Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, April 3, 2009
Homo Good News...
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 7:01 AM
...out of Iowa.
The Iowa Supreme Court this morning unanimously upheld gays’ right to marry.“The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” the justices said in a summary of their decision.
The court affirmed a Polk County District Court decision that would allow six gay couples to marry. The ruling is viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families.
Someday social conservatives will be asked to explain how preventing gay couples from marrying "protects" traditional families and from what exactly.
5
I have never been more proud to live in this giant cornfield.
I'll see all you locals at the rallies tonight!
I'll see all you locals at the rallies tonight!
9
Sad, this was an issue for the legislature and the people to decide.
It once again reaffirms the battle the people have to take on against activist courts. I foresee an urgency on the part of the states to institute appropriate bans were there are none currently.
It once again reaffirms the battle the people have to take on against activist courts. I foresee an urgency on the part of the states to institute appropriate bans were there are none currently.
11
Who cares what Hateschild thinks? This is a great victory and in Iowa of all places. I am sure the hysterical fund raising appeals from outraged fundies are going out right now.
Let us savor this victory today and prepare for the next move by the bigots (likely a ballot fight)
Speaking of Fundies
http://shopinprivate.com/fununfortwo.htm…
Let us savor this victory today and prepare for the next move by the bigots (likely a ballot fight)
Speaking of Fundies
http://shopinprivate.com/fununfortwo.htm…
13
Congratulations, Iowa.
Just more proof that Washington's supreme court is a bunch of cowards. Nice job there, y'all.
Just more proof that Washington's supreme court is a bunch of cowards. Nice job there, y'all.
14
U N A N I M O U S
The pitchfork wielding bigots might be able to rush it, but for now it seems than an amendment won't be on a ballot before 2012.
Don't underestimate the obsessive drive to enforce heterosupremacy...knuckledraggers can't wait to drool their way to the ballot box.
But today, the word is UNANIMOUS
The pitchfork wielding bigots might be able to rush it, but for now it seems than an amendment won't be on a ballot before 2012.
Don't underestimate the obsessive drive to enforce heterosupremacy...knuckledraggers can't wait to drool their way to the ballot box.
But today, the word is UNANIMOUS
15
"Lobbying began immediately for lawmakers to launch the long process of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman."
Prop 8, here we come.
Prop 8, here we come.
16
What could be next??
Why there might even be laws allowing heterosexuals to dissolve their marriages. Imagine what that would do to traditional marriage! What an outrage!! What god fearing Christian would allow a secular government to do that to a sacred institution that gawd herself created 200 years ago at the dawn of man??
I mean really!! Same-sex marriage today and next there will be hetero families with children allowed to divorce. Once that happens, churches will be forced to recognize divorced couples and all their subsequent marriages. What an outrage!!
Why there might even be laws allowing heterosexuals to dissolve their marriages. Imagine what that would do to traditional marriage! What an outrage!! What god fearing Christian would allow a secular government to do that to a sacred institution that gawd herself created 200 years ago at the dawn of man??
I mean really!! Same-sex marriage today and next there will be hetero families with children allowed to divorce. Once that happens, churches will be forced to recognize divorced couples and all their subsequent marriages. What an outrage!!
17
The opinion becomes effective in 21 days. Iowa has no residency limitations. The amazing thing is the unanimous nature given the hostile nature of questioning at argument from the Court's two very real conservative justices. Even if the legislature moves to amend the long process in Iowa will leave this the law of the land at least until November 2012, which is the first date any constitutional amendment could make it to the ballot.
18
The Democratic Party won't allow the issue to come before the voters in a referendum to ammend the state constitution.
Why do they fear the people?
Not very democratic.
Why do they fear the people?
Not very democratic.
19
Part of the job of the courts is to protect the civil rights of everyone, even when the majority ("the people" you are referring to) wants to keep those rights from the few.
20
@18
Just because a legislature decides not to put something to a referendum vote does NOT mean that they fear the people. It may mean that they choose, as a matter of public policy, not to make their state another festival of hate funded by religious zealots from other states. If people want legislators who will, they can try to get them elected--but Iowa voters aren't traditionally fond of one issue candidates.
Midwestern values have triumphed here... decency, fairness, equality under the law. Next stops, Illinois and Minnesota. It will take a while, but just you wait.
Just because a legislature decides not to put something to a referendum vote does NOT mean that they fear the people. It may mean that they choose, as a matter of public policy, not to make their state another festival of hate funded by religious zealots from other states. If people want legislators who will, they can try to get them elected--but Iowa voters aren't traditionally fond of one issue candidates.
Midwestern values have triumphed here... decency, fairness, equality under the law. Next stops, Illinois and Minnesota. It will take a while, but just you wait.
21
@ 9,
You realize you contradict yourself. How come it is the activist courts in Iowa and it's activist legislature in Vermont who are forcing their wills? It seems you apply activist to any who oppose your view. Maybe, that majority you claim isn't as big as you think. Maybe, peoples eyes are opening to discrimination and want to right these wrongs.
You realize you contradict yourself. How come it is the activist courts in Iowa and it's activist legislature in Vermont who are forcing their wills? It seems you apply activist to any who oppose your view. Maybe, that majority you claim isn't as big as you think. Maybe, peoples eyes are opening to discrimination and want to right these wrongs.
22
The process of gathering signatures and lobbying the representatives to ammend the constitution has begun.
24
21
If the majority isn't as big as she thinks why do Democrats in Mass and Iowa do everything in their power to keep the people from being able to vote on the issue?
In EVERY state where the voters have been able to speak they have REJECTED gay marriage.
If the majority isn't as big as she thinks why do Democrats in Mass and Iowa do everything in their power to keep the people from being able to vote on the issue?
In EVERY state where the voters have been able to speak they have REJECTED gay marriage.
25
@ 21, Loveschild's sense of morality is this: If she likes it it's good, if not it's bad. There is no absolute code that guides her.
That is, if she's real. I suspect that her posts are an ongoing piece of performance art.
That is, if she's real. I suspect that her posts are an ongoing piece of performance art.
27
Don't be dumbfounded this happened in Iowa--the state has a long history of being progressive on civil rights issues, and most of the people who think Iowa is a conservative bastion have never been there.
I'm proud to be an Iowan today, but I have been for as long as I've lived here! I'm just extra-proud now.
I'm proud to be an Iowan today, but I have been for as long as I've lived here! I'm just extra-proud now.
28
At least maybe these sympathetic judges won't annul the gay marriages that happen until a State Constitution Amendment bans gay marriage.
29
To those of you who are "dumbfounded," you don't understand Iowa. We might not be the most liberal state, but we are a state of fair-minded, compassionate people. We give people a fair hearing because they are our neighbors. We actually know and care for those around us.
And to those who think that "the people" should get to decide, American government was designed as a system of checks and balances for a reason. "The people" can be slow to enact justice. Thus, we have a justice system. The Iowa Supreme Court has paved the way for Iowa, as well as states across the nation, to see same-sex marriage at work, even in one of those "backward" Midwestern states, and realize that things won't fall apart.
Hooray balance of power. Hooray justice. And hooray Iowa!!
And to those who think that "the people" should get to decide, American government was designed as a system of checks and balances for a reason. "The people" can be slow to enact justice. Thus, we have a justice system. The Iowa Supreme Court has paved the way for Iowa, as well as states across the nation, to see same-sex marriage at work, even in one of those "backward" Midwestern states, and realize that things won't fall apart.
Hooray balance of power. Hooray justice. And hooray Iowa!!
30
@ 24
"In EVERY state where the voters have been able to speak they have REJECTED gay marriage."
Not Connecticut! We had a vote this past election- the proposal for a "constitutional assembly" (veiled call to curb new gay marriage legalization) was squashed by "the people" who supported the judges.
"In EVERY state where the voters have been able to speak they have REJECTED gay marriage."
Not Connecticut! We had a vote this past election- the proposal for a "constitutional assembly" (veiled call to curb new gay marriage legalization) was squashed by "the people" who supported the judges.
31
Rights are not to be legislated upon. Civil Rights never would have gotten anywhere if rights were subject to votes.
32
Dan, there's a typo in your last sentence. It should say "protected", past tense, or "was supposed to have protected".
33
African Americans would be denied almost every right they received if allowed to go to a majority vote.
The Tyranny of the Majority over the minority is refuted by the courts. Thank you Iowa.
The Tyranny of the Majority over the minority is refuted by the courts. Thank you Iowa.
34
Yes, proud.iowan! If we think back to the Civil Rights movement, the Supreme Courts had to step in to insure that schools were not segregated and that African-Americans got equal rights. The justice system is supposed to work for....justice.
36
21 No contradiction. For it is the people who either directly or through their representatives, the ones who need to decide on such matters. Not activist tyrants on black robes or corrupt politicians who do the biding of activist groups and forget to represent the people who have elected them into office.
I do agree with you that he peoples eyes are opening up. As awful as this amoral imposition on the good people of Iowa is, it will backfire on the activist because not only will the people of Iowa soon reverse this assault on their families but neighboring states and others beyond will take notice and realize that if they don't safeguard their states by instituting the proper bans their families will soon find themselves under the same sort of attack by the courts and gay activist groups.
