Post Reply
Page 3 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Iowa Supreme Court: Gay Marriage Ban UNCONSTITUTIONAL
6 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2009 - 7:36PM #21
JonAtFaithUCC
Posts: 294

Thanks for the kind words and happy thoughts everyone!  :)

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2009 - 10:24PM #22
REteach
Posts: 14,821

Apr 4, 2009 -- 9:29AM, JonAtFaithUCC wrote:


I don't know.  Maybe.  We're trying to figure out what to do.  We already did a religious wedding 12 years ago, back before the state honored our marriage.  We might just do a simple civil ceremony.  Then again, it might be nice to have the boys and the dogs and other family members involved in an updated church wedding.  If we do an updated church wedding, we still plan to have a civil ceremony/"justice of the peace"-type wedding to clarify that this court decision affected our ability to obtain a marriage license and obtain rights & responsibilities of marriage.  Does that make sense?




It makes perfect sense.  Kind of like how some adopted kids have two "birthdays".


 

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2009 - 12:51AM #23
mountain_man
Posts: 39,707

I was glad to hear about this today. I don't think that California Supreme Court will have the guts to come to the same conclusion, but we are working on that. I was at a rally about a month ago were there were about 30 people with signs. It's a very small town in a conservative area and I was suprised to see that many. What was even more surprising was that there were only about 5 or so gays and the rest of us were straight.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2009 - 11:09AM #24
REteach
Posts: 14,821

So, I got an email from a Catholic group with the bishop's statement.  I replied that I didn't think that lying in the name of Christ (re children being harmed) was a good thing and was challenged on it.  So, I responded thusly (Dar, hope you don't mind that I used you as an example!)



Jesus: ...verse">Matthew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.


 


Dignitatis Humanae; http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html


 


2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits… Moreover, as the truth is discovered, it is by a personal assent that men are to adhere to it.


On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life…. Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles… The protection and promotion of the inviolable rights of man ranks among the essential duties of government.(5) Therefore government is to assume the safeguard of the religious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by just laws and by other appropriate means…. Finally, government is to see to it that equality of citizens before the law, which is itself an element of the common good, is never violated, whether openly or covertly, for religious reasons. Nor is there to be discrimination among citizens.


 


Catechism Catholic Church


http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm


 


2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.


 


(I find it interesting that a group of 8th grade religious ed students could figure out that being called “objectively disordered” is not respectful, compassionate, or sensitive.” 


 


 


American Academy of Pediatrics http://www.aap.org/publiced/BR_GayParent.htm



        


Gay and Lesbian Parents


I am gay. Should I worry how this will affect my children?


Millions of children have one or more gay and/or lesbian parents. For some children, having a gay or lesbian parent is not a big deal. Others may find it hard to have a family that is different from most families. Being different in any way can be confusing, frustrating, and even scary. But what really matters is that children can talk to their parents about how they feel and that there is love and support in the family.


Studies have shown that children with gay and/or lesbian parents are ultimately just as happy with themselves and their own gender as are their friends with heterosexual parents. Children whose parents are homosexual show no difference in their choice of friends, activities, or interests compared to children whose parents are heterosexual. As adults, their career choices and lifestyles are similar to those of children raised by heterosexual parents.


Research comparing children raised by homosexual parents to children raised by heterosexual parents has found no developmental differences in intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, or peer popularity between them. Children raised by homosexual parents can and do have fulfilling relationships with their friends as well as romantic relationships later on.”


 


 


American Psychological Association http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html


 


Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.


 


US Council Catholic Bishops, “Always Our Children” http://www.usccb.org/laity/always.shtml


 


“A shocking number of homosexual youth end up on the streets because of rejection by their families. This, and other external pressures, can place young people at a greater risk for self-destructive behaviors like substance abuse and suicide.”


 


 


 


Summary:


Jesus said to treat others as we wish to be treated.  The RCC is not treating those who are gay as heterosexuals would wish to be treated.


 


The RCC in Dignitatis Humanae says that people should be allowed to practice their religion and that the State should not interfere with that right.  Other religions, such as United Church of Christ, are happy to perform same-sex marriage.  So the RCC is violating its teaching in Dignitatis Humanae—which represents the highest level of teaching outside ex cathedra statements.


 


The Catechism says that gays should be treated with respect, compassion, sensitivity and without unjust discrimination, and goes on to violate its own teachings.


 


Finally, research shows that children are not harmed by having gay parents.  One of the 10 Commandments is against bearing false witness.  When the RCC lies by claiming harm where there is demonstrably no harm, it is violating not only its own teachings, but one of the 10 Commandments, and the second half of the Great Commandment, to love our neighbors as ourselves as well. 


 


How many on this mailing list are gay? Have a gay brother or sister, mom or dad, son or daughter?  Good friends or acquaintances? How many have seen their loved one struggle against institutionalized hatred and found this statement from the RCC to be a further slap in the face?


 


 


For those who need a more personalized understanding, here is something from a lesbian mother whose son was the victim of homophobia at school, at the hands of a “Christian” kid who believed everything the RCC is teaching.  BTW, this woman was also beaten up by some Christian guys in front of her kids for being gay. A before and after:


“Here is rational.  I have a meeting with my son's teacher this evening about handling homophobia.  We are going to have a talk.


 


Something about being the son of a F765!inG!! dyke.  The kid is the son of yet another straight, white, christian, divorced, angry, ignorant, parent of a bully. 


 


I will fill you in later after I meet this person who taught this child to hate. In real life….


 


The parent was frothing at the mouth.  He ranted about the "gay agenda" and his son being exposed to "queer politics" and on and on, my son is only 12 and all he said was, " gay folk are people too and my mom is gay."   For which he got a sound beating, had a book ripped apart and had his lunch tossed on the floor.  Never mind the names he was called... this parent did not sit down nor did he address me directly. Anyway, after a full hour of ranting with me barely getting a word in, he said he was going  to take his kid to another school.  There are only 43 days left to this  school year, irrational? you betcha!  But he is apparently threatened by a 60 lb son of a lesbian trying to make it to 7th grade.  My orientation was accepted by 4 out of 5, I was heard and talked a little about fear and ignorance, they got it.  The 5th so out there I could have been purple and he would have hated me. I shudder to think what he would have done if I was a man!   I was afraid and asked security to walk me out.


 


Do straight parents have their partners afraid for their lives over a conference?   Mine was flat out worried I was going to get hurt.  I invited her along yet she was also concerned, if someone hates white gays what will they do to an asian one?  I assured her I had my cell phone and was experienced in dealing with irrational fear and ignorance and know how to fall, even brought my cane... this for a bully intervention conference. 


 


And some are worried about marriage?   Something about love and commitment and joy ?


 


I have harder things to worry about.    Need I be more specific?  Where is the love?


 


  Do ya think I might be a little jumpy?  You want rational? Be rational!


 


My son took it all in stride saying he preferred being beat up by girls.   He is the kid that does not get chosen to be on any team except chess.   My ambassador for peace in the face of madness.”


 


 


THIS is the result.  You really want to support this? 


 


I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2009 - 11:50AM #25
Sirronrex
Posts: 2,675

Apr 5, 2009 -- 12:51AM, mountain_man wrote:

I don't think that California Supreme Court will have the guts to come to the same conclusion, but we are working on that. I was at a rally about a month ago were there were about 30 people with signs. It's a very small town in a conservative area and I was suprised to see that many. What was even more surprising was that there were only about 5 or so gays and the rest of us were straight.




 


I believe everything happens for a reason.


 


I'm beginning to believe that Prop 8 needed to be passed in California, and the courts to uphold it as constitutional.


I think it will be a much greater statement to the people of California, the US, and the world when the repeal of Prop 8 is passed by a much, much, much, much, much larger majority than that measly little 52% Prop 8 had.


The number of people I've seen in interviews or read about in letters to the editor, etc where they feel betrayed by the media and by the "Christian reich" for the lies they were told in all of the media and advertising blitz paid for by Christian bigots in the Catholic and Mormon churches is phenomenal. I've no doubt whatseover that the repeal of Prop 8 will be on the next ballot and will be passed by a significantly larger majority than that which passed Prop 8.


I believe the gay community was taken by surprise in CA. I believe they were somewhat laid back in their "defense" to Prop 8. I believe they were unprepared for the onslaught of money the bigots were able to focus in CA. I mean, the bigots really had nothing else going for them this election cycle. All of their ideas have been bankrupt over the past 8 years. They had nowhere else to focus their hate except in Prop 8. I believe many people in this country, especially gay people, never thought something like this could happen in "liberal" California.


I firmly believe that the lessons taught...but more importantly, the lessons learned...from the passage of Prop 8 was needed to give a new jolt to the gay community and it's supporters and that the revived spirit that has clearly come from the passage of Prop 8 is what is needed to push this civil rights movement into full gear once again.

I've been on a journey to nowhere...
and know that's the best place to be...
now...here...




If my faith isn't leading me inward, then my faith is leading me astray.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2009 - 4:08PM #26
Merope
Posts: 10,206

Apr 5, 2009 -- 12:51AM, mountain_man wrote:

I was glad to hear about this today. I don't think that California Supreme Court will have the guts to come to the same conclusion, but we are working on that. I was at a rally about a month ago were there were about 30 people with signs. It's a very small town in a conservative area and I was suprised to see that many. What was even more surprising was that there were only about 5 or so gays and the rest of us were straight.



Well, the California state supreme court absolutely had the guts to come to the same conclusion.  That's why the Iowa court relied so heavily on the California state supreme court's opinion.  The difference is that the California court decision was subsequently overridden by a popular vote on a state constitutional amendment limiting the legal definition of marriage to that between one man and one woman. 


The issue before the California supreme court now is whether that constitutional amendment is valid -- that is, whether voters have the power to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman, a statutory restriction that the court ruled unconstitutional in May.


This situation is not likely to arise in Iowa (according to one commentator) because the Iowa state constitution -- unlike the California state constitution -- cannot be amended by initiative petition.  So Iowans would only vote on whether to override the Iowa state supreme court's decision if their legislature passed a repeal measure in two consecutive sessions.  Such a legislative repeal doesn't seem likely (at least, for now), since leaders of the Democratic majorities in both houses of the Iowa legislature have issued a joint statement praising the Iowa court decision.

Merope | Beliefnet Community Manager
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2009 - 6:04PM #27
mountain_man
Posts: 39,707

Apr 5, 2009 -- 4:08PM, Merope wrote:

...The issue before the California supreme court now is whether that constitutional amendment is valid -- that is, whether voters have the power to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman, a statutory restriction that the court ruled unconstitutional in May.



That's the problem, I don't think they have the guts to rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. I believe they absolutely should, but I don't have faith that they will. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2009 - 9:16PM #28
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,158

 


Prop 8 is constitutional by definition. A Constitutional amendment changes the constitution to conform to that amendment. Whether one is in favor of equal treatment under the law or opposes  gay marriage,Prop 8 should and probably will be upheld. Domestic partnership is still legal in CA.  In Iowa marriage is now legal for gays and lesbians.  Notice my phrasing Whether one is in favor of equal treatment under the law or opposes gay marriage, I see the ban on gay marriage as in opposition to equality .  However pop 8 is a constitutional change and to rule it unconstitutional  threatens the bill of rights and all amendments to a constitution

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2009 - 11:41PM #29
clyde5001
Posts: 3,501

So does that mean we could pass an amendment taking away the right to vote for black people?

Shema Y'Israel Adnai Eloheinu, Adonei Echad.

Am Y'Israel Chai!

23,298 posts as of 2/27/2009

3,208 after the transition.

A 20,090 difference.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2009 - 11:56PM #30
JoeRoyce
Posts: 75


 


Prop 8 is constitutional by definition. A Constitutional amendment changes the constitution to conform to that amendment. Whether one is in favor of equal treatment under the law or opposes  gay marriage,Prop 8 should and probably will be upheld. Domestic partnership is still legal in CA.  In Iowa marriage is now legal for gays and lesbians.  Notice my phrasing Whether one is in favor of equal treatment under the law or opposes gay marriage, I see the ban on gay marriage as in opposition to equality .  However pop 8 is a constitutional change and to rule it unconstitutional  threatens the bill of rights and all amendments to a constitution




 


The legal question is whether it is functionally an amendment or a revision.  I don't know the difference specifically, but a revision is more of a change and requires more than a proposition to enact.  The argument has been made that this change was large enough to classify as a revision and so is invalid because it could not be enacted through a proposition.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook