. Try the following:

Same-Sex Marriage Issue Settled, Say Canadians: Angus Reid Global Monitor

This shows support for gay marriage in Canada at 59%. This was in 2006. I remember seeing a more recent poll that put the support higher than that, but I couldn’t find it. At any rate, Canadians considered the issue to be settled in 2006.

 

[Francis2004]

Opinion polls indicate that if a referendum were held today, it will pass by a substantial margin. The last poll I saw showed 60 or 70% support for gay marriage. Now, if a referendum had been held when the debate was raging, the result would have been inconclusive. The support for gay marriage was around 50:50 at that time.

I am however, opposed to referendum even today (even though it probably will pass), as a matter of principle.

As you know I am all in favour of the movement but I often wonder about polls and we have talked about this. The only poll that counts is the Ballot Box one and unfortunately many polls can be in favour but getting those to translate into actual vote is a bit different. When people have enough of a reason to finally get off their a$$ and get out to do something we sometimes see a close association with polls and votes..

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter said:

"Now that is a hypothetical question, isn’t it? Personally I don’t think gays would care much one way or the other. What they want is equality in the eyes of he law. If heterosexuals want to invent a different name for marriage and use it in the Church context (And not demand that government recognize that different name), I doubt that gays would much care."

If gays would not care one way or another, why don't they have the brains and the courage to invent a word that would describe their relationship?

Why can't they leave the word "MARRIAGE" alone to mean what is is and has always been supposed to mean for thousands of years, in all cultures and in all religions: ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN?

 

[Serryah]

"If gays would not care one way or another, why don't they have the brains and the courage to invent a word that would describe their relationship?"

To which I ask in return - why should a word be invented when already one exists?

For myself, I don't care. Call it marriage, call it civil union, call it "Goobah", call my "union to the person I love" whatever you want. Just don't get upset or anything if I call your "marriage" the same thing. After all, a rose is a rose, isn't it?

Edit:

"Why can't they leave the word "MARRIAGE" alone to mean what is is and has always been supposed to mean for thousands of years, in all cultures and in all religions: ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN?"

And what about those times when there were two men or two women in a joined union, thousands of years ago and in many cultures and religions? Or did they mean nothing at the time?

 

[JLM]

I think there has to be flexibility on this issue, I grew up in an era when homosexuality was despised. Then gradually we came to accepting homosexuals, which I'm convinced is as it should be as really someones sexuality is none of anyones else's business. Now we are at the point where gay "marriage" is becoming widely accepted but many people (myself included) have trouble with the word "marriage" and would prefer to call it something else. Then I got to figuring we are just dealing with semantics here and the English language has been bastardized so much over the years, that one more word isn't really going to make a difference and then there is the other aspect that heterosexuals don't even take "marriage" as seriously anymore. Bottom line is it has gotten to be an isssue it's really not worth losing sleep over.

 

[Zzarchov]

If gays would not care one way or another, why don't they have the brains and the courage to invent a word that would describe their relationship?

They do, its a marriage. If we can hijack the definition to fit our narrow needs, I see no reason they can't. Really, I suppose what they have shouldnt' be called marriage, the thing is, neither should this "one man and only one woman, both as equals, with the ability to choose for themselves and leave through divorce" thing we have be called marriage.

Neither of them are any closer to the original definition than the other. IF we can call heterosexual civil unions "marriages" , we should call homosexual ones marriages too.

Why can't they leave the word "MARRIAGE" alone to mean what is is and has always been supposed to mean for thousands of years, in all cultures and in all religions: ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN?

Because for thousands of years and in the majority of cultures its always meant one man and one or more women.

Ever Read the bible? Notice how many people in there have multiple wives? Ever notice how most cultures have multiple wives? No?

 

[Serryah]

"Bottom line is it has gotten to be an isssue it's really not worth losing sleep over."

Agreed, JLM.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Bottom line is it has gotten to be an isssue it's really not worth losing sleep over.

JLM, you really typify the Canadian attitude, as shown in the poll quoted in post # 86. Canadians regard this issue as pretty much settled.

That is what we do in Canada. Whenever a new issue arises, abortion, death penalty, gay marriage etc., there is fierce and passionate debate on it, by both sides. Tempers run high. However, once a resolution is obtained one way or the other, we want to move on, we don’t keep fighting the same fights over and over again. I think that is why there isn’t much polarization in Canadian society. Sure, we have Liberal and Conservative parties, but we are not at each other’s throat all the time (except maybe at the elections).

This is in marked contrast with USA; there they keep fighting the same battles again and again. Thus they legalized abortion in 1973, when we were still imprisoning doctors for performing abortions. But we settled the issue long time ago, in USA they are still fighting over abortion (and I assume will continue fighting for the next several decades).

Same with gay marriage. We resolved the issue and we have moved on. Now if Harper or anybody tries to dig it up, he will be committing political suicide, at least in Ontario and Québec. They will be fighting the issue in USA for several decades yet.

As a result, USA is a much more polarized society than Canada. We try to form a consensus. In USA there is no consensus. Thus pro life wide wouldn’t’ settle for anything except a total ban on abortion. Sometimes I am surprised that they in USA don’t get tired with fighting the same battles over and over again.