I know it has waken me up, and I will work even harder in my state so that this sort of infringement on my family and community doesn't happen. Because I know that there are more of us family oriented people out there than there are of them. We just need to become more alert of the danger they pose, and I think this ruling illustrates it perfectly.
I do agree with you that he peoples eyes are opening up. As awful as this amoral imposition on the good people of Iowa is, it will backfire on the activist because not only will the people of Iowa soon reverse this assault on their families but neighboring states and others beyond will take notice and realize that if they don't safeguard their states by instituting the proper bans their families will soon find themselves under the same sort of attack by the courts and gay activist groups.
I know it has waken me up, and I will work even harder in my state so that this sort of infringement on my family and community doesn't happen. Because I know that there are more of us family oriented people out there than there are of them. We just need to become more alert of the danger they pose, and I think this ruling illustrates it perfectly.
37
29
Hopefully the fair-minded, compassionate people of the Iowa Democratic Party will give the people of the state a fair hearing and let them vote on this important issue.
The ultimate power resides with the people.
Politicians may dodge and hide for a while but eventually the people will be heard.
Hopefully the fair-minded, compassionate people of the Iowa Democratic Party will give the people of the state a fair hearing and let them vote on this important issue.
The ultimate power resides with the people.
Politicians may dodge and hide for a while but eventually the people will be heard.
39
Come on, Minnesota. Come oooon, Minnesota. My gay friends should have the right to all the same benefits as us heteros, and the fear of commitment that comes with them. :P
But seriously, MN, why the slow pace? You too, Wisconsin.
But seriously, MN, why the slow pace? You too, Wisconsin.
40
I heard on the radio this morning about same-sex marriage being legalized in Iowa and my first thought was, "is this an april fool's joke?"
For all you out of touch, hate-filled bigots: whether you like it or not, this is "real" America! Go Iowa!
For all you out of touch, hate-filled bigots: whether you like it or not, this is "real" America! Go Iowa!
41
# 36 I don't understand. Gay people want the right to marry so that they can from a *legally* recognized family the same way straight people currently have the rights to do. How in the world do you interpret this action as being "against the family"?? Also, see last statement of Dan's post.
42
LOL @ 23!
And thank you, 27 -- yep, people who've never been to Iowa tend to assume it's just a bunch of hicks on tractors.... When, as another poster pointed out, it's really all about good Midwestern values: decency, fairness, a live-and-let-live attitude.
Today I can say I've never been prouder to have spent some years in Iowa while I was going to school! Today strikes a body blow to the fundy bigots everywhere -- take THAT, residents of GlenBeckistan and Rushland!!!
And thank you, 27 -- yep, people who've never been to Iowa tend to assume it's just a bunch of hicks on tractors.... When, as another poster pointed out, it's really all about good Midwestern values: decency, fairness, a live-and-let-live attitude.
Today I can say I've never been prouder to have spent some years in Iowa while I was going to school! Today strikes a body blow to the fundy bigots everywhere -- take THAT, residents of GlenBeckistan and Rushland!!!
43
Civil Rights judicial rulings forced states to abide by existing and voter approved 13,14 and 15th US Constitutional Amendments.
The Courts were not inventing rights out of thin air (like a right to abortion of homosexual marriage)
Avoiding giving the voters a say is a short term gimmick that will settle nothing.
The Courts were not inventing rights out of thin air (like a right to abortion of homosexual marriage)
Avoiding giving the voters a say is a short term gimmick that will settle nothing.
44
Was it activist judges who overturned ban on interracial marriage in Loving vs. Virginia? Should interracial marriage been put up for a vote in VA, where the ban would have most certainly been upheld? (It would probably still be upheld in a vote today in many parts of the south.) Should interracial couples been forced to prove their worthiness to the masses before they could be allowed to marry?
46
44
Interracial marriage was legal under existing Constitutional Law- the court just made the states recognize and abide that law.
Interracial marriage was legal under existing Constitutional Law- the court just made the states recognize and abide that law.
47
Thank you 27.. and ALL the rest of the posters who are essplainin' to the Sloggers what Iowa is really like...
(18 posts in the time it took me to write my first one -- This thread is Zoomin'!!)
(18 posts in the time it took me to write my first one -- This thread is Zoomin'!!)
48
re: 43. In this case they are upholding the equal protection clause of the state constitution. Also not inventing the "right to homosexual marriage" out of thin air.
49
I remember reading something a few years ago from some sort of marriage equality organization which laid out a priority order of states in which to bring marriage equality cases. Their own legal experts had analyzed the constitutions and legal precedents in each of the 50 states to determine which ones were most likely to strike down DOMA-style laws.
I don't remember the exact order but Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa were all at the top of this list, while I don't think California or Washington were mentioned at all.
This list wasn't about which states had the most progressive voters or legislators or judges. It was about the specific wording of laws and past court rulings. Iowa will have marriage equality not because it has a progressive population but because the law was so clear there that even the most conservative judges on the court had to rule in favor of marriage equality.
I don't remember the exact order but Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa were all at the top of this list, while I don't think California or Washington were mentioned at all.
This list wasn't about which states had the most progressive voters or legislators or judges. It was about the specific wording of laws and past court rulings. Iowa will have marriage equality not because it has a progressive population but because the law was so clear there that even the most conservative judges on the court had to rule in favor of marriage equality.
50
46, Please show me specifically in the constitution where is addresses interracial marriage. (The court today determined that gay marriage was legal under constitutional law.)
51
#9. The people and legislature DID decide, you dumb ass fuck nut. The people and legislature passed a constitution that protects equality and due process. Suck it.
52
@43,46: None of the listed amendments speak to marriage rights, just citizenship. There are no constitutional clauses that specifically enumerate marriage as a right. The Supreme Court was not enforcing the constitution, they were inventing a right out of thin air.
53
48
To legalize homosexual marriage one must totally alter the definition of marriage.
It would be as if the 2nd Ammendment right to bear arms were misinterpreted to guarantee the right to own a car or speedboat.
It is the same as another infamous piece of judicial tyrany, finding a right to privacy that allows the slaughter of babies.
To legalize homosexual marriage one must totally alter the definition of marriage.
It would be as if the 2nd Ammendment right to bear arms were misinterpreted to guarantee the right to own a car or speedboat.
It is the same as another infamous piece of judicial tyrany, finding a right to privacy that allows the slaughter of babies.
54
46, I'm afraid you are mistaken, or you've missed the point. Anti-miscegenation statutes were on the books throughout the country. They were invalidated only as a result of INTERPRETATION of the constitution, not the passing of new laws. There was no federal law or specific constitutional provision making interracial marriage "legal." The court had to apply the national versions of some of the same provisions Iowa has today interpreted in its state constitution in finding that these statutes were unconstitutional as violating the due process and equal protection rights of inter-racial couples.
Loving vs. Virginia wasn't just a "states must follow the constitution" case...it involved specific analysis of the alleged grounds for the anti-miscegenation statutes using constitutional tests and those laws were found wanting. The exact same thing happened today in Iowa. Today's decision in Iowa is a true child of Loving vs. Virginia.
Loving vs. Virginia wasn't just a "states must follow the constitution" case...it involved specific analysis of the alleged grounds for the anti-miscegenation statutes using constitutional tests and those laws were found wanting. The exact same thing happened today in Iowa. Today's decision in Iowa is a true child of Loving vs. Virginia.
55
From the summary released by the Iowa State Supreme Court:
The Iowa Supreme Court has the responsibility to determine if a law enacted by
the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa
Constitution. The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa
Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong
and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion.
The Iowa Supreme Court has the responsibility to determine if a law enacted by
the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa
Constitution. The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa
Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong
and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion.
56
Iowa made my heart swell this morning. The state gives me hope that one day Washington will get its act properly together and join the marriage for all club.
57
52
Denying a man and woman the 'right' to marry because of their skin color violated existing Constitutional protections.
Redefining 'marriage' does not fall under the equal protection, or any other, clause.
Denying a man and woman the 'right' to marry because of their skin color violated existing Constitutional protections.
Redefining 'marriage' does not fall under the equal protection, or any other, clause.
58
And one more piece of the summary, which addresses the "marriage is not a right" argument:
In addressing the case before it, the court found one constitutional principle was
at the heart of the case—the doctrine of equal protection. Equal protection under
the Iowa Constitution “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated
should be treated alike.” Since territorial times, Iowa has given meaning to this
constitutional provision, striking blows to slavery and segregation, and
recognizing women’s rights. The court found the issue of same-sex marriage
comes to it with the same importance as the landmark cases of the past.
In addressing the case before it, the court found one constitutional principle was
at the heart of the case—the doctrine of equal protection. Equal protection under
the Iowa Constitution “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated
should be treated alike.” Since territorial times, Iowa has given meaning to this
constitutional provision, striking blows to slavery and segregation, and
recognizing women’s rights. The court found the issue of same-sex marriage
comes to it with the same importance as the landmark cases of the past.
59
@46, really? Because I don't remember the Constitution having anything to say about marriage whatsoever. It was left completely to the states. If you look at the "Key Precedents" section of Loving v. Virginia on Wikipedia, you will see that constitutional law was decidedly against mixed race marriages.
Shorter version: you're an idiot.
Shorter version: you're an idiot.
60
53: It's a little off track from the current topic, but I'll point out that there is a difference between "baby" and "fetus".
61
53, Marriage has been redefined throughout history. Most recently, marriage was defined as a man and woman of the same race, until the courts struck down bans on interracial marriage. Was that judicial tyranny?
In Biblical times, marriage was between a man and several women, and the women didn't have a say in the matter. Fathers sold their daughters to the grooms.
In Biblical times, marriage was between a man and several women, and the women didn't have a say in the matter. Fathers sold their daughters to the grooms.
62
54
No one denies homosexuasls the right to marry- they may marry someone of the opposite sex just like anyone else. They are equally treated and protected under existing law. No heterosexual may marry someone of their own sex either. Homosexual marriage requires changing the definition of marriage and creating a new right that no one currently has.
No one denies homosexuasls the right to marry- they may marry someone of the opposite sex just like anyone else. They are equally treated and protected under existing law. No heterosexual may marry someone of their own sex either. Homosexual marriage requires changing the definition of marriage and creating a new right that no one currently has.
63
57, the courts decided today that denying a man and man the 'right' to marry because of their sex violated existing Constitutional protections.
64
@52: Wrong. The Court decided the case on the basis of the equal protection clause, saying that the legislature (elected by the people, btw) cannot deny to a particular group the equal protection of the law, including the right to marry. The right to equal protection under the law is found in every state constitution, and the national one, though arguably not each of them could be used to reach the same conclusion as was reached today. If straight people can marry, then gay people must be able to marry as well. This is not difficult.
Cue hysterical arguments about people marrying dogs, etc.
Cue hysterical arguments about people marrying dogs, etc.
65
62, the laws that keep heterosexuals from marrying someone of the same sex are also unconstitutional.
66
59
But if the states were going to allow whites to marry whites (and blacks marry blacks) they could not forbid blacks to marry whites.
But if the states were going to allow whites to marry whites (and blacks marry blacks) they could not forbid blacks to marry whites.
67
60
Not to the baby.
Mothers who love their children refer to their 'baby' while it is in the womb.
Not to the baby.
Mothers who love their children refer to their 'baby' while it is in the womb.
68
@62: Again, the historical myopia displayed by gay-marriage opponents is really astounding. In Virginia, prior to the Loving case, you certainly had the "right" to marry, so long as it was within your own race: blacks the right to marry other blacks, and whites had the right to marry whites. At that time, marriage by definition in VA consisted only of marriages within racial groups. So did that create a new right out of thin air? Did that decision redefine marriage? Why was that acceptable--or are you just a hypocrite?
69
Hey Loveschild,
I've had to deal with stupid, hardheaded and cruel women like you my entire life; I think I know your motivations. Let me spell it out.
Jesus forgives you for being a bad mother. Jesus forgives you for being unsuccessful. Jesus also forgives your mean-spiritedness and vulgarity. In exchange, you loudly misquote the Bible in the hope that God will also debase heaven with your presence when your body finally gives out from the relentless poison of your resentful, bigoted "soul".
Allow me to tell you what the real world looks like without Jesus sugar-coating it, and promising to send your personal enemies to Hell:
You secretly envy all those people whose lives have been easier...but they're sinners, right?
Your husband left you...and that's the gays' fault, right?
MANY people dislike you...and that's racism, right?
You lack boundaries...but that's because "other people" are unfriendly and uncaring, right?
Do me a favor...stop posting here. You make black people, women, mothers, and Christianity look bad.
I've had to deal with stupid, hardheaded and cruel women like you my entire life; I think I know your motivations. Let me spell it out.
Jesus forgives you for being a bad mother. Jesus forgives you for being unsuccessful. Jesus also forgives your mean-spiritedness and vulgarity. In exchange, you loudly misquote the Bible in the hope that God will also debase heaven with your presence when your body finally gives out from the relentless poison of your resentful, bigoted "soul".
Allow me to tell you what the real world looks like without Jesus sugar-coating it, and promising to send your personal enemies to Hell:
You secretly envy all those people whose lives have been easier...but they're sinners, right?
Your husband left you...and that's the gays' fault, right?
MANY people dislike you...and that's racism, right?
You lack boundaries...but that's because "other people" are unfriendly and uncaring, right?
Do me a favor...stop posting here. You make black people, women, mothers, and Christianity look bad.
70
66,
I agree completely. I was refuting a commenter who said that striking down interracial marriage wasn't judicial activism because it was enforcing already existing constitutional law. that was not the case.
I agree completely. I was refuting a commenter who said that striking down interracial marriage wasn't judicial activism because it was enforcing already existing constitutional law. that was not the case.
71
62
Clearly we disagree on how rights work in our constitution. For almost as long as we have had a constitution, the courts have recognized that some rights are specifically enumerated and some rights necessary are born out of other, broader protections. There is no right to marry in our constitution, period, end of story. Rather, the courts have said, at various times in the past, that when laws are passed that concern marriage, those laws must pass muster under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution. These provisions have been interpreted to require that if the government wants to treat one class of citizens differently than another, they must articulate reasons and those reasons are subjected to the analysis the courts have developed for these questions.
The court does not create a new right today...they simply recognize that the law that was passed unfairly makes a distinction between same sex and opposite sex couples without adequate legal justification to pass constitutional muster. It's not creating a right at all...it's limiting the power of the state to discriminate.
Clearly we disagree on how rights work in our constitution. For almost as long as we have had a constitution, the courts have recognized that some rights are specifically enumerated and some rights necessary are born out of other, broader protections. There is no right to marry in our constitution, period, end of story. Rather, the courts have said, at various times in the past, that when laws are passed that concern marriage, those laws must pass muster under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution. These provisions have been interpreted to require that if the government wants to treat one class of citizens differently than another, they must articulate reasons and those reasons are subjected to the analysis the courts have developed for these questions.
The court does not create a new right today...they simply recognize that the law that was passed unfairly makes a distinction between same sex and opposite sex couples without adequate legal justification to pass constitutional muster. It's not creating a right at all...it's limiting the power of the state to discriminate.
72
68
Marriage was defined as a man and a woman and it was restricted by race.
homosexual marriage requires a totally new definition of what 'marriage' is.
Marriage was defined as a man and a woman and it was restricted by race.
homosexual marriage requires a totally new definition of what 'marriage' is.
73
Dan asks: "Someday social conservatives will be asked to explain how preventing gay couples from marrying "protects" traditional families and from what exactly."
From the notion that patriarchy and female subordination are a natural, God-ordained norm. Of course that protects male, Christian privilege. Women and families? Not so much.
From the notion that patriarchy and female subordination are a natural, God-ordained norm. Of course that protects male, Christian privilege. Women and families? Not so much.
74
It's also worth noting this line from the decision:
"Civil marriage in Iowa is the only gateway to an extensive legal structure that protects a married couple's relationship and family in and outside the state."
Churches and religious groups are free to retain their own definition of marriage--as they should be, and which itself has evolved many times over the course of history--but the state cannot maintain a definition that maintains the rights of one group at the expense of another. That is what the Iowa SC ruled.
"Civil marriage in Iowa is the only gateway to an extensive legal structure that protects a married couple's relationship and family in and outside the state."
Churches and religious groups are free to retain their own definition of marriage--as they should be, and which itself has evolved many times over the course of history--but the state cannot maintain a definition that maintains the rights of one group at the expense of another. That is what the Iowa SC ruled.
75
67
That's wonderful for those women! But just because they choose to refer to their fetus as a baby does not mean that every women who gets pregnant should be forced to carry to term.
That's wonderful for those women! But just because they choose to refer to their fetus as a baby does not mean that every women who gets pregnant should be forced to carry to term.
76
41 homosexual relationships are of a harmful nature they do not provide any benefits to society as opposed to what all societies have recognized as marriage. One man and one woman unions produce: bonding of men and women,
birth and rearing of children, proper relationships of fathers and sons, nurturing of a clear healthy masculine identity, nurturing of a concise transformation of children into responsible adults.
Children need mothers and fathers so that they two become mothers and fathers. Marriage is the best vehicle to educate children into the proper way to follow through with this once they become adults themselves.
41 homosexual relationships are of a harmful nature they do not provide any benefits to society as opposed to what all societies have recognized as marriage. One man and one woman unions produce: bonding of men and women,
birth and rearing of children, proper relationships of fathers and sons, nurturing of a clear healthy masculine identity, nurturing of a concise transformation of children into responsible adults.
Children need mothers and fathers so that they two become mothers and fathers. Marriage is the best vehicle to educate children into the proper way to follow through with this once they become adults themselves.
77
72, No, Marriage was legally defined as between a man and a woman of the same race. A black man and a white woman could not legally marry in VA until the courts overturned interracial marriage bans. If all you have is silly word games, you've lost the argument.
79
75
They may call it what they wish but if they choose to engage in behavior that creates a new life they do not have the moral right to kill it on a whim.
They may call it what they wish but if they choose to engage in behavior that creates a new life they do not have the moral right to kill it on a whim.
80
@57: Actually the dictionary writers already updated the definition of marriage to include those of the same sex. Your small world is in danger!
81
@ 76, how many straight marriages fail to stand up to these measures? Should my sister, who is straight and married for 20 years but childless, be forced to divorce? Under your definition, the answer is "yes."
82
So, Lovechild you are for keeping infertile people from marrying. A woman who had a hysterectomy cannot create children. Any other stance from you would show your to by a hypocritical bigot.
Yes, as Dan points out so often, every child deserve a mother and father.
Yes, as Dan points out so often, every child deserve a mother and father.
85
Marriage has been redefined before. Just last month Merriam-Webster added same-sex couples to the definition. Not to mention that same-sex marriage ceremonies are part of the Catholic Church's history.
http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429…
http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429…
86
@ 76, following up my comment at 81, my sister and her husband are fertile; they just decided not to have children.
87
84, Yeah, the Bible defines marriage as between a man and many women, who were sold, often against their will, by their fathers to the husband! Bring that back!!!
91
76
Your comments assume that marriage necessarily involves children. To the many childless couples out there this would seem hurtful and irrational. Adoption is always an option, and when same-sex couples get married and adopt (or just adopt when they're committed to each other) they're helping create a family out of one that was broken up.
Your comments assume that marriage necessarily involves children. To the many childless couples out there this would seem hurtful and irrational. Adoption is always an option, and when same-sex couples get married and adopt (or just adopt when they're committed to each other) they're helping create a family out of one that was broken up.
94
41 Many of those that have entered into gay unions in Vermont and Massachusetts have been in previous heterosexual marriages. Clearly if amoral behavior had not been sanctioned by those states and the importance of family had been upheld and protected such marriages would've had a chance to work through their problems as other generations have done in the past. But in a society that has adopted an anything goes when it comes to sexuality mentality those marriages have been left vulnerable and exposed to the celebration of aberrant behavior.
95
If you ignore the troll @ 9, 18, 22, 24, 26, 28, 36, 37, 43, 46, 53, 57, 62, 67, 72, 76, 79, etc., he'll go away.
Unless it's just Fnarf, screwing around
Unless it's just Fnarf, screwing around
96
90, Did allowing interracial marriage lead to inter-species marriage? Can a horse read, and understand a marriage license?
98
The legal definition of marriage is different from the dictionary's definition, at least in Washington state. The question isn't whether the "definition" of marriage allows same-sex marriage. (In Washington state the legal definition is a man and a woman 18 or older; check out the state marriage laws.) The question is whether or not that legal definition should be redefined. Just because the definition currently reads a certain way doesn't mean it should stay that way!
101
@ 94, ROFLMAO....
Those marriages were shams to begin with. Like the Rev. Ted Haggard, the unions you speak of were entered into by closet cases who probably had mothers like you telling them that being gay was horrible. They bravely came out as adults, but not after committing mistakes like getting married to opposite sex partners.
There was nothing to work out. They were gay. Had been since birth. It's an immutable trait, which anyone who's ever reflected on how they "chose" to have the sexual orientation they have can see.
Those marriages were shams to begin with. Like the Rev. Ted Haggard, the unions you speak of were entered into by closet cases who probably had mothers like you telling them that being gay was horrible. They bravely came out as adults, but not after committing mistakes like getting married to opposite sex partners.
There was nothing to work out. They were gay. Had been since birth. It's an immutable trait, which anyone who's ever reflected on how they "chose" to have the sexual orientation they have can see.
102
Rob @99--
No, she's "sincere". Joining in with a group of bigots allows her to feel 'right' for once in her life. That is how people like her define 'righteousness'. Her reward will be in 'heaven'.
No, she's "sincere". Joining in with a group of bigots allows her to feel 'right' for once in her life. That is how people like her define 'righteousness'. Her reward will be in 'heaven'.
103
102, I don't think so. I have to give Loveschild credit. She fooled me for quite a while, but it's an act.
104
94- Your comment suggest that you assume that same-sex couples in Mass. and Vermont are a pair of heterosexuals pretending to be gay. I disagree. They are homosexuals who were pretending to be straight, and could not live the lie anymore.
105
My hatred for Loveschild and those like her isn't just for my sake. Just think about what happened to Little Richard...the poor man.
106
Don't get complacent, Rob...she's batshit crazy. I recognize all the symptoms and we're going to need at least four people to hold her down. Read my diagnosis at #69.
107
@94 - LovesTroll: HA HA HAAAHA HA HA! You are so clueless!!! Do you just pull these ideas out of your ass, wipe it off and throw it at your keyboard?
Guess what? Gay people who subjected themselves to straight marriage often did so because they were IN THE CLOSET!!! Because they were expected to subscribe to certain norms. They get married to the people they love now because they a) CAN and b) have for whatever reason decided that living true to themselves is better than not.
The idea that the fact that the state allows it coins gays is amusing, but stupid. As usual.
Guess what? Gay people who subjected themselves to straight marriage often did so because they were IN THE CLOSET!!! Because they were expected to subscribe to certain norms. They get married to the people they love now because they a) CAN and b) have for whatever reason decided that living true to themselves is better than not.
The idea that the fact that the state allows it coins gays is amusing, but stupid. As usual.
109
106, I'm not buying it anymore.
Helen Lovejoy: [about Michelangelo's statue of David] It's filth! It graphically portrays parts of the human body, which, practical as they may be, are evil!
Helen Lovejoy: [about Michelangelo's statue of David] It's filth! It graphically portrays parts of the human body, which, practical as they may be, are evil!
110
what's ironic here is that the bigots who voted in the ban on gay marriage are hoist by their own petard. simply doing nothing would have delayed gay marriage in iowa far longer than providing something that could be tested in court.
so, HA!
so, HA!
111
The conservative Christians are becoming more shrill as they realize they will no longer call all the shots in America. They are just one of many religions and have no special place above others--not even over non religious people.
Court decisions are just one of the ways that society changes. Courts are influnced by political movements like the gay rights movement. Courts respond to changes in public attitudes. Since Christians cannot stop the gay rights movement from existing they blame the courts who respond to that movement.
What the Iowa decision will do is to normalize gay marriage. By 2012 gay folks will have been getting married for almost four years and it will just become part of everyday life. People will see that it had zero effect on heterosexual marriage. Thiis same process is probably already happening in states that have gay marriage and civil unions.
The trend does not favor the bigots. I guess the next thing they will focus on will be shrimp or figs because their God hates those too.
Court decisions are just one of the ways that society changes. Courts are influnced by political movements like the gay rights movement. Courts respond to changes in public attitudes. Since Christians cannot stop the gay rights movement from existing they blame the courts who respond to that movement.
What the Iowa decision will do is to normalize gay marriage. By 2012 gay folks will have been getting married for almost four years and it will just become part of everyday life. People will see that it had zero effect on heterosexual marriage. Thiis same process is probably already happening in states that have gay marriage and civil unions.
The trend does not favor the bigots. I guess the next thing they will focus on will be shrimp or figs because their God hates those too.
112
@110: I've said it often that most fundamentalists don't know when to stop, which leads me to believe that this, Vermont and the post-Prop 8 fallout will end up going nuclear in the GLBT community's favor.
Some state will pass a insane law that is not dissimilar enough from other anti-equality legislation and constitutional amendments previously stricken and it will cascade down from there. I give it 4-6 years, tops.
Some state will pass a insane law that is not dissimilar enough from other anti-equality legislation and constitutional amendments previously stricken and it will cascade down from there. I give it 4-6 years, tops.
114
@ 62 -
That's sort of like saying that a law that forbids people from reading the New Testament doesn't discriminate against Christians. After all, such a law would make it illegal for atheists, Muslims, Jews, agnostics, and Buddhists from reading the New Testament as well. So if the law forbids EVERYONE from reading the New Testament, how can it be discriminatory?
The answer, of course, is that Christians have a much greater interest in reading the New Testament than any of those other groups, and therefore such a law would be far more burdensome for them.
Similarly, claiming that a law banning same-sex marriage is fair because it applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals is logically bankrupt. Heterosexuals have no interest in marrying someone of the same sex - therefore, the law clearly targets homosexuals.
That's sort of like saying that a law that forbids people from reading the New Testament doesn't discriminate against Christians. After all, such a law would make it illegal for atheists, Muslims, Jews, agnostics, and Buddhists from reading the New Testament as well. So if the law forbids EVERYONE from reading the New Testament, how can it be discriminatory?
The answer, of course, is that Christians have a much greater interest in reading the New Testament than any of those other groups, and therefore such a law would be far more burdensome for them.
Similarly, claiming that a law banning same-sex marriage is fair because it applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals is logically bankrupt. Heterosexuals have no interest in marrying someone of the same sex - therefore, the law clearly targets homosexuals.
115
41 While gays represent a small segment of the population the effect of recognizing such unions will end in indirectly changing peoples perception of marriage. The lines would have been blurred and on the long run people would end up not knowing what such an institution entails to make it work for both people involved in it and society.
Mockery of marriage will fully open the doors to adoption and forms of non traditional conception methods that will only serve to hurt the children more by causing suffering, confusion in terms of gender roles and grow up without a mother and a father. Recognition of gays mockery of marriage at the same level of traditional marriage will also serve to open the doors to all sorts of sexual behaviors.
Besides degrading a time honoured institution by being an empty pretense that lacks the mutual needs of male and female it opens the doors to aberrant sexual behavior like polyamory and any other arrangement that the human brain can come up with. Homosexual mockery of marriage are of a short lived and transitory nature as studies made in countries were homosexual marriage has been allowed show. Gay relationships average durations are of one and a half years. In those that last longer promiscuity tends to be the rule were an average of eight sexual partners outside of the relationship per year is all too common.
Surely children need better homes than this and not be exposed to such examples.
Mockery of marriage will fully open the doors to adoption and forms of non traditional conception methods that will only serve to hurt the children more by causing suffering, confusion in terms of gender roles and grow up without a mother and a father. Recognition of gays mockery of marriage at the same level of traditional marriage will also serve to open the doors to all sorts of sexual behaviors.
Besides degrading a time honoured institution by being an empty pretense that lacks the mutual needs of male and female it opens the doors to aberrant sexual behavior like polyamory and any other arrangement that the human brain can come up with. Homosexual mockery of marriage are of a short lived and transitory nature as studies made in countries were homosexual marriage has been allowed show. Gay relationships average durations are of one and a half years. In those that last longer promiscuity tends to be the rule were an average of eight sexual partners outside of the relationship per year is all too common.
Surely children need better homes than this and not be exposed to such examples.
116
Rob,
You know what? Don't believe her. All it does it subtract from the joy of the occasion. I'm sure that if you or I were the ones about to have their marriage legalized, her harsh voice would be only so much static. Use the positive energy to work towards this conclusion on the federal level, and the next time you see a woman that looks bitter and crazed, wink at her lasciviously--it works wonders. This one's for you, Loveschild: ;o
You know what? Don't believe her. All it does it subtract from the joy of the occasion. I'm sure that if you or I were the ones about to have their marriage legalized, her harsh voice would be only so much static. Use the positive energy to work towards this conclusion on the federal level, and the next time you see a woman that looks bitter and crazed, wink at her lasciviously--it works wonders. This one's for you, Loveschild: ;o
118
@ 115, you're still missing the point. Many heterosexual marriages don't fit this narrow concept you push. They're between one man and one woman, but have nothing to do with children. They may also have nothing to do with gender roles - should I get divorced because I'm a stay at home dad while my wife earns the money? Should my sister, mentioned above, get divorced because they're childless? Should my great uncle, who lost his wife at age 70, not have remarried?
Marriage is about a lot more than you say. Fail to address that, and the bankruptcy of your position (both moral and intellectual) is plain to see.
Marriage is about a lot more than you say. Fail to address that, and the bankruptcy of your position (both moral and intellectual) is plain to see.
119
"Recognition of gays mockery of marriage at the same level of traditional marriage will also serve to open the doors to all sorts of sexual behaviors."
Your logic is a mockery of intellect.
Your logic is a mockery of intellect.
120
I'm going to stay out of the whole "OMG! Gays are icky! Adam and Steve!" thing (for once)... but I just wanted to say that this sort of came out of nowhere for me. I feel like I had no idea that this case was on the horizon, and I'm usually reasonably up on these things. What other states have cases like this that could potentially be ruled on in the near future?
121
@115 Trollschild: Because marriage is treated with such respect by straight people now? Your argument is inane.
122
115,
You realize that heterosexuals aren't great at fidelity as well?
www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/infideli…
You realize that heterosexuals aren't great at fidelity as well?
www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/infideli…
123
115,
Here are more statistics about heterosexuals ability to stay married.
www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.sh…
Here are more statistics about heterosexuals ability to stay married.
www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.sh…
124
Heterosexuals get divorced ergo homosexual marriage should be legalized?!?
Jonathan calls that specious reasoning.
(It's not a compliment.)
Jonathan calls that specious reasoning.
(It's not a compliment.)
125
I was so happy to hear the news, then I came here and just read 118 points debating this decision - some posts were awful, mean, ignorant and downright vicious - and you know what? I'm still happy.
126
41 If gay unions were good wouldn't many gays and lesbians be truly in monogamous relationship? the truth is most don't want to really assume the responsibilities of marriage. In reality gays are only seeking the approval by society of their sexual behavior. Family and structural society is not really what they seek. But promiscuous risky sexual behavior and the acceptance of it by the larger society is. Just look at the numerous diseases prevalent in the population of men who engage in sex with other men, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, human Papillomavirus , Hepatitis A, B, and C, and the all too common HIV/AIDS.
In women who engage in sex with other women high percentages of Hepatitis C,
Bacterial vaginosis, HIV risk prone behaviors and high drug consumptions have been observed. Sadly promiscuous sexual behavior is the norm not not the exception.
And why traditional family oriented people need to care? It's not their business some say. We need to care because sadly the dangerous behavior and illnesses are not contained within those who engage in such behaviors, they have a way of spilling over into our neighborhoods, schools and into our families.
In women who engage in sex with other women high percentages of Hepatitis C,
Bacterial vaginosis, HIV risk prone behaviors and high drug consumptions have been observed. Sadly promiscuous sexual behavior is the norm not not the exception.
And why traditional family oriented people need to care? It's not their business some say. We need to care because sadly the dangerous behavior and illnesses are not contained within those who engage in such behaviors, they have a way of spilling over into our neighborhoods, schools and into our families.
127
@124: No. Heterosexuals and homosexuals, being equal people under the law, should both be allowed to be legally married.
The argument that gays are gonna somehow foul up marriage for everyone is specious reasoning. Well, actually there is no reasoning. It's a specious argument.
The argument that gays are gonna somehow foul up marriage for everyone is specious reasoning. Well, actually there is no reasoning. It's a specious argument.
128
Loveschild knows that it is possible to deny one's sinful desire for members of the same sex...because she herself is living proof. She thinks it a small sacrifice to deny her true nature for the bountiful reward she will receive in the afterlife. The fact that others have made a different choice challenges her. The more examples of happy, same sex couples that exist, people living their lives without the fear of god to control them, shakes her very core, her confidence of what is right. If god won’t smite those sinners, she has to in her head, her actions and her words, to provide an example to herself of the dangers of acting on her wishes, not her beliefs. Her comments here and elsewhere are not for slog readers….only for herself, as a reminder of what is wrong, and how she herself will be judged by her bigoted and jealous god.
129
@126 - Trollschild: Please back up ANY of those assertions with a fact, please?
Can't do it? Didn't think so.
Can't do it? Didn't think so.
130
@ 126, even if that were true (and I'm sure you can provide credible links and sources for us), that's no reason to deny monogamous same-sex couples, even if it's only a small number, their rights.
131
Loveschild,
If you are gay, then you can speak for them as one individual who shares their sexual orientation. Even then, you can not speak for the whole community. BUT, YOU ARE NOT! So, stop speaking for them. Society should not hold homosexuals to a standard of monogamy and blindly turn cheek to non monogamous heterosexuals. If you expect monogamy for one group then it follows that the other must also be monogamous. You don't get to have double standards.
Every disease you listed can and is contracted between heterosexuals.
Next time cite your sources.
If you are gay, then you can speak for them as one individual who shares their sexual orientation. Even then, you can not speak for the whole community. BUT, YOU ARE NOT! So, stop speaking for them. Society should not hold homosexuals to a standard of monogamy and blindly turn cheek to non monogamous heterosexuals. If you expect monogamy for one group then it follows that the other must also be monogamous. You don't get to have double standards.
Every disease you listed can and is contracted between heterosexuals.
Next time cite your sources.
132
@ 131 I challenged Loveschild to do just that on an earlier thread and she produced highly partisan links. Her sources had all the neutrality of the Westboro Baptists. I called her on it and asked if she would accept arguments from the Seattle Gay News? No answer, and no more links from Loveschild either.
133
I did a quick-and-dirty summary for anyone who wants it here:
http://marital-gender-equality.suite101.…
http://marital-gender-equality.suite101.…
134
128. No I haven't had to struggle with those kind of feelings. But I have seen first hand through one of my closest and more dearest friends the destruction such behaviors cause in peoples life without them even been aware of them till it's too late. I do not condemn gays, that's up to them and God but not condemning does not mean approving and it most certainly does not mean opening your house to havoc , exposing your children to immorality, abuse and confusion. I've seen what it has done to innocent bystanders like my friend when they ignore it and don't take a proactive stand against it. I will not let that happen to me or my family.
More than once amidst the horrible things people have commented here about me without really knowing who I am I have stated my support for allowing gays civil unions or contracts that allow for some benefits that are adequate for their pairings. That's one thing totally different from the celebration and approval some gays are seeking of their sexual behavior at the same level of marriage.
This has served to wake up many.
More than once amidst the horrible things people have commented here about me without really knowing who I am I have stated my support for allowing gays civil unions or contracts that allow for some benefits that are adequate for their pairings. That's one thing totally different from the celebration and approval some gays are seeking of their sexual behavior at the same level of marriage.
This has served to wake up many.
135
@ 134, I sure haven't seen your support for gay civil unions, but if you're at least willing to support that, then let me say good for you! (Sincerely.)
I ought to point out what the law says about "separate but equal," but I for one believe that civil unions are worth supporting. For one thing people who oppose that are really exposed for the bigots that they are.
I ought to point out what the law says about "separate but equal," but I for one believe that civil unions are worth supporting. For one thing people who oppose that are really exposed for the bigots that they are.
136
Loveschild,
Sorry to hear your friend was/is suffering. Is your friend gay, or was he or she married to someone who was closeted?
I wish I could understand what you mean by "such behaviors".
I wish I could understand what "immorality, abuse and confusion" you fear your children would be exposed to, too.
I wish I could understand why you think gays should be satisfied with unions that deny them approx. 1,500 benifits (I rounded to the nearest hundreds).
I wish I could understand why in this instance you think separate should be equal.
I wish I could get a clear understanding of you ideas. Your comments suggest you think every human is born heterosexual, and thus gays are heterosexuals choosing to engage as homosexuals.
I don't think you're horrible, I just don't get you.
Sorry to hear your friend was/is suffering. Is your friend gay, or was he or she married to someone who was closeted?
I wish I could understand what you mean by "such behaviors".
I wish I could understand what "immorality, abuse and confusion" you fear your children would be exposed to, too.
I wish I could understand why you think gays should be satisfied with unions that deny them approx. 1,500 benifits (I rounded to the nearest hundreds).
I wish I could understand why in this instance you think separate should be equal.
I wish I could get a clear understanding of you ideas. Your comments suggest you think every human is born heterosexual, and thus gays are heterosexuals choosing to engage as homosexuals.
I don't think you're horrible, I just don't get you.
138
135 Some here like 131 if they truly are honest can attest to that.
And again, people of the same gender marrying is not a right, and people who want to preserve marriage as it is are not bigots. You have commented that when people are loosing their arguments they resort to name calling and clownish comparisons. Apply your reasoning to yourself and if you truly can state the benefits that societies can gain for allowing such unions at the same level of what all societies throughout history have recognized as marriage then stated them without calling people who feel differently names.
And again, people of the same gender marrying is not a right, and people who want to preserve marriage as it is are not bigots. You have commented that when people are loosing their arguments they resort to name calling and clownish comparisons. Apply your reasoning to yourself and if you truly can state the benefits that societies can gain for allowing such unions at the same level of what all societies throughout history have recognized as marriage then stated them without calling people who feel differently names.
139
Send the old folks back to study with Paul Simon and the " 50 ways to leave your lover " song and let the hip be hip... is that tough enough?
awww shucks.... only kidding quicksdraw.
awww shucks.... only kidding quicksdraw.
140
Gay marriage is going to bring an economic boost to Iowa. Soon it will be a non-issue. Gay money spends just as well as hetero.
141
Matt in Denver @ 135,
I have heard Loveschild say in previous posts that she supports gay civil unions.
I have heard Loveschild say in previous posts that she supports gay civil unions.
142
Loveschild @ 138,
Your reasoning must be applied to your opinion as well. You have yet to put forth an argument, with supporting data from a non biased source, that explains why marriage between same-sex couples is not right. Nor can you defend your position, with supporting data from a non biased source, on how society will be damaged by allowing their marriage.
What you have is only your opinion. Which is yours, and you are entitled.
Thus, when posting you should openly state it is your opinion, and stop posting that your opinion is fact. If you want your opinion to be fact, you need to cite those non biased sources.
Again, you're welcome to opinion.
Your reasoning must be applied to your opinion as well. You have yet to put forth an argument, with supporting data from a non biased source, that explains why marriage between same-sex couples is not right. Nor can you defend your position, with supporting data from a non biased source, on how society will be damaged by allowing their marriage.
What you have is only your opinion. Which is yours, and you are entitled.
Thus, when posting you should openly state it is your opinion, and stop posting that your opinion is fact. If you want your opinion to be fact, you need to cite those non biased sources.
Again, you're welcome to opinion.
143
136 My friend is married to a man who was engaging in risky behavior behind her back. I saw what it caused to her marriage and the roller coaster of confusions it brought to that house before they both got their house in order. I don't see why any society would like to celebrate such types of impulses that seek to destroy families like her. But I'm resolute in not allowing such things in my home in my neighborhood or my state.
I've always been a proactive person. Prevention before regrets is my rule.
The empirical evidence suggest that gay behavior is something fostered and that can be overcome by those who wish to do so. Having said that I'm not in favor of forcing people to change their sexual behavior just like I'm not in favor of forcing people to quit smoking. But I'm in favor just as with smoke to have safeguards so that those who do not engage in such things are not exposed to them.
I've always been a proactive person. Prevention before regrets is my rule.
The empirical evidence suggest that gay behavior is something fostered and that can be overcome by those who wish to do so. Having said that I'm not in favor of forcing people to change their sexual behavior just like I'm not in favor of forcing people to quit smoking. But I'm in favor just as with smoke to have safeguards so that those who do not engage in such things are not exposed to them.
145
If a person doesn't like gay marriage, then that person should not enter into one. Otherwise, stop trying to control everyone else.
146
@ 138, what 142 said, with the addition that many have refuted your assertions about what marriage have traditionally been all about. Further, at 143, your story is exactly what happens when you deny that people are born straight or gay and force them into the closet. That man should have been allowed to openly express his sexual identity and he never would have married a woman. Blame your flawed morality for that, not gay marriage.
148
Loveschild @ 143<
Sorry again for your friend.
Please, please cite those empirical evidence, from non biased sources, that suggest that gay behavior is something fostered and can be overcome. I have never read that.
The American Psychiatry Association, The American Psychology Association, The American Medical Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers, and The Royal College of Psychiatrists, Great Britain all disagree with you. In fact they are all openly oppose any psychiatric treatment, such as 'raparative' or 'conversion' therapy.
Again, please, please cite those sources.
I'll be back later today.
Sorry again for your friend.
Please, please cite those empirical evidence, from non biased sources, that suggest that gay behavior is something fostered and can be overcome. I have never read that.
The American Psychiatry Association, The American Psychology Association, The American Medical Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers, and The Royal College of Psychiatrists, Great Britain all disagree with you. In fact they are all openly oppose any psychiatric treatment, such as 'raparative' or 'conversion' therapy.
Again, please, please cite those sources.
I'll be back later today.
149
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!
150
I'm not going to read through all these comments now, but I wanted to weigh in:
YAY! OMG CONGRATS IOWA! WE ARE SO PROUD OF YOU!
And congrats to all the lovely couples able to wed this summer. Start booking those hotel rooms and ballrooms for your ceremonies now, they fill up fast! :)
YAY! OMG CONGRATS IOWA! WE ARE SO PROUD OF YOU!
And congrats to all the lovely couples able to wed this summer. Start booking those hotel rooms and ballrooms for your ceremonies now, they fill up fast! :)
151
@143: Please do not confuse some dude on the DL with a homosexual couple that wish to have a marriage. This shows that you really have no clue about love or what makes a family, Loveschild.
By the way, it is just as "risky" for your friend's husband to fuck around with a woman as with a man. Anyone can have a disease.
And as to "empirical evidence," put up or shut up.
By the way, it is just as "risky" for your friend's husband to fuck around with a woman as with a man. Anyone can have a disease.
And as to "empirical evidence," put up or shut up.
152
Look, any time somebody categorizes a judge ruling on infringement or equal protection as "activism" instead of "doing their federally-mandated job," it's time to stop paying attention. There's no arguing with them. They've invented a nonexistent legal tradition in order to support their socially conservative views; given that things like history and facts don't dissuade them, why would you expect wispier things like arguments and reason to do the job?
153
@loveschild:
Was engaging? You are deluded to think he has stopped or will stop. The best thing for them to "get their houses in order" is for him to come out so he can stop doing risky behavior. He needs to come to terms with who he is and who he loves. Your friend is in a terrible situation, and no amount of you trying to "stop gay people getting rights or marriage" is going to make her happy.
Do you get that? They can be friends, great friends. They can have love for eachother, but she is not who he wants to love. Living a lie is not living. And it doesn't make for a good marriage or a good society.
My friend is married to a man who was engaging in risky behavior behind her back.
Was engaging? You are deluded to think he has stopped or will stop. The best thing for them to "get their houses in order" is for him to come out so he can stop doing risky behavior. He needs to come to terms with who he is and who he loves. Your friend is in a terrible situation, and no amount of you trying to "stop gay people getting rights or marriage" is going to make her happy.
Do you get that? They can be friends, great friends. They can have love for eachother, but she is not who he wants to love. Living a lie is not living. And it doesn't make for a good marriage or a good society.
155
@138 loveschild, YOU need to apply some reasoning to your own positions before you demand people stop hurting your feelings. the posts you made on this thread were outrageous, suggesting that homosexuals are some sort of collective group of monsters incapable of committing to a relationship. YOU do not know every gay person, YOU are not an expert on human behavior, and YOU have not the sufficient intellect to make the broad claims you have made. your arguments, if one could call them that, serve only to dehumanize an entire section of society, and you should be ashamed of yourself for your lack of compassion and logic.
on a broader note, yesterday i wouldn't have thought twice about bad mouthing iowa as a corn fed bastion of brain dead conservative hicks, today i am utterly humbled and thoroughly impressed and would like to apologize to any and all iowans out there for my ignorance of the true nature of your state.
on a broader note, yesterday i wouldn't have thought twice about bad mouthing iowa as a corn fed bastion of brain dead conservative hicks, today i am utterly humbled and thoroughly impressed and would like to apologize to any and all iowans out there for my ignorance of the true nature of your state.
156
@143 (again): "Prevention before regrets is my rule."
Then don't marry someone gay. That is the prevention. duh.
Then don't marry someone gay. That is the prevention. duh.
157
Loveschild, I almost forgot.... anyone who would deny someone an equal place in society based on something over which they have no control, such as race or sexual orientation, is a bigot. That's not name calling, that's calling it as it is.
158
OriginalMo@153 - Exactly.
@Loveschild - The solution to that sad situation would've been for society to have accepted the man on the DL so he wouldn't have had to be on the DL. Even better if he could've had a happy same sex marriage.
But people like you don't want that. I also noticed you saying: "civil unions or contracts that allow for some benefits that are adequate for their pairings."
Who decides what is "adequate" for our "pairings?" I want to get married to the man I'm engaged to and we're going to raise a strong family together. Why do you seek to deny us the tools to help ensure we can have a strong family?
@Loveschild - The solution to that sad situation would've been for society to have accepted the man on the DL so he wouldn't have had to be on the DL. Even better if he could've had a happy same sex marriage.
But people like you don't want that. I also noticed you saying: "civil unions or contracts that allow for some benefits that are adequate for their pairings."
Who decides what is "adequate" for our "pairings?" I want to get married to the man I'm engaged to and we're going to raise a strong family together. Why do you seek to deny us the tools to help ensure we can have a strong family?
159
The simple fact is that some homophobic straights fear Gay Marriage for the simple reason that their worst nightmare is that GLBT's may prove to be BETTER at marriage than they are/were.
Once the average Joe and Jane see that Gays are just as capable at straights of forming loving, stable long-term relationships, are just as capable as straights of engaging in successful child-rearing, and are just as capable as straights of raising and nurturing stable, healthy children to become compassionate, productive adult members of society, they'll eventually begin to wonder what the bid deal was all about in the first place.
Which of course, is the worst of all possible outcomes for radical Evangelicals: to have those they've touted as abominations, as sinners, as morally-corrupt and socially dangerous, perceived by others as "normal". Because once the process of dehumanization has been negated, there's really no going back.
And then Radical Christian Right will be hard-pressed to find another scapegoat upon which to anchor their pathological need to pit themselves against "evil", in order to prop up their own sense of moral righteousness.
Of course, they'll still have Muslims to pick on, but I'll wager vilifying a group of believers who worship the same God as theirs doesn't have quite the same "oomph!" as does demonizing, Godless Sodomites.
Once the average Joe and Jane see that Gays are just as capable at straights of forming loving, stable long-term relationships, are just as capable as straights of engaging in successful child-rearing, and are just as capable as straights of raising and nurturing stable, healthy children to become compassionate, productive adult members of society, they'll eventually begin to wonder what the bid deal was all about in the first place.
Which of course, is the worst of all possible outcomes for radical Evangelicals: to have those they've touted as abominations, as sinners, as morally-corrupt and socially dangerous, perceived by others as "normal". Because once the process of dehumanization has been negated, there's really no going back.
And then Radical Christian Right will be hard-pressed to find another scapegoat upon which to anchor their pathological need to pit themselves against "evil", in order to prop up their own sense of moral righteousness.
Of course, they'll still have Muslims to pick on, but I'll wager vilifying a group of believers who worship the same God as theirs doesn't have quite the same "oomph!" as does demonizing, Godless Sodomites.
160
@ 159, you ought to read more about how they feel about Muslims. I think they find plenty of Oomph in it.
161
Loveschild @ 143,
I am sorry for your friend and her spouse. Their's is a very painful situation. I have two loved ones in my life who have walked that road. One of those friend's husband tried reparative therapy and electroshock treatment. It didn't work, it was cruel and unnecessary. It did not save their marriage. You're friend's husband will not change, he can't. Nor, should he be expected to change. It hurts and I am sorry.
Don't wish him back in the closet. Have you ever lived in the closet, by this I mean living a life that isn't true (homosexuality isn't the only reason to pretend. Little children growing up in a physically abusive home live in closets. Women in abusive marriages hide in closets. These are just a few reasons for a closeted life)?
I am speaking from my perspective, the little child growing up, the closet hurts. Life in the closet is stifling, it erodes the soul. Please don't wish that on your friends husband. The path of peace demands that the closet door be thrown open. Your friends husband needs to be free to be who he is. Your friend is deserving of a husband who is sexually attracted to her, too.
Your friend and her husband can live a life of mutual respect and friendship, as I have witnessed, but only if each is truly free to be who they really are.
Please cite your sources on your "empirical evidence".
I am sorry for your friend and her spouse. Their's is a very painful situation. I have two loved ones in my life who have walked that road. One of those friend's husband tried reparative therapy and electroshock treatment. It didn't work, it was cruel and unnecessary. It did not save their marriage. You're friend's husband will not change, he can't. Nor, should he be expected to change. It hurts and I am sorry.
Don't wish him back in the closet. Have you ever lived in the closet, by this I mean living a life that isn't true (homosexuality isn't the only reason to pretend. Little children growing up in a physically abusive home live in closets. Women in abusive marriages hide in closets. These are just a few reasons for a closeted life)?
I am speaking from my perspective, the little child growing up, the closet hurts. Life in the closet is stifling, it erodes the soul. Please don't wish that on your friends husband. The path of peace demands that the closet door be thrown open. Your friends husband needs to be free to be who he is. Your friend is deserving of a husband who is sexually attracted to her, too.
Your friend and her husband can live a life of mutual respect and friendship, as I have witnessed, but only if each is truly free to be who they really are.
Please cite your sources on your "empirical evidence".
162
@Hateschild 126...
"If gay unions were good wouldn't many gays and lesbians be truly in monogamous relationship? the truth is most don't want to really assume the responsibilities of marriage. "
Well, if straight unions were good wouldn't many straight men be truly in monogamous relationship? What would happen to internet porn and the sex trade if they were? Even WITH marriage, straight men still aren't monogamous. So outlaw marriage for straight men now!
This is the bat shit crazy kind of logic you work with....not mine. You're like a cult member who has an answer every time the saviour doesn't return to earth on the day he's been rumored to show up. You look extremely silly...and you talk out your gaping hole.
"If gay unions were good wouldn't many gays and lesbians be truly in monogamous relationship? the truth is most don't want to really assume the responsibilities of marriage. "
Well, if straight unions were good wouldn't many straight men be truly in monogamous relationship? What would happen to internet porn and the sex trade if they were? Even WITH marriage, straight men still aren't monogamous. So outlaw marriage for straight men now!
This is the bat shit crazy kind of logic you work with....not mine. You're like a cult member who has an answer every time the saviour doesn't return to earth on the day he's been rumored to show up. You look extremely silly...and you talk out your gaping hole.
163
Loveschild has a big flaw with her story about her friend's gay husband - this story in no way supports a case against gay marriage. Not. In. Any. Way. This was not a marriage between two same sex individuals. It's also no different than if the husband were straight but liked cruising for prostitutes. The immoral behavior that threatened this marriage was his infidelity and lying, not his sexual orientation.
Fail, Loveschild. Fail.
Fail, Loveschild. Fail.
164
@Loveschild- How is driving your friend's husband deeper into the closet going to help anything. They need a divorce. It sucks. The guy was ashamed of himself and tried to live like someone he wasn't, and the family that was generated by this has to suffer. It's sad, but your "solution" guarantees that that story is repeated over and over again in other families. Stop the cycle of hate, embrace gay equality.
@Everyone- It doesn't matter if gayness is nature, nurture and/or choice. It doesn't hurt anyone, let it alone.
@Everyone- It doesn't matter if gayness is nature, nurture and/or choice. It doesn't hurt anyone, let it alone.
165
dwight moody @ 164,
You are correct, gayness doesn't hurt anyone. I wish it could be left alone, too. Unfortunately, the belief that it is a choice and therefore is a justifiable reason to deny civil rights exsists within my community. So, when I engage with pastors and church lay people on this I have to show evidence that it isn't a choice. Especially, since my former church is considering bringing an ex-gay minisitry team to work with two teenage boys in the congregation. I can't sit quietly. I have to speak. That is why I want to see Loveschild's empirical evidence. I truly wish it could be left alone.
You are correct, gayness doesn't hurt anyone. I wish it could be left alone, too. Unfortunately, the belief that it is a choice and therefore is a justifiable reason to deny civil rights exsists within my community. So, when I engage with pastors and church lay people on this I have to show evidence that it isn't a choice. Especially, since my former church is considering bringing an ex-gay minisitry team to work with two teenage boys in the congregation. I can't sit quietly. I have to speak. That is why I want to see Loveschild's empirical evidence. I truly wish it could be left alone.
166
spare us the nonsense about "activist judges." it was majority rule gave us hitler, for example. we have constitutional courts for a reason!
167
Don't be fooled. The reason Iowa (of all places) is doing this is to make some extra cash. By allowing gay marriage to be legal, Iowa is basically inviting a larger homosexual community into areas that have had growing gay populations. Don't get me wrong, I posted this in the news this morning and I'm ecstatic, but don't be fooled. Iowa is deep in debt and this is a measure they believe will bring new money to the state.
My question for Dan and others: Is it possible to make WA next? Seattle is waaaaay gayer than Iowa City. Why should they be the only ones that get to enjoy marriage?
My question for Dan and others: Is it possible to make WA next? Seattle is waaaaay gayer than Iowa City. Why should they be the only ones that get to enjoy marriage?
168
Dan is over 40; in gay years thats like being in a nursing home. No one would marry his stupid ass anyhow. Who the fuck cares!
169
Q6) Where can I find a dolphin to mate with?
A6) Aquariums are a bad choice, for many reasons. Too public, the dolphins are not in their natural habitat, night visits are impossible, etc etc... some may have external enclosures, which may be accesable, but that is no guarantee. Best thing sometimes is to find a beach or a cove that the dolphins frequent. It takes time to develop a relationship with a dolphin to the point where they will let you mate with them (although some have been as quick as 3 days to acclimatize). Gaining their trust takes time, and you need to visit frequently. This is impossible for some people, I understand, but it is the best way. Sometimes you just need to be in the right place at the right time. I have been extremely lucky on two occasions with wild dolphins, and my current mate is a dolphin who lives in the harbour of my resident city.
Well, I hope this is of use to whoever is interested. One final note. You should love a dolphin, not because of the sexual relief they can provide, but because they are a unique animal, one of the few wild animals that seek the company of man by their own initiative. This is special. Do not abuse it.
About the Author
I first realized I was a Delphinic Zoophile when I was 12 years old, which is when I had my first sexual encounter with a dolphin. This is not that particular occasion, since my first lover was brutally killed in an act of sensless violence that I will never forgive, or forget. She continues to live in my memories, though...
I volunteer with dolphins whenever I get the opportunity. They are special to me, highly intelligent, empathic creatures that are dear to my heart, and are a healing aspect in my life. So it was that I met this particular dolphin, a female bottle nose dolphin, 7 years old, who is residing at my home cities coastal harbour/aquarium.
She is a beautiful dolphin, inquisitive and playful, and more used to human contact than her other, older pod mates. I answer any questions the general public have about dolphins, and spend most of my free time with them, studying and talking with them. I learned through continued contact that each dolphin has a very particular personality and habits, traits useful for differentiating between the fins who are sometimes hard to distinguish on visual markings alone.
In order to avoid the bustle tourists, I usually visit the dolphins at night, illegally I must add, since I am considered to be trespassing. But it is the only time I do not have to be distracted by tourists or the staff. I do not expect to have sex with the dolphins every time I visit them; I am not that sort of person. I spend time with them because they are a relaxing and stabilizing source of peace in an otherwise hectic and unbalanced lifestyle. So it came as a pleasant surprise when this 7-year-old dolphin began to engage in sex-play with me.
I was quite happily swimming around with the dolphins when she suddenly decided to grab my foot with her genital slit. Dolphins have very muscular vaginal orifices, and can use these muscles to manipulate objects and carry them. I stayed still for a while, to see if she was just playing, but she continued to masturbate against my foot, and in the light of the torch I sometimes carry, I could see that her slit had become very pink and had swelled as well. She was aroused!
So, I started to back-paddle with my hands towards a small beached area, partially submerged in the water. A couple of times she pulled me forward into the deeper water, but eventually I got my self to the shallows. I dislodged my foot (Being careful not to pull too hard), and took her gently by a pectoral fin and rubbed her belly just to aclimatize her, I guess. She immediately rolled belly up and started doing pelvic thrusts against the palm of my hand. It was unmistakebly erotic, and by now I was fully aroused.
I stripped off my shorts, and gently pulled her into the shallows until she was lying on her side, her belly facing towards me, half submerged in the water. I nestled myself belly to belly against her, and pressed my member against her genital slit. She immediately arched her body against mine, and took me inside her body, initiating a quick series of muscular contractions with her vaginal muscles. I wrapped my left arm around her body and just held her close while she manipulated me inside her body, until I climaxed barely 2 minutes later. Surprisingly, her body also shuddered against mine, and we spent the next 5 or so minutes just lying together in the shallows, holding each other, enjoying our company and revelling in the fact that we had shared something special together, something very few people can claim to have done.
I do not brag about this though. It is not something you can brag about, since it not only is demeaning to the act, but it destroys the purpose of the act as well; to express affection, and trust. I only consent to those dolphins who ask. As a result, I have mated only three times. Each time was memorable and special, because each time it was something we both wanted to share with each other. Sex, for me, is just another, albeit powerful, expression of affection and trust. I wouldn't engage any other animal, though; it is not my attraction. But there is little I wouldn't do for a dolphin.
I am aware there are people who would look at this and turn away in disgust. I can not force my beliefs or my feelings upon them, neither do I wish to. The only thing I ask of those people is that they try to understand that love, and trust, and respect are not limited to within a single species. Human kind has created religions and laws and barbed-wire fences that have been created, written and erected out of the former belief that we are the best, the smartest, the most powerful creature on the planet. Now we are realising that we have been extremely short sighted; many of us are realising this, but there are others who are bound by their former beliefs. One word is the key to improving our civilization. One word which could improve many lives.
More...
A6) Aquariums are a bad choice, for many reasons. Too public, the dolphins are not in their natural habitat, night visits are impossible, etc etc... some may have external enclosures, which may be accesable, but that is no guarantee. Best thing sometimes is to find a beach or a cove that the dolphins frequent. It takes time to develop a relationship with a dolphin to the point where they will let you mate with them (although some have been as quick as 3 days to acclimatize). Gaining their trust takes time, and you need to visit frequently. This is impossible for some people, I understand, but it is the best way. Sometimes you just need to be in the right place at the right time. I have been extremely lucky on two occasions with wild dolphins, and my current mate is a dolphin who lives in the harbour of my resident city.
Well, I hope this is of use to whoever is interested. One final note. You should love a dolphin, not because of the sexual relief they can provide, but because they are a unique animal, one of the few wild animals that seek the company of man by their own initiative. This is special. Do not abuse it.
About the Author
I first realized I was a Delphinic Zoophile when I was 12 years old, which is when I had my first sexual encounter with a dolphin. This is not that particular occasion, since my first lover was brutally killed in an act of sensless violence that I will never forgive, or forget. She continues to live in my memories, though...
I volunteer with dolphins whenever I get the opportunity. They are special to me, highly intelligent, empathic creatures that are dear to my heart, and are a healing aspect in my life. So it was that I met this particular dolphin, a female bottle nose dolphin, 7 years old, who is residing at my home cities coastal harbour/aquarium.
She is a beautiful dolphin, inquisitive and playful, and more used to human contact than her other, older pod mates. I answer any questions the general public have about dolphins, and spend most of my free time with them, studying and talking with them. I learned through continued contact that each dolphin has a very particular personality and habits, traits useful for differentiating between the fins who are sometimes hard to distinguish on visual markings alone.
In order to avoid the bustle tourists, I usually visit the dolphins at night, illegally I must add, since I am considered to be trespassing. But it is the only time I do not have to be distracted by tourists or the staff. I do not expect to have sex with the dolphins every time I visit them; I am not that sort of person. I spend time with them because they are a relaxing and stabilizing source of peace in an otherwise hectic and unbalanced lifestyle. So it came as a pleasant surprise when this 7-year-old dolphin began to engage in sex-play with me.
I was quite happily swimming around with the dolphins when she suddenly decided to grab my foot with her genital slit. Dolphins have very muscular vaginal orifices, and can use these muscles to manipulate objects and carry them. I stayed still for a while, to see if she was just playing, but she continued to masturbate against my foot, and in the light of the torch I sometimes carry, I could see that her slit had become very pink and had swelled as well. She was aroused!
So, I started to back-paddle with my hands towards a small beached area, partially submerged in the water. A couple of times she pulled me forward into the deeper water, but eventually I got my self to the shallows. I dislodged my foot (Being careful not to pull too hard), and took her gently by a pectoral fin and rubbed her belly just to aclimatize her, I guess. She immediately rolled belly up and started doing pelvic thrusts against the palm of my hand. It was unmistakebly erotic, and by now I was fully aroused.
I stripped off my shorts, and gently pulled her into the shallows until she was lying on her side, her belly facing towards me, half submerged in the water. I nestled myself belly to belly against her, and pressed my member against her genital slit. She immediately arched her body against mine, and took me inside her body, initiating a quick series of muscular contractions with her vaginal muscles. I wrapped my left arm around her body and just held her close while she manipulated me inside her body, until I climaxed barely 2 minutes later. Surprisingly, her body also shuddered against mine, and we spent the next 5 or so minutes just lying together in the shallows, holding each other, enjoying our company and revelling in the fact that we had shared something special together, something very few people can claim to have done.
I do not brag about this though. It is not something you can brag about, since it not only is demeaning to the act, but it destroys the purpose of the act as well; to express affection, and trust. I only consent to those dolphins who ask. As a result, I have mated only three times. Each time was memorable and special, because each time it was something we both wanted to share with each other. Sex, for me, is just another, albeit powerful, expression of affection and trust. I wouldn't engage any other animal, though; it is not my attraction. But there is little I wouldn't do for a dolphin.
I am aware there are people who would look at this and turn away in disgust. I can not force my beliefs or my feelings upon them, neither do I wish to. The only thing I ask of those people is that they try to understand that love, and trust, and respect are not limited to within a single species. Human kind has created religions and laws and barbed-wire fences that have been created, written and erected out of the former belief that we are the best, the smartest, the most powerful creature on the planet. Now we are realising that we have been extremely short sighted; many of us are realising this, but there are others who are bound by their former beliefs. One word is the key to improving our civilization. One word which could improve many lives.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Whitney Is Dead, And So Is Hollywood by Kelly O
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (169) RSS