Visit the U.S. Politics Online Discussion Forum Archives!

Sponsored by:

U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum  

Bookmark Us! E-Mail DONATE NOW! Photo Gallery Document Archives Quiz! Register to Vote!!!
Go Back   U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum > Grand Central > Welcome! / News & Announcements / USPO FrontPage
Register Blogs FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Welcome! / News & Announcements / USPO FrontPage Tell us about yourself and get to know others. Also, read any news and announcements.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2007
Traveler's Avatar
Dejected Republican
THE Ultimate Bush Supporter

 
Member Since: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 18,609

United_States     Texas

Re: First gay couple legally married in Iowa

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim View Post
Really? Traveler's comments make you think of Soviet Russia? Now that is certainly an interesting line of reasoning....
First for everything, though i doubt actual communist Soviets would think i'm like them!
Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2007
Traveler's Avatar
Dejected Republican
THE Ultimate Bush Supporter

 
Member Since: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 18,609

United_States     Texas

Re: First gay couple legally married in Iowa

Quote:
Originally Posted by drgoodtrips View Post
Why, that sounds downright liberal of ya... Social engineering, a hand for a large scoped federal government, mixing it up in the personal lives of citizens? Government "has a right"? Yeeesh... whenever I hear 'conservatives' argue this angle, I always think of Soviet Russia. Silly homosexuals - you must mate with the other sex, and have children. For the good of the Motherland, comrade.
I'm not arguing it from a social engineering point either, i'm just saying that if you think that the government doesn't have the right to regulate it then don't expect tax breaks for being married or expect to viewed as one entity with your wife/husband. You can't have it both ways. unless you believe the government should be handing out tax breaks to everyone, but in your case i guess its applicable seeing as you're not against the tax cuts.
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2007
Traveler's Avatar
Dejected Republican
THE Ultimate Bush Supporter

 
Member Since: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 18,609

United_States     Texas

Re: First gay couple legally married in Iowa

Quote:
Originally Posted by partofme View Post
It just seems like government should stay out of those matters. If it is the privileges associated with it then why should the government be in the business of discriminating when deciding who hands them out. Personally I think marriage should be be a personal thing separate from government and it should only hand out civil unions to everybody in order to avoid that sort of thing.
Okay look let me explain the same thing from a different angle. Back in the day (however many thousands of years ago) when marriage was established, maybe around biblical times, let's say for the sake of argument it was established so that man and woman can marry, and for that reason. Now on that basis man and woman and every person who wants to has the equal protection/equal rights they want because man can marry woman. If you want folk to marry you have to follow those laws unless you actually change them, which you guys just can't do. This rulling is gonna be appealed and the Iowa appeals courts are gonna overturn it for sure. Unless you guys wanna try legislating something completely new from scratch which is your equivelant to marriage then you're gonna lose everytime on this issue.
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2007
Crystal's Avatar
Administrator
The cake is a lie.

 
Member Since: Apr 2004
Location: a lake in Texas
Posts: 7,310
Blog Entries: 1

United_States     Texas

Re: First gay couple legally married in Iowa

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler View Post
Well i wouldn't know seeing as like you i got married and don't know what a civil union constitutes. In our state i assume there's a huge difference in what a civil union constitutes to a marriage. However VT on the other hand probably doesn't, says a lot about Vermont really. Anyway i think the major chunk of difference comes in seperations; don't have to go through the whole tedious divorce crap and its easier just ti sever the union. Also as i understand it if a man and a woman get a civil union the woman can't change her name to Mrs and take the man's surname but what the heck does that matter as we only talk about it now because of gays. ivil unions is all basically for tax purposes and financial loopholes. Marriage gives that but for that you have to commit to love and all that; thus the state makes the assumption that (in theory anyway) you'll be together forever. That's why divorce is a lot more difficult.
I never knew it was a requirement for a woman to change her name in order for her marriage to be valid. When I got married back in 1995, the ONLY document I changed my last name on was my drivers license. I NEVER EVER changed my social security card and I signed most things with both my maiden and married names. I have a feeling that women dropping or keeping their maiden names and/or hyphenating names has nothing to do with gay marriage and has everything to do with women's rights.

BTW, if I ever got married again, I'm not so sure I would take that guy's name either. I can't see any reason why it would be necessary. I guess it would be something to talk about when and if I ever cross that bridge.
__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!
Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2007
Traveler's Avatar
Dejected Republican
THE Ultimate Bush Supporter

 
Member Since: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 18,609

United_States     Texas

Re: First gay couple legally married in Iowa

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal View Post
I never knew it was a requirement for a woman to change her name in order for her marriage to be valid.
I never said it was a valid requirement, i said that they couldn't do it (as best i knew) with just a civil union, with a marriage license i think its enough. With a civil union if you wanna change your name i think you have to go through an official proccess with a judge and fill in court. Anyway i'm not 100% sure, its just something i heard, which hopefully i interpreted correctly.

Quote:
When I got married back in 1995, the ONLY document I changed my last name on was my drivers license. I NEVER EVER changed my social security card and I signed most things with both my maiden and married names.
Hmm can you just leave it as be or aren't you obligated and required to notify them of any changes to circumstances like change of names or address or births or deaths or whatever? Which name did you carry just in everyday life, when say signing a document or introducing yourself or whatever?

Quote:
I have a feeling that women dropping or keeping their maiden names and/or hyphenating names has nothing to do with gay marriage and has everything to do with women's rights.
I agree, i think i worded what i wrote badly. What i meant was the scenario and relevant context (civil union (hetro) partnerships with women changing their names) was never gonna become an issue as all society ever discusses civil unions is whether it should be applied to gays or not; whether they are worthy of civil unions when not entitled to marriage. Not neccessarily my views, just the way it is discussed in society.

Quote:
BTW, if I ever got married again, I'm not so sure I would take that guy's name either. I can't see any reason why it would be necessary. I guess it would be something to talk about when and if I ever cross that bridge.
Well usually people just do it for the sake of tradition and when people get married they like their kids to carry the father's name to carry on the family line.
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2007
Moderator
liberal idealist

 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,861

Australia    
Re: First gay couple legally married in Iowa

Quote:
Originally Posted by pramjockey View Post
Rudy?

Rudy would never win, even against Hillary.
Most of the current polls place Ruidy in a head-to-head victory over Hillary.
Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a mid-term election.
Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2007
Vice President

 
Member Since: Jan 2004
Location: Los Angeles Ca
Posts: 7,519

United_States    
Re: First gay couple legally married in Iowa

Quote:
Originally Posted by timj219 View Post
Civil marriage was once no more than a title of ownership of a woman by a man. Many times it has been the marriage of one wealthy and powerful man to many women. Not long ago it meant marriage between one man and one woman as long as they were the same color.
With such a checkered past I wonder why you bother with the seemingly empty gesture of keeping the name exclusively heterosexual when all the content the name refers to is already granted to everyone.
Frankly, I don't care what the word signified in the past, what it means today is all that matters. I don't think we should toss the meaning aside for PC reasons.
__________________
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2007
pramjockey's Avatar
President
Scruffy-looking nerf herder

 
Member Since: Feb 2006
Location: Morrison, CO
Posts: 15,164

Scotland     Colorado

Re: First gay couple legally married in Iowa

Quote:
Originally Posted by noahath View Post
Most of the current polls place Ruidy in a head-to-head victory over Hillary.
Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a mid-term election.
Yes, but we're more than a year ahead of the election. There's no way to really know.
__________________
Whan they come, Ah sall staun mah grun
Staun mah grun, an be na afraid.
Thochts ae hame tak awa mah fear
Sweat an bluid hide mah veil o tears.
Reply With Quote
  #69 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2007
jotathought's Avatar
President

 
Member Since: Feb 2004
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Posts: 10,328

United_States     Kentucky

Re: First gay couple legally married in Iowa

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal View Post
Will gay marriage find it's way into the '08 elections? If so, how big of an issue will it be? Which side will end up making it an issue?
Why does either side focus on an issue that leads to broken promises? Look at the current House and Senate .. making promises that would turn the United States into a new utopia; yet here we are, nearly a year later, unchanged.

It's interesting to see the strategy that each party will use .. although it will be the same thing .. "vote for me to have a new America"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2007
jpsartre12's Avatar
Secretary of State

 
Member Since: Jul 2004
Location: On the Right of most issues
Posts: 5,793

United_States     Michigan

Re: First gay couple legally married in Iowa

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal View Post
As I read through this a couple of thoughts went through my mind. I remembered how embarrassed I was when Texas passed their ban on gay marriage, then my thoughts moved to how any '08 candidates will spin this, now I'm wondering if gay marriage will be an issue in '08. I was so hoping it wouldn't because I'm not interested in any 'moral majority' getting on their soapbox.

Will gay marriage find it's way into the '08 elections? If so, how big of an issue will it be? Which side will end up making it an issue?
Last time it was an issue, te Democrats got hammerred. I'm hoping that it is for the same reason. While I may not be particularly happy with the current crop of Republicans, I sure as Hell don't want Pelosi and Reid in charge any longer than absolutely necessary.
__________________
843rd Bomb Wing - Strategic Air Command
"Peace is our Profession"

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.
" - James Wilson, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
Reply With Quote
  #71 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2007
timj219's Avatar
Secretary of State

 
Member Since: Jan 2006
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 5,517

United_States     New_York

Re: First gay couple legally married in Iowa

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex View Post
Frankly, I don't care what the word signified in the past, what it means today is all that matters. I don't think we should toss the meaning aside for PC reasons.
"PC" is exactly what you are promoting. There is nothing special about the term "marriage" that requires it be protected. The idea that all the rights of marriage should be granted to everyone is fine. But your insistence that the word itself be reserved for heterosexuals is the epitome of appearance being more important than substance. I really can't understand why anyone would spend time promoting such a meaningless gesture.
__________________
The most important political office is that of the private citizen.
Justice Louis D Brandeis
Reply With Quote
  #72 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2007
Secretary of State

 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: france
Posts: 5,146

   
Re: First gay couple legally married in Iowa

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler View Post
Okay look let me explain the same thing from a different angle. Back in the day (however many thousands of years ago) when marriage was established, maybe around biblical times, let's say for the sake of argument it was established so that man and woman can marry, and for that reason. Now on that basis man and woman and every person who wants to has the equal protection/equal rights they want because man can marry woman. If you want folk to marry you have to follow those laws unless you actually change them, which you guys just can't do. This rulling is gonna be appealed and the Iowa appeals courts are gonna overturn it for sure. Unless you guys wanna try legislating something completely new from scratch which is your equivelant to marriage then you're gonna lose everytime on this issue.
I think it's pretty well established that marriage is about property and inheritance, not propriety.
Reply With Quote
  #73 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2007
Imperator's Avatar
Moderator
Audiatur et altera pars!

 
Member Since: Sep 2006
Location: San Jose, Ca
Posts: 21,258

United_States    
Re: First gay couple legally married in Iowa

Quote:
Originally Posted by timj219 View Post
Yes what can you say? The marriage laws have changed in the past. The marriage laws will probably change in the future. The mere existence of a current usage is not an a priori argument for resisting change.
no but its in the debate....why change it? what real, purpose would it serve(?), gay friends I speak to, a clear majority agree that its a feeling of normalcy, and the benefits assigned to ‘marriage” that they seek..and most agree the feeling of normalcy is something thy have to attain on there won to an extent, and they also understand fully how people that don’t agree with gay marriage feel the drive to change it is some pushing action that regards benefits etc. are already out there and are proliferating down now in a trickle down affect...they also agree that there is an extremism among some of the more popular gay institutions and spokespersons who feel they must have it now, instead of allowing the trickle down tolerance that is sure to happen, add in the institutional educational introductions as well, people attain change through slow but steady application of logic....the harder you push the more dug in some will be.....regards benefits, I have zero issue with civil unions where n gay persons have a what is in effect a marriage contract tere by gaining the ability to make decision for each other, at work and recognition regard state and county agencies...and at the end, where their tolerance for us and our feelings and outlook....?

Labeling people homophobes because they don’t agree helps them not a wit and in fact is just another side of the old smear’em if you cannot convince them game....against illegal immigration ? You’re racist..thats hollow and a dishonest outlook regards the overall debate...
__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."
Reply With Quote
  #74 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2007
Imperator's Avatar
Moderator
Audiatur et altera pars!

 
Member Since: Sep 2006
Location: San Jose, Ca
Posts: 21,258

United_States    
Re: First gay couple legally married in Iowa

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrienXII View Post
I think it's pretty well established that marriage is about property and inheritance, not propriety.

I think procreation, the commitment to raising family together etc. is a huge part of it as well, inheritance and property rights, an be attained by civil union process'.
__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."
Reply With Quote
  #75 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2007
Crystal's Avatar
Administrator
The cake is a lie.

 
Member Since: Apr 2004
Location: a lake in Texas
Posts: 7,310
Blog Entries: 1

United_States     Texas

Re: First gay couple legally married in Iowa

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperator View Post
I think procreation, the commitment to raising family together etc. is a huge part of it as well, inheritance and property rights, an be attained by civil union process'.
Who gets married because they want to have kids? You don't actually have to be married or legally bound to someone to have a kid and raise it together. Unmarried people are having and raising kids everyday. You do have to have some kind of legal kinship to inherit something, unless otherwise stipulated in a will.

I'll admit, I'm jaded...I think people get married for more screwed up reasons then good reasons.
__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0
Copyright © 2000 - 2009 U.S. Politics Online