http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/2...2/NEWS/90402007

 

Iowa has no residency requirements for marriage licenses, so we might see an influx. I would not be totally surprised to see it legalized here. Mildly, but not total surprise.

If this passes, it'll just open up the slippery slope to people marrying corn.

If this passes, it'll just open up the slippery slope to people marrying corn.

Or even worse, Heads22.

So we could see one day gay marriage legal in Iowa, but not California.

So we could see one day gay marriage legal in Iowa, but not California.

I'm stoked. I really hope it passes. Way to go Iowa!

If this passes, it'll just open up the slippery slope to people marrying corn.

 

yeah since Iowans obviously love corn in sexual ways....

Edited April 3, 200917 yr by WilliamTell

I feel differently about this at the state level than I do the federal level. The feds have NO business WHATSOEVER trying to push legislation to either allow or ban this, but as far as individual states go, it's their prerogative. So if Iowa's SC bans it, I'll be disappointed, but they have every right to do it if they wanted.

 

The only question I'm leaving here is what tax rate the feds would use for a legally married same-sex couple because I don't know.

Edited April 3, 200917 yr by lostfan

yeah since Iowans obviously love corn in sexual ways....

Balta forgot the green. He was poking fun at certain social conservatives who try to argue against gay marriage using a bizarre slippery slope argument.

 

 

It's now legal.

It's now legal.

I like Iowans.

 

So now are they gonna go the route California did and push for an amendment to ban it? God that would be annoying.

Balta forgot the green. He was poking fun at certain social conservatives who try to argue against gay marriage using a bizarre slippery slope argument.

 

Or the left wingers who use the same arguements against banning any abortion procedures...

Or the left wingers who use the same arguements against banning any abortion procedures...

I don't know what that has to do with the topic, but, OK sure. I was just trying to explain Balta's post, as it seemed to confuse WilliamTell.

 

It's now legal.

boo!

boo!

And this affects you how?

And this affects you how?

The same way it affects you and me, I guess.

And this affects you how?

little to none, but I disagree with it.

little to none, but I disagree with it.

Well I'm glad the SC of Iowa disagrees with you.

I'm sorry I make fun of you all the time Iowa. I will refrain for at least a week.

little to none, but I disagree with it.

 

you're right, not all americans deserve the same equality. some americans are just more special than others.

 

 

i'm so proud to be from Iowa right