House Republicans will introduce legislation this week to begin the process to amend the Iowa Constitution to ban not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions and domestic partnerships.However, businesses will be able to offer benefits to domestic partners as they see fit. "I think the biggest issue is that if that (a same-sex marriage ban) is carried forward, and then Iowa does civil unions and recognizes that as a substitute status, then, from what I've seen in other states, people would come to consider same-sex civil unions as equal to marriage," Alons said.
No Democrats have supported this, yet 56 of 60 House Republicans show support. The four who declined are Steve Lukan, Peter Cownie, Scott Raecker and David Tjepkes of Gowrie.
The Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr. of Des Moines, president of the NAACP State Conference for Iowa and Nebraska, has helped lead protests against same-sex marriage. He said Wednesday he agrees with the attempt to also keep domestic partnership or civil unions from gaining legal status. Ratliff said he believes same-sex marriage further erodes the family, similar to the way that two-income families have eroded traditional nuclear families.
What about how the other people believe? Traditional nuclear families haven't existed in two generations. Whose traditions is he protecting? Clearly not those of the citizens who live differently than he does. I thought his job was to represent citizens, not just the ones he agrees with or approves of.
In response to a private message a reader sent me via my site, I am married to a wonderful fellow and am not gay. However, several of my friends are, and I am just pointing out stupidity where I see it. I know I have focused on this lately, but it is because I see people being treated like second class citizens for a personal choice that doesn't affect anyone but themselves. I will continue to focus on this and other issues that affect our right to live how we please as long as it is within the law.
Posts
5 comments:
"Traditional nuclear families haven't existed in two generations."
Horseshit.
"Whose traditions is he protecting? Clearly not those of the citizens who live differently than he does. I thought his job was to represent citizens, not just the ones he agrees with or approves of. "
Double horseshit. You're not much brighter than Zandar are you? If you were competent you'd see the trap in this logic that the reverse is even more true.
Iowans who are opposed to judicial activism that made the state the laughing-stock of the Midwest through court-imposed gay marriage have just as much right to equal representation. The only fair way to settle it is to do what dozens of other states have done and to bring the measure to a vote.
And in every state where the matter has come to a referendum of the people, the people have put a stop to unconstitutional special treatment for gays.
Iowa would be no different, which is why technically I don't agree with the legislation to put an end to it either. It really must come up for a referendum.
But how is it fair to treat people in traditional marriages with their beliefs that don't include special treatment for gays as "second class citizens" too?
ZCR, Nobody's forcing you to marry someone of your own sex. Why should you decide for other people?
Like Bon, I'm happily married to someone of the opposite sex for decades. I'm not personally involved--except that I, too, have a lot of gay and lesbian friends. Our church conducts blessing ceremonies for couples who want to marry, but we can't provide the legal responsibilities and benefits that a civil marriage license confers.
"ZCR, Nobody's forcing you to marry someone of your own sex. Why should you decide for other people?"
Somebody else who clearly lacks basic reading comprehension.
What made you think I had the ability or right to decide this myself? Hence my clear call for a referendum like dozens of other states. And clearly, when put to the most democratic of measures and tests, support for gay marriage is a loser every time.
It would be the same in Iowa, no doubt. It even failed in California, remember?
Marriage is the most basic of social contracts. Let the people decide as one.
A referendum does not have the authority to undermine someone else's rights - if a referendum in your state passed to ban the ownership of firearms, I simply doubt you would accept it. By stating that certain people cannot marry some other person, you are restricting their right to enjoin in a consensual contract. All the reasons to deny homosexuals this right boils down to 'We don't wanna'.
If we held racial discrimination to referendums in the 60's, there would still be separate facilities for different races. There is no particular reason to prohibit this social contract from them. Prop 8 was a bad referendum, because it did remove that right from people, just as a referendum denying you your faith would be equally bad.
If you get a vote on whether I'm allowed to marry, I get a vote on whether you're allowed to reproduce.
My vote is "no."
But, sadly, I lack such a right to control your existence. Fortunately for the species, however, there are at this time no human vagina owners interested in offering you an opportunity to fulfill that ambition.
Post a Comment