Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Gay marriage now legal in Iowa

  1. Apr 3, 2009 #1
    The http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/10218/the-iowa-supreme-court-decision [Broken] has just unanimously ruled that the equal protection clause of the state constitution requires marriage equality for same-sex couples. As of April 24 when the ruling takes effect, Iowa will join Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only U.S. states where same-sex marriage is currently considered legal.

    This happened just one day after the Vermont state legislature approved a measure that would legalize same-sex marriage there without any judicial prompting (the bill is not law yet, and the Republican governor has pledged to veto, but this may not matter as the bill passed with a veto-proof majority in the Senate and just three or four votes shy of a veto-proof majority in the House); and two days after the Parliament of Sweden passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage there.

    I am happy with how this month is going so far :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 3, 2009 #2

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    quote from wiki
     
  4. Apr 3, 2009 #3
    sign0072.gif

    Eh, close enough.
     
  5. Apr 3, 2009 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So I guess this means that Iowans can expect a dramatic decrease in gay sex.
     
  6. Apr 3, 2009 #5

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No. Once they are married, the frequency and quality of sex will fall off, based on who forgot to do the laundry or neglected to put the cap back on the toothpaste.
     
  7. Apr 3, 2009 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Gotcha! I said "decrease". :biggrin:
     
  8. Apr 3, 2009 #7

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Oops, I missed the humor.
     
  9. Apr 3, 2009 #8

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm especially glad to see states beyond New England supporting gay rights. It sets an even stronger precedent to show it's not just a regional trend, but simply the right thing to do nationally.
     
  10. Apr 4, 2009 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm sure Ben Franklin would agree.
     
  11. Apr 4, 2009 #10
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage [Broken]
    This pisses me off. I'm not gay, so I'd better be able to decide where I get to marry someday! They better be careful how they word their law on this.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  12. Apr 4, 2009 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.time.com/time/2003/franklin/bffranklin7.html [Broken]

    And he liked his women.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=H1...=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#PPA68,M1

    Jefferson, on the other hand, produced children with his slave, Sally Hemings.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  13. Apr 4, 2009 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/12/INGTTM5DU41.DTL
     
  14. Apr 4, 2009 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There is nothing new under the sun. Don't live with your head in the clouds.
     
  15. Apr 4, 2009 #14
    Looks like Europe http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6200005.stm" [Broken]when it comes to debating these sorts of issues in a rational way.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  16. Apr 4, 2009 #15

    Hootenanny

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why not?

    In any case, such a statement would not have been tolerated if it where made about any other group of people. For example, if someone where to make a similar comment regarding interracial marriages, there would have been an outcry. Equally, if someone had compared interracial sex to bestiality would you have been so quick to jump to their defence?
     
  17. Apr 4, 2009 #16

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This thread is going way off-topic. The issue under consideration is if gay couples can receive legal recognition of their relationships and qualify for things some married people seem to take for granted. Little things like joint-ownership of property, the ability to have belongings, real estate, and financial accounts roll seamlessly to the survivor instead of having to endure probate and will-challenges from disaffected relatives, and the ability to enjoy benefits normally extended to spouses, like family health insurance coverage, more favorable taxation rates, etc.

    The arguments against gay marriage often take the form of "where will this lead?" and "what will happen to our society?" Let's see... fairness and equity for people in same-sex relationships, abolition of legal penalties (restricted rights, restricted access to legal protections) against people in same-sex relationships... I could go on, but you get the point. The world is not going to cease to exist if gay people get the same rights that the rest of us take for granted. At worst, some moral absolutists will have to seek treatment for depression after their attempts to derail a long-overdue recognition of the value of the lives of homosexuals fail to overturn the court's decision.
     
  18. Apr 4, 2009 #17
    Or, they could ask for asylum in Saudi Arabia...
     
  19. Apr 4, 2009 #18
    Woo, good!
     
  20. Apr 4, 2009 #19

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :rofl:
     
  21. Apr 4, 2009 #20
    Your point being...? The whole issue here is that some people feel gay marriage is immoral... Apparently by today's standards its not so outlandish to speak out against it. Similarly, some people still feel interracial marriage is wrong. Are their opinions correct? Neither yes or no, an opinion is an opinion. Does the vast majority always agree with someones opinion? No. Are opinions always moral/reasonable/sensible? No. They are opinions nonetheless.

    I was not standing up for what D said to clear things up (because apparently there is some misunderstanding). I was respecting his right to an opinion as opposed to (What I felt was blindly) bashing him like some people did. Were his words very very harsh look back, yes they were.

    To Cristo-

    "Of course, that might be just my liberal [sic] part of the world."
    - good use of unnecessary non-liberal bashing.

    "Regardless, as I said above, the argument is pretty moot, since gay sex is not the issue being discussed here! "

    -I still dont understand your logic of thinking the statement didnt apply at all to the argument. Its NOT about specifics, its about where we draw the line between immoral and moral...
     
  22. Apr 4, 2009 #21

    Turbo, thank you for the breathe of fresh air :smile:. All good points.
     
  23. Apr 4, 2009 #22

    siddharth

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Um... no. Not all opinions have equal value.

    Some are based on logical reasoning and rationality, and some are based on flawed reasoning, which are clearly incorrect.
     
  24. Apr 4, 2009 #23

    Hootenanny

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    My point exactly. Well said siddharth! :approve:
     
  25. Apr 4, 2009 #24

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Having a public recognition of one's own "significant others" do have implications beyond merely economic concerns.

    To take one example:

    At the heights of the AIDS epidemic, the rational hospital rules restricting patient access primarily to spouse and family members had a particularly tragic side-effect in that a longtime companion were denied access to their dying lover. Because he could not be considered a "spouse" to the dying man, or that the previously estranged family of the victim did not want him to be there.

    Now, as I said, I do think the hospital rules concerning patient access is basically sound.

    Thus, I would not like to see the rules gone, and with officially recognized partners, the scenario sketched above will not occur to the extent that it did before.
     
  26. Apr 4, 2009 #25
    Im not out to start a fire-storm here, but im gonna have to disagree with that statement because everyone defines logic as well as rationality different... What might seem logical and rational to you might be pure gibberish to someone else... You cant just say that something is not logical when it comes to a matter of pure opinion such as this.

    If something is a set in stone fact, then yes, there can be a wrong opinion or belief about it, but for open ended things like this, the same can not be said....

    flawed reasoning?? Err you reason based on your personal rationality and personal logic when it comes to matters that dont contain fact and are OPINION based... So something could be perfectly reasonable to someone that isnt reasonable to another.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook