Why GAY people should not Marry

[Romper]

Well I don't feel like reading x amount of pages about gay rights. I will say this give em whatever they want it wont effect any of us.

I can make a damn good prediction of how both sides will make their argument.

Side that is opposed to Same sex marriage (yes Dante Same sex marriage and homosexual marriage are the same thing): When Utah wanted to become a state when the U.S. railways were starting to connect coast to coast Mormons was (and still is) the dominant religion in the Utah territory. So Utah applied for statehood what the US govt said was this: "You guys can become a state we're all for that, but there is one thing you need to do. WE (as in the United States) feel that polygamy is a threat to our way of life and goes against our culture of monogamy. So what we want you to do is stop practicing polygamy. We're not saying that you can't believe in polygamy we just don't want you practicing it". Of course we should all know what happened right?

Now fast forward to I think 1967 Virginia and I think 15 other states made statutes that said inter-racial sex was detrimental to southern culture. Now there is a couple a black male and a white female that wish to be married. They are both residents of Virginia go to get a marriage license and they get turned down. Now this couple takes the case to the supreme court. What happens is Virginia uses the precedent of Utah trying to become a state of how inter-racial marriage is detrimental to the culture of the south.

The Supreme Court said this way back when "No it's not something that is detrimental to the culture to the south. Inter-racial marriage has always been around even if it has been between a black man/white woman, white man/black woman, and <insert slews of other racial combos>. You may not like it, but it is some thing you will have to put up with". This is what the people for Gay marriage/Civil Union they will more than likely use this precedent, but it is one of the cases that waves a big flag in my mind of what would win the gay rights side.

Now I have a feeling that the next president democratic or republican should be putting up to 3 judges in the supreme court because there should be some retirement from the court soon. I believe it will go to a 5-4 vote which way I would hope for seeing as though it is discrimination to not allow a certain group of people not to marry.

Someone, I believe Makelith brought up Brown vs The Board of Education, I would like to clear something up. Initially the supreme court was going to rule in favor of the Board, but one of the judges kicked the bucket. So Eisenhower placed Earl Warren who was normally all for separate but equal. Earl Warren though convinced all the judges to vote for Brown. How I can't remember I think he said something of how we're frowned down upon by the world because we say follow what we do and act like us because we set forth freedom standards. Yet we were hypocrites because we still didn't give everyone all their rights. Then the separate but equal clause was thrown out blah blah blah. This will all aid the gay rights stuff because there is more precedent of supporting change than trying to go back to old customs.

 

[Halifirien]

Speaking of marriage equality, a judge in Iowa struck down the law against it. Again, as in just about every case where this goes to trial, the judge ruled that "gays are icky" isn't an actual reason to prevent them from getting hitched.

Citing precedent in his decision, Judge Hanson's first task was to determine whether the statute "excluding all but different-sex couples from being able to enter into a civil marriage" serves a "legitimate governmental interest."

The defense presented five interests which they argued were "legitimate governmental interests" served by the current statute.* Hanson's decision rejected the fifth interest presented, which was "promoting the concept of fundamental marriage or the integrity of traditional marriage."

Citing Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 decision handed down by the US Supreme Court (based* on "its own case law," not Iowa's), Hanson noted that "neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack."* Preserving tradition for tradition's sake, therefore, is not a legitimate governmental interest.

Using US Supreme Court case law is justified, Hanson explained, "Because the due process and equal protection clauses of the Iowa Constitution are at least coextensive with those found in the United States Constitution."

 

[Jojojo]

Based on Halifirien's quote, I have a feeling that, right or wrong, anti-gay-rights activists are gonna lose.

 

[Jojojo]

I just got e-mailed by my sister, apparently as of this morning, same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa, where I live, woo-hoo!

By Monday at least 20 couples will be legally married. I'm very pleased.

And in Iowa, of all places!