Democrats win Iowa State House special election

[SenatorShadowLands]

And then you end up with a major legal mess, like in California, where there are different classes of same-sex couples in the state of Iowa, and the issue will end up in federal court again. Maybe Bush's top lawyer would help us again.

Either way, even if the Republicans can get a vote in the House where it's a bit closer, it'll be way harder in the Senate. And even then, the earliest it can be on the ballot is 2012, I believe. That's almost three and a half years of same-sex marriage, they wouldn't be able to take it away easily like in California when people were still getting used to it.

It's just as possible that the people chafing under it for 3 years will be ticked off enough in a year that could very well be good for the GOP, will kill it. That's too far out to foresee but history suggests that if it goes on the ballot gay marriage will die. Maine goes on the ballot this November. If a state as blue as Maine kills it that will bode ill for gay marriage in Iowa no matter when it makes it to the ballot.

Or people notice after three years of gay marriage that their lives are not in any way affected and accept it.

But no, you're right, they'll probably be upset because they've been "chafing under it".

You do realize it has to do with a MORAL standard right? no one is saying you'll die or lose your house because gay marriage goes into effect.

And how exactly will be people be affected by a change in the "moral standard".

Furthermore, how will they be "chafing under it".

How? Well for one, it's being forced down your throat when you didn't even get a say on it. your elected reps are denying you a vote. And on top of that legalizing gay "marriage" provides excellent fodder for the likes of the ACLU who enjoy attacking churches and religion. It also provides ammunition for those who enjoy stifiling freedom of speech under the guise of fighting "hate crimes."

So yeah, this can cause problems especially for regular people who believe in marriage and the ideals our nation was founded on.

[Holmes]

The ACLU has opposed teh gay agenda too, like they opposed the hate crimes bill that passed the Senate for example.

Anyway, it's a representative democracy for a reason. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the constitution, not the electorate. You should channel your anger towards the authors of Iowa's Equal Protection Clause. If voters are being denied a vote on this issue, that means they basically have to vote on everything that happens in the legislature and the Supreme Court? Cause those are being forced down their throats as well. I really can't prove my point further.

[SenatorShadowLands]

The ACLU has opposed teh gay agenda too, like they opposed the hate crimes bill that passed the Senate for example.

Anyway, it's a representative democracy for a reason. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the constitution, not the electorate. You should channel your anger towards the authors of Iowa's Equal Protection Clause. If voters are being denied a vote on this issue, that means they basically have to vote on everything that happens in the legislature and the Supreme Court? Cause those are being forced down their throats as well. I really can't prove my point further.

When the people WANT a vote they should get it and we have a freaky system under the first amendment calld "petitions" where you can demand a people's vote. If you don't care that your legislature renamed a Post Office last week then you can ignore it. But if they do something you don't like you have a right to vote it down or vote it out. That's the point of the referendum system, if we NEED it, direct democracy can go into effect it can without destroying our representative system.

So no, you haven't made much of a point other than to try to use the "this isn't technically a democracy" argument to shut out the people's say on marriage. The equal protection clause doesn't have jack to do with gay marriage but the court has used it as an excuse to justify it, the people don't like that, and should be allowed to invoke their right to change the constitution and the system.

[Holmes]

Hell yeah, the Equal Protection Clause had everything to do with it. Read Varnum v. Brien, it's a good ruling. The court ruled that the state was only allowed to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses on the grounds that they somehow harmed Iowa society. It seems like the anti-gay marriage lawyers didn't prove their case good enough because they didn't convince any of the justices. They also decided that denying committed same-sex couples who wanted to get married but are denied all the rights that the state of Iowa gives to married couples was inconsistent with that clause. Perhaps if Iowa had some sort of civil union system, the ruling would not have been unanimous.

You're complaining now that it's legal, but were you calling for a public vote when almost every state passed an anti-same-sex marriage law in the past few decades? Surely there were many people who wanted a say on it back then, too.

[Meeker]

And then you end up with a major legal mess, like in California, where there are different classes of same-sex couples in the state of Iowa, and the issue will end up in federal court again. Maybe Bush's top lawyer would help us again.

Either way, even if the Republicans can get a vote in the House where it's a bit closer, it'll be way harder in the Senate. And even then, the earliest it can be on the ballot is 2012, I believe. That's almost three and a half years of same-sex marriage, they wouldn't be able to take it away easily like in California when people were still getting used to it.

It's just as possible that the people chafing under it for 3 years will be ticked off enough in a year that could very well be good for the GOP, will kill it. That's too far out to foresee but history suggests that if it goes on the ballot gay marriage will die. Maine goes on the ballot this November. If a state as blue as Maine kills it that will bode ill for gay marriage in Iowa no matter when it makes it to the ballot.

Or people notice after three years of gay marriage that their lives are not in any way affected and accept it.

But no, you're right, they'll probably be upset because they've been "chafing under it".

You do realize it has to do with a MORAL standard right? no one is saying you'll die or lose your house because gay marriage goes into effect.

And how exactly will be people be affected by a change in the "moral standard".

Furthermore, how will they be "chafing under it".

How? Well for one, it's being forced down your throat when you didn't even get a say on it. your elected reps are denying you a vote. And on top of that legalizing gay "marriage" provides excellent fodder for the likes of the ACLU who enjoy attacking churches and religion. It also provides ammunition for those who enjoy stifiling freedom of speech under the guise of fighting "hate crimes."

So yeah, this can cause problems especially for regular people who believe in marriage and the ideals our nation was founded on.

You still haven't described a single way in which people will be "affected by it" or will "chafe under it" other then some vague concept that their psyche will be uncomfortable. Try again.

[Dan the Roman]

The ACLU has opposed teh gay agenda too, like they opposed the hate crimes bill that passed the Senate for example.

Anyway, it's a representative democracy for a reason. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the constitution, not the electorate. You should channel your anger towards the authors of Iowa's Equal Protection Clause. If voters are being denied a vote on this issue, that means they basically have to vote on everything that happens in the legislature and the Supreme Court? Cause those are being forced down their throats as well. I really can't prove my point further.

When the people WANT a vote they should get it and we have a freaky system under the first amendment calld "petitions" where you can demand a people's vote. If you don't care that your legislature renamed a Post Office last week then you can ignore it. But if they do something you don't like you have a right to vote it down or vote it out. That's the point of the referendum system, if we NEED it, direct democracy can go into effect it can without destroying our representative system.

So no, you haven't made much of a point other than to try to use the "this isn't technically a democracy" argument to shut out the people's say on marriage. The equal protection clause doesn't have jack to do with gay marriage but the court has used it as an excuse to justify it, the people don't like that, and should be allowed to invoke their right to change the constitution and the system.

Could you kindly explain why no major candidate for Governor in Massachusetts of either party now opposes Gay Marriage four years after it became legal? The experience of states that implement it is that there is a backlash for the first 18 months, after which things inevitably and rapidly move in favor of it. California had the misfortune of voting 6 months afterward. Had the vote taken place in 2010(and the ruling been in 2009) its likely the outcome would have been different.

[SenatorShadowLands]

Hell yeah, the Equal Protection Clause had everything to do with it. Read Varnum v. Brien, it's a good ruling. The court ruled that the state was only allowed to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses on the grounds that they somehow harmed Iowa society. It seems like the anti-gay marriage lawyers didn't prove their case good enough because they didn't convince any of the justices. They also decided that denying committed same-sex couples who wanted to get married but are denied all the rights that the state of Iowa gives to married couples was inconsistent with that clause. Perhaps if Iowa had some sort of civil union system, the ruling would not have been unanimous.

You're complaining now that it's legal, but were you calling for a public vote when almost every state passed an anti-same-sex marriage law in the past few decades? Surely there were many people who wanted a say on it back then, too.

Then guess what? Maybe they shoulod have gotten off their lazy behinds and organized a vote to strike down the laws or change the state constitution to allow gay marriage. Getting a law repealed puts the "burden of proof" per say on the side that doesn't like the laws. Right now its on us to get a vote (like we did in Maine). Anywhere else its your problem, like in California. The pro-gay groups are trying to get another vote there, hooray for them. At least they are doing something and not just whining or hiding behind the excuse a few liberal judges used to implement their own agenda.

[SenatorShadowLands]

And then you end up with a major legal mess, like in California, where there are different classes of same-sex couples in the state of Iowa, and the issue will end up in federal court again. Maybe Bush's top lawyer would help us again.

Either way, even if the Republicans can get a vote in the House where it's a bit closer, it'll be way harder in the Senate. And even then, the earliest it can be on the ballot is 2012, I believe. That's almost three and a half years of same-sex marriage, they wouldn't be able to take it away easily like in California when people were still getting used to it.

It's just as possible that the people chafing under it for 3 years will be ticked off enough in a year that could very well be good for the GOP, will kill it. That's too far out to foresee but history suggests that if it goes on the ballot gay marriage will die. Maine goes on the ballot this November. If a state as blue as Maine kills it that will bode ill for gay marriage in Iowa no matter when it makes it to the ballot.

Or people notice after three years of gay marriage that their lives are not in any way affected and accept it.

But no, you're right, they'll probably be upset because they've been "chafing under it".

You do realize it has to do with a MORAL standard right? no one is saying you'll die or lose your house because gay marriage goes into effect.

And how exactly will be people be affected by a change in the "moral standard".

Furthermore, how will they be "chafing under it".

How? Well for one, it's being forced down your throat when you didn't even get a say on it. your elected reps are denying you a vote. And on top of that legalizing gay "marriage" provides excellent fodder for the likes of the ACLU who enjoy attacking churches and religion. It also provides ammunition for those who enjoy stifiling freedom of speech under the guise of fighting "hate crimes."

So yeah, this can cause problems especially for regular people who believe in marriage and the ideals our nation was founded on.

You still haven't described a single way in which people will be "affected by it" or will "chafe under it" other then some vague concept that their psyche will be uncomfortable. Try again.

I guess lawsuits and the restriction of freedom of speech don't register as things that affect people in your world. I don't know what else to tell you if you're so dead set on gay "marriage" being legal despite its ill effects.

And you do realize its possible to just be ticked off while you are chafing and that's enough to make people kill something they don't like when they are already mad they didn't get a say on it.

[SenatorShadowLands]

The ACLU has opposed teh gay agenda too, like they opposed the hate crimes bill that passed the Senate for example.

Anyway, it's a representative democracy for a reason. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the constitution, not the electorate. You should channel your anger towards the authors of Iowa's Equal Protection Clause. If voters are being denied a vote on this issue, that means they basically have to vote on everything that happens in the legislature and the Supreme Court? Cause those are being forced down their throats as well. I really can't prove my point further.

When the people WANT a vote they should get it and we have a freaky system under the first amendment calld "petitions" where you can demand a people's vote. If you don't care that your legislature renamed a Post Office last week then you can ignore it. But if they do something you don't like you have a right to vote it down or vote it out. That's the point of the referendum system, if we NEED it, direct democracy can go into effect it can without destroying our representative system.

So no, you haven't made much of a point other than to try to use the "this isn't technically a democracy" argument to shut out the people's say on marriage. The equal protection clause doesn't have jack to do with gay marriage but the court has used it as an excuse to justify it, the people don't like that, and should be allowed to invoke their right to change the constitution and the system.

Could you kindly explain why no major candidate for Governor in Massachusetts of either party now opposes Gay Marriage four years after it became legal? The experience of states that implement it is that there is a backlash for the first 18 months, after which things inevitably and rapidly move in favor of it. California had the misfortune of voting 6 months afterward. Had the vote taken place in 2010(and the ruling been in 2009) its likely the outcome would have been different.

Last I've checked Romney opposed gay "marriage" and Patrick is a Dem, so naturally won't. We aren't far enough into the 2010 cycle for the GOP candidates to even have completely gotten into the race much less state a position. If memory serves me correctly, an attempt to get a vote for the people failed by 5 votes at the last MA constitutional convention. Meaning gay "marriage" is safe in MA until a new attempt can be made in 2012. So its a non-issue until that time.

[Meeker]

And then you end up with a major legal mess, like in California, where there are different classes of same-sex couples in the state of Iowa, and the issue will end up in federal court again. Maybe Bush's top lawyer would help us again.

Either way, even if the Republicans can get a vote in the House where it's a bit closer, it'll be way harder in the Senate. And even then, the earliest it can be on the ballot is 2012, I believe. That's almost three and a half years of same-sex marriage, they wouldn't be able to take it away easily like in California when people were still getting used to it.

It's just as possible that the people chafing under it for 3 years will be ticked off enough in a year that could very well be good for the GOP, will kill it. That's too far out to foresee but history suggests that if it goes on the ballot gay marriage will die. Maine goes on the ballot this November. If a state as blue as Maine kills it that will bode ill for gay marriage in Iowa no matter when it makes it to the ballot.

Or people notice after three years of gay marriage that their lives are not in any way affected and accept it.

But no, you're right, they'll probably be upset because they've been "chafing under it".

You do realize it has to do with a MORAL standard right? no one is saying you'll die or lose your house because gay marriage goes into effect.

And how exactly will be people be affected by a change in the "moral standard".

Furthermore, how will they be "chafing under it".

How? Well for one, it's being forced down your throat when you didn't even get a say on it. your elected reps are denying you a vote. And on top of that legalizing gay "marriage" provides excellent fodder for the likes of the ACLU who enjoy attacking churches and religion. It also provides ammunition for those who enjoy stifiling freedom of speech under the guise of fighting "hate crimes."

So yeah, this can cause problems especially for regular people who believe in marriage and the ideals our nation was founded on.

You still haven't described a single way in which people will be "affected by it" or will "chafe under it" other then some vague concept that their psyche will be uncomfortable. Try again.

I guess lawsuits and the restriction of freedom of speech don't register as things that affect people in your world. I don't know what else to tell you if you're so dead set on gay "marriage" being legal despite its ill effects.

And you do realize its possible to just be ticked off while you are chafing and that's enough to make people kill something they don't like when they are already mad they didn't get a say on it.

Are you really this dumb? I'm asking you to name one tangible way, one noticeable way in which anyone's lives will be affected by legalized gay marriage. Not "they'll be angry about it" or "they'll be uncomfortable by it". Show me one measurable, tangible way in which a person's life will be impacted (especially negatively) by legalized gay marriage.

[YankeeFan007]

Meeker, the Republicans will never give you the real answer because they know it hurts them.  Gay Marriage will eventually be legal.  If you look at the polls young people seem to be in favor of gay marriage by 70-80%.  Older people are just the opposite.  The biggest reason for the difference is because of the Republican inability to give a logical reason.  Also, abortion might get overturned in the future because the under 30s are not in favor of it. 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Actually, NOM spent $86k and kept airing anti-gay marriage ads throughout the district. And they lost. lololololol

I didn't think we'd win, but we did.

OWNED

[Dan the Roman]

The ACLU has opposed teh gay agenda too, like they opposed the hate crimes bill that passed the Senate for example.

Anyway, it's a representative democracy for a reason. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the constitution, not the electorate. You should channel your anger towards the authors of Iowa's Equal Protection Clause. If voters are being denied a vote on this issue, that means they basically have to vote on everything that happens in the legislature and the Supreme Court? Cause those are being forced down their throats as well. I really can't prove my point further.

When the people WANT a vote they should get it and we have a freaky system under the first amendment calld "petitions" where you can demand a people's vote. If you don't care that your legislature renamed a Post Office last week then you can ignore it. But if they do something you don't like you have a right to vote it down or vote it out. That's the point of the referendum system, if we NEED it, direct democracy can go into effect it can without destroying our representative system.

So no, you haven't made much of a point other than to try to use the "this isn't technically a democracy" argument to shut out the people's say on marriage. The equal protection clause doesn't have jack to do with gay marriage but the court has used it as an excuse to justify it, the people don't like that, and should be allowed to invoke their right to change the constitution and the system.

Could you kindly explain why no major candidate for Governor in Massachusetts of either party now opposes Gay Marriage four years after it became legal? The experience of states that implement it is that there is a backlash for the first 18 months, after which things inevitably and rapidly move in favor of it. California had the misfortune of voting 6 months afterward. Had the vote taken place in 2010(and the ruling been in 2009) its likely the outcome would have been different.

Last I've checked Romney opposed gay "marriage" and Patrick is a Dem, so naturally won't. We aren't far enough into the 2010 cycle for the GOP candidates to even have completely gotten into the race much less state a position. If memory serves me correctly, an attempt to get a vote for the people failed by 5 votes at the last MA constitutional convention. Meaning gay "marriage" is safe in MA until a new attempt can be made in 2012. So its a non-issue until that time.

Romney opposed gay marriage because he was never planning on running again. Both GOP candidates for Governor(and I doubt we will have any more the major ones are in) support Gay marriage. And one reason it failed in the legislature is that from 2003 on not one legislator who supported Gay marriage lost their seat. On the other hand dozens of state reps who opposed it did. Thats why it went from 108 votes to 61 votes and its an act of incredible political bravery(or stupidity) to oppose it these days.

[Хahar 🤔]

This was an Obama district, the GOP candidate performed better than McCain did in November and despite the fact that both sides tried to make this about gay marriage their position was the same: "it's too politically hot to say, but we both want a statewide vote" Which, considering the Dems in Des Moines are the ones blocking the people from having a say, would mean that this is a win for the GOP either way if the Dem keeps his word. (Can't say how much faith i put in that though)

Nice spin. This is as disingenuous as Newt Gingrich saying that every No vote in the special election in California was a Republican vote.