 

[A4NoOb]

A4NoOb, marriage may not be a fundamental right, but protection from discrimination is. If heterosexuals are allowed to marry, gays must be permitted to marry, otherwise it is discrimination and against the Charter.You are right, it does not. But it specifically forbids discrimination. Banning gay marriage is discrimination and is against the Charter.

Maybe I should inject here what is official discrimination before we remember the Jim Crow era. You specifically said:

"Not at all, gays don’t have the right to redefine the marriage. However, they do have the right not to be subject to discrimination. If heterosexuals are allowed to marry, gays must be allowed to marry as well."

Would you please show me any where in marriage legislations where it states "homosexuals may not participate in the act of marriage"? The act of marriage is completely INdiscriminate because no matter who you are, whether you are gay or straight, black or white, you have the complete freedom to marry a person of opposite sex. And that is what the law says, "We will recognize marriage between a man and a woman." Not, "We will recognize marriage between a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman." So I'm sorry to stomp on the "discrimination" parade, but what you claim is discrimination, isn't. What we are talking about here is completely about the definition of marriage, which should be left up to the populous, NOT THE POLITICIANS to decide.

 

[L Gilbert]

Good for Iowa. They've shown themselves to be reasonable people.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Would you please show me any where in marriage legislations where it states "homosexuals may not participate in the act of marriage"? The act of marriage is completely INdiscriminate because no matter who you are, whether you are gay or straight, black or white, you have the complete freedom to marry a person of opposite sex. And that is what the law says, "We will recognize marriage between a man and a woman." Not, "We will recognize marriage between a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman." So I'm sorry to stomp on the "discrimination" parade, but what you claim is discrimination, isn't. What we are talking about here is completely about the definition of marriage, which should be left up to the populous, NOT THE POLITICIANS to decide.

A4NoOB, I think it was Jason Keeny who made a similar argument during the SSM debate. He denied that the law discriminated against gays. He said, gays have the right to marry, same as heterosexuals. But they don’t have the right to marry somebody of the same sex, same as heterosexuals.

He was universally condemned and ridiculed for that argument. I don’t think he repeated it again and rightly so. It is a nonsense argument.

Just because a law applies equally to all the people, that does not mean that it is not discriminatory. It can still be discriminatory in intent. Let me give you an example.

Suppose government passes a law saying that everybody must eat meat during at least one meal every day. Now, the law is totally nondiscriminatory, it apples to everybody. However, the intent is clearly to discriminate against vegetarians, and they would have a very good Charter case, claiming discrimination.

Indeed, that is a common enough ploy of those who want to discriminate. They draft laws so that they appear nondiscriminatory, but everybody knows that the intent is to discriminate. Thus in old days, they used to have laws such as you need to be six feet tall for a certain job (e.g. Bobby in England). Clearly the intent was to keep women out. Or when they passed citizenship laws which do not mention race, but the intent as to clearly keep non whites out.

The old marriage law was like that. It may have been nondiscriminatory on it surface, but the intent was very much to discriminate against gays. After all, a gay cannot marry somebody of opposite sex, usually it leads to broken home, divorce and tragedy. Indeed, it is the height of callousness, height of arrogance (and ignorance) to tell a gay person to marry somebody of oppose it sex. Almost certainly it will result in tragedy for both the partners and any children involved a few years down the line.

And courts do take this into account. When they look at a law, they decide if its intent was discriminatory. Thus if a job specifies that the applicant must be at least six feet tall, the intent clearly is to discriminate against women.

The marriage law may not be discriminatory in letter, but most certainly was discriminatory in spirit, and courts were right to throw it out.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Maybe I should inject here what is official discrimination before we remember the Jim Crow era.

Interesting you should mention Jim Crow era. Remember the voter registration acts in the South? They did not mention race as such and could claim to be nondiscriminatory. But the intent was very much to keep blacks from registering, to keep the electorate all white.

Now, I don’t remember the exact details of the laws (I assume one could easily Google for it), but they were designed in such a way that it would be easy for a white to register, while it will be difficult for black to register. E.g. I think one way to register was to register when you apply for renewal of driver’s license. In the 50s, not may blacks had cars, so it would be mainly whites who would register it that way. It will be almost automatic registration for white, while the blacks (most of them didn’t own cars and didn’t have driver’s license) had to go through the laborious and cumbersome process of registration. Also, voter registration offices would purposely be located in white areas, rather than black areas.

Another nondiscriminatory law which achieved the ‘desired’ results, which is to keep the undesirables out.

 

[JLM]

I don't think Marriage has ever discriminated against gays. Gays have married throughout history and were never hasseled about it as long as they married the opposite sex & until the last 5 years "marriage" had a specific meaning.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don't think Marriage has ever discriminated against gays. Gays have married throughout history and were never hasseled about it as long as they married the opposite sex & until the last 5 years "marriage" had a specific meaning.

Indeed. but that law was clearly discriminatory, as i have demonstrated in my previous posts. Gays should be permitted to marry their own kind, and not forced to marry someone where it is almost certain to lead to tragedy.

 

[JLM]

Indeed. but that law was clearly discriminatory, as i have demonstrated in my previous posts. Gays should be permitted to marry their own kind, and not forced to marry someone where it is almost certain to lead to tragedy.

That may be arguable. It would depend on changing the definition of "marriage" which has been in existance for thousands of years. I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be changed, but rather by whom and how many. Done democratically would necessitate being sanctioned by a majority (which would be OKay by me, but would have to be voted on)