I'm not sure what special election you're talking about but assuming it has something to do with gay marriage, Gingrich has a point in that there is no reason for a minority voter etc to vote with the Democrats because they are a minority when they actually agree with the GOP on the issues.

The budget special election, on which every important clause was rejected with over 60%. It's worth noting that the Republican Governor supported it.

[Holmes]

Hell yeah, the Equal Protection Clause had everything to do with it. Read Varnum v. Brien, it's a good ruling. The court ruled that the state was only allowed to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses on the grounds that they somehow harmed Iowa society. It seems like the anti-gay marriage lawyers didn't prove their case good enough because they didn't convince any of the justices. They also decided that denying committed same-sex couples who wanted to get married but are denied all the rights that the state of Iowa gives to married couples was inconsistent with that clause. Perhaps if Iowa had some sort of civil union system, the ruling would not have been unanimous.

You're complaining now that it's legal, but were you calling for a public vote when almost every state passed an anti-same-sex marriage law in the past few decades? Surely there were many people who wanted a say on it back then, too.

Then guess what? Maybe they should have gotten off their lazy behinds and organized a vote to strike down the laws or change the state constitution to allow gay marriage. Getting a law repealed puts the "burden of proof" per say on the side that doesn't like the laws. Right now its on us to get a vote (like we did in Maine). Anywhere else its your problem, like in California. The pro-gay groups are trying to get another vote there, hooray for them. At least they are doing something and not just whining or hiding behind the excuse a few liberal judges used to implement their own agenda.

So abolish every court and the constitution and let the electorate decide everything?

Anyway, I have a story to tell you since you think every court that strikes down an anti-same-sex marriage law is liberal and activist. After California's court wrote In re Marriage Cases, they had a case where a private school expelled a student based on her sexual orientation. The court upheld the expulsion saying the private school had the right to do what it did. Doesn't sound very liberal or activist to me. I'm totally against the ruling but that's how it is. I'm probably never gonna get a vote on it.

My point is, courts uphold and strike down laws all the time. You can't cherry pick ones that need a public vote. The ruling changed the lives of many people in Iowa for the better. Just because you and others want to impose your morality on a state, doesn't mean you have to alter the state's constitution to create an ugly legal mess.


[also going to be afk for 2-3 days, if someone can pick up for me that'd be cool]

[Landslide Lyndon]

I guess lawsuits and the restriction of freedom of speech don't register as things that affect people in your world. I don't know what else to tell you if you're so dead set on gay "marriage" being legal despite its ill effects.

And you do realize its possible to just be ticked off while you are chafing and that's enough to make people kill something they don't like when they are already mad they didn't get a say on it.

Welcome back JJ.

[SenatorShadowLands]

Meeker, the Republicans will never give you the real answer because they know it hurts them.  Gay Marriage will eventually be legal.  If you look at the polls young people seem to be in favor of gay marriage by 70-80%.  Older people are just the opposite.  The biggest reason for the difference is because of the Republican inability to give a logical reason.  Also, abortion might get overturned in the future because the under 30s are not in favor of it. 

lol 70-80? Try more like 60-40 at best, I realize that bodes ill for marriage but the fact that there will be almost 2-3 times as many elderly people as young people within the next 10 years certanily means bad news for you doesn't it?

[SenatorShadowLands]

Hell yeah, the Equal Protection Clause had everything to do with it. Read Varnum v. Brien, it's a good ruling. The court ruled that the state was only allowed to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses on the grounds that they somehow harmed Iowa society. It seems like the anti-gay marriage lawyers didn't prove their case good enough because they didn't convince any of the justices. They also decided that denying committed same-sex couples who wanted to get married but are denied all the rights that the state of Iowa gives to married couples was inconsistent with that clause. Perhaps if Iowa had some sort of civil union system, the ruling would not have been unanimous.

You're complaining now that it's legal, but were you calling for a public vote when almost every state passed an anti-same-sex marriage law in the past few decades? Surely there were many people who wanted a say on it back then, too.

Then guess what? Maybe they should have gotten off their lazy behinds and organized a vote to strike down the laws or change the state constitution to allow gay marriage. Getting a law repealed puts the "burden of proof" per say on the side that doesn't like the laws. Right now its on us to get a vote (like we did in Maine). Anywhere else its your problem, like in California. The pro-gay groups are trying to get another vote there, hooray for them. At least they are doing something and not just whining or hiding behind the excuse a few liberal judges used to implement their own agenda.

So abolish every court and the constitution and let the electorate decide everything?

Anyway, I have a story to tell you since you think every court that strikes down an anti-same-sex marriage law is liberal and activist. After California's court wrote In re Marriage Cases, they had a case where a private school expelled a student based on her sexual orientation. The court upheld the expulsion saying the private school had the right to do what it did. Doesn't sound very liberal or activist to me. I'm totally against the ruling but that's how it is. I'm probably never gonna get a vote on it.

My point is, courts uphold and strike down laws all the time. You can't cherry pick ones that need a public vote. The ruling changed the lives of many people in Iowa for the better. Just because you and others want to impose your morality on a state, doesn't mean you have to alter the state's constitution to create an ugly legal mess.


[also going to be afk for 2-3 days, if someone can pick up for me that'd be cool]

I'm not cherry picking anything. If you don't like something CHANGE IT. How is your problem. We HAVE a way to change the marriage situation so I'm working to do so. Maybe instead of whining about that girl you should be doing something to change the law to help her. As I said, how is your problem. Does it really take a Conservative to motivate a Liberal to do something? On second thought, maybe I should keep my mouth shut....

[SenatorShadowLands]

And then you end up with a major legal mess, like in California, where there are different classes of same-sex couples in the state of Iowa, and the issue will end up in federal court again. Maybe Bush's top lawyer would help us again.

Either way, even if the Republicans can get a vote in the House where it's a bit closer, it'll be way harder in the Senate. And even then, the earliest it can be on the ballot is 2012, I believe. That's almost three and a half years of same-sex marriage, they wouldn't be able to take it away easily like in California when people were still getting used to it.

It's just as possible that the people chafing under it for 3 years will be ticked off enough in a year that could very well be good for the GOP, will kill it. That's too far out to foresee but history suggests that if it goes on the ballot gay marriage will die. Maine goes on the ballot this November. If a state as blue as Maine kills it that will bode ill for gay marriage in Iowa no matter when it makes it to the ballot.

Or people notice after three years of gay marriage that their lives are not in any way affected and accept it.

But no, you're right, they'll probably be upset because they've been "chafing under it".

You do realize it has to do with a MORAL standard right? no one is saying you'll die or lose your house because gay marriage goes into effect.

And how exactly will be people be affected by a change in the "moral standard".

Furthermore, how will they be "chafing under it".

How? Well for one, it's being forced down your throat when you didn't even get a say on it. your elected reps are denying you a vote. And on top of that legalizing gay "marriage" provides excellent fodder for the likes of the ACLU who enjoy attacking churches and religion. It also provides ammunition for those who enjoy stifiling freedom of speech under the guise of fighting "hate crimes."

So yeah, this can cause problems especially for regular people who believe in marriage and the ideals our nation was founded on.

You still haven't described a single way in which people will be "affected by it" or will "chafe under it" other then some vague concept that their psyche will be uncomfortable. Try again.

I guess lawsuits and the restriction of freedom of speech don't register as things that affect people in your world. I don't know what else to tell you if you're so dead set on gay "marriage" being legal despite its ill effects.

And you do realize its possible to just be ticked off while you are chafing and that's enough to make people kill something they don't like when they are already mad they didn't get a say on it.

Are you really this dumb? I'm asking you to name one tangible way, one noticeable way in which anyone's lives will be affected by legalized gay marriage. Not "they'll be angry about it" or "they'll be uncomfortable by it". Show me one measurable, tangible way in which a person's life will be impacted (especially negatively) by legalized gay marriage.

Your Church opposes gay marriage. Gay marriage is legalized in your state. So your church gets labeled a "hate" group and shut down. Maybe you think you're God and don't care about the Church but I'd say that negatively affects the people who attend and work at that Church.

You personally oppose gay marriage and get sued by some tool as a hate criminal for "hurting their feelings" and YOU have to pay damages.

Much as I don't want to I'm going to open the can of worms that gay marriage helps damage the psyche of a mother and a father raising a child and its a proven fact that children who live in a two gender parent household will have fewer societal problems than those who don't. You can yell bigot and nit pick as to whether this applies to gays or not but the fact that 2 men or 2 women can't have a child in the first place seems to suggest that God or evolution or whatever is trying to send us a message on that one.

[Meeker]

And then you end up with a major legal mess, like in California, where there are different classes of same-sex couples in the state of Iowa, and the issue will end up in federal court again. Maybe Bush's top lawyer would help us again.

Either way, even if the Republicans can get a vote in the House where it's a bit closer, it'll be way harder in the Senate. And even then, the earliest it can be on the ballot is 2012, I believe. That's almost three and a half years of same-sex marriage, they wouldn't be able to take it away easily like in California when people were still getting used to it.

It's just as possible that the people chafing under it for 3 years will be ticked off enough in a year that could very well be good for the GOP, will kill it. That's too far out to foresee but history suggests that if it goes on the ballot gay marriage will die. Maine goes on the ballot this November. If a state as blue as Maine kills it that will bode ill for gay marriage in Iowa no matter when it makes it to the ballot.

Or people notice after three years of gay marriage that their lives are not in any way affected and accept it.

But no, you're right, they'll probably be upset because they've been "chafing under it".

You do realize it has to do with a MORAL standard right? no one is saying you'll die or lose your house because gay marriage goes into effect.

And how exactly will be people be affected by a change in the "moral standard".

Furthermore, how will they be "chafing under it".

How? Well for one, it's being forced down your throat when you didn't even get a say on it. your elected reps are denying you a vote. And on top of that legalizing gay "marriage" provides excellent fodder for the likes of the ACLU who enjoy attacking churches and religion. It also provides ammunition for those who enjoy stifiling freedom of speech under the guise of fighting "hate crimes."

So yeah, this can cause problems especially for regular people who believe in marriage and the ideals our nation was founded on.

You still haven't described a single way in which people will be "affected by it" or will "chafe under it" other then some vague concept that their psyche will be uncomfortable. Try again.

I guess lawsuits and the restriction of freedom of speech don't register as things that affect people in your world. I don't know what else to tell you if you're so dead set on gay "marriage" being legal despite its ill effects.

And you do realize its possible to just be ticked off while you are chafing and that's enough to make people kill something they don't like when they are already mad they didn't get a say on it.

Are you really this dumb? I'm asking you to name one tangible way, one noticeable way in which anyone's lives will be affected by legalized gay marriage. Not "they'll be angry about it" or "they'll be uncomfortable by it". Show me one measurable, tangible way in which a person's life will be impacted (especially negatively) by legalized gay marriage.

Your Church opposes gay marriage. Gay marriage is legalized in your state. So your church gets labeled a "hate" group and shut down. Maybe you think you're God and don't care about the Church but I'd say that negatively affects the people who attend and work at that Church.

You personally oppose gay marriage and get sued by some tool as a hate criminal for "hurting their feelings" and YOU have to pay damages.

Much as I don't want to I'm going to open the can of worms that gay marriage helps damage the psyche of a mother and a father raising a child and its a proven fact that children who live in a two gender parent household will have fewer societal problems than those who don't. You can yell bigot and nit pick as to whether this applies to gays or not but the fact that 2 men or 2 women can't have a child in the first place seems to suggest that God or evolution or whatever is trying to send us a message on that one.

You're and idiot and have no idea what you're talking about. No where in any of these laws does it force a church to perform marriages.

And you also clearly have no understanding of what a hate crime is.

I don't mind debating issues like this with someone who has some basic level of understanding as to what the hell they're talking about, but you've clearly shown yourself to be nothing but a bigoted moron who can't even present basic coherent arguments. I hope you change.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

lol 70-80? Try more like 60-40 at best, I realize that bodes ill for marriage but the fact that there will be almost 2-3 times as many elderly people as young people within the next 10 years certanily means bad news for you doesn't it?

Except that the people who are young and supportive of gay marriage now won't become less supportive of gay marriage when they get older.  That makes no sense.

Your Church opposes gay marriage. Gay marriage is legalized in your state. So your church gets labeled a "hate" group and shut down. Maybe you think you're God and don't care about the Church but I'd say that negatively affects the people who attend and work at that Church.

You personally oppose gay marriage and get sued by some tool as a hate criminal for "hurting their feelings" and YOU have to pay damages.

Holy shit.  Are you really that paranoid?

Like, seriously.  You should see a doctor about that.  They have medication for schizophrenia now.

Much as I don't want to I'm going to open the can of worms that gay marriage helps damage the psyche of a mother and a father raising a child and its a proven fact that children who live in a two gender parent household will have fewer societal problems than those who don't. You can yell bigot and nit pick as to whether this applies to gays or not but the fact that 2 men or 2 women can't have a child in the first place seems to suggest that God or evolution or whatever is trying to send us a message on that one.

Damage the psyche?  What?  I thought you were against us making and enforcing laws that hurt people's feelings.

I mean, I guess gay people can apologize for hurting the collective psyches of straight people. Then maybe straight people can apologize for hurting the collective psyches of gay people.

I'm very curious about reading these "proven facts" though.  Could you provide a link to these studies, please?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Your Church opposes gay marriage. Gay marriage is legalized in your state. So your church gets labeled a "hate" group and shut down. Maybe you think you're God and don't care about the Church but I'd say that negatively affects the people who attend and work at that Church.

You personally oppose gay marriage and get sued by some tool as a hate criminal for "hurting their feelings" and YOU have to pay damages.

Please cite even a single incident of either of these events ever happening please.

[SenatorShadowLands]

Your Church opposes gay marriage. Gay marriage is legalized in your state. So your church gets labeled a "hate" group and shut down. Maybe you think you're God and don't care about the Church but I'd say that negatively affects the people who attend and work at that Church.

You personally oppose gay marriage and get sued by some tool as a hate criminal for "hurting their feelings" and YOU have to pay damages.

Please cite even a single incident of either of these events ever happening please.

I'd certainly say Patricia Mauceri, who was fired from her acting job this morning because she wouldn't say God created gays as they are, is feeling an adverse effect of the promotion of gay "marriage." Given she wasn't sued but as I said before, her freedom of speech has certainly been violated.

[SenatorShadowLands]

lol 70-80? Try more like 60-40 at best, I realize that bodes ill for marriage but the fact that there will be almost 2-3 times as many elderly people as young people within the next 10 years certanily means bad news for you doesn't it?

Except that the people who are young and supportive of gay marriage now won't become less supportive of gay marriage when they get older.  That makes no sense.

Your Church opposes gay marriage. Gay marriage is legalized in your state. So your church gets labeled a "hate" group and shut down. Maybe you think you're God and don't care about the Church but I'd say that negatively affects the people who attend and work at that Church.

You personally oppose gay marriage and get sued by some tool as a hate criminal for "hurting their feelings" and YOU have to pay damages.

Holy shit.  Are you really that paranoid?

Like, seriously.  You should see a doctor about that.  They have medication for schizophrenia now.

Much as I don't want to I'm going to open the can of worms that gay marriage helps damage the psyche of a mother and a father raising a child and its a proven fact that children who live in a two gender parent household will have fewer societal problems than those who don't. You can yell bigot and nit pick as to whether this applies to gays or not but the fact that 2 men or 2 women can't have a child in the first place seems to suggest that God or evolution or whatever is trying to send us a message on that one.

Damage the psyche?  What?  I thought you were against us making and enforcing laws that hurt people's feelings.

I mean, I guess gay people can apologize for hurting the collective psyches of straight people. Then maybe straight people can apologize for hurting the collective psyches of gay people.

I'm very curious about reading these "proven facts" though.  Could you provide a link to these studies, please?

Really? So people don't become more Conservative as they age? that's certainly a new theory.

I also like how I'm the paranoid one despite the left believing George Bush and the CIA are begind every curtain and under every bed listening in on your phone calls.

Perhaps psyche is an admittedly poor term, what I meant by it is the tradition of one man and one woman raising a child. My source is located in a book, I've got to pull it out and I'll have exact numbers and links for you in my next reply. I don't want to run anything just from off the top of my head.

[Alcon]

Your Church opposes gay marriage. Gay marriage is legalized in your state. So your church gets labeled a "hate" group and shut down. Maybe you think you're God and don't care about the Church but I'd say that negatively affects the people who attend and work at that Church.

You personally oppose gay marriage and get sued by some tool as a hate criminal for "hurting their feelings" and YOU have to pay damages.

Please cite even a single incident of either of these events ever happening please.

I'd certainly say Patricia Mauceri, who was fired from her acting job this morning because she wouldn't say God created gays as they are, is feeling an adverse effect of the promotion of gay "marriage." Given she wasn't sued but as I said before, her freedom of speech has certainly been violated.

She was fired from her acting job (according to Google and her publicist) because she refused to play a character who approved of gays...

...so they found someone else to play that character instead.  No, that's not Freedom of Speech.  The government was not involved in any way, so it can't be.

And you're arguing that this is an inevitable slippery slope toward enforcing that everyone must believe that homosexuality is OK...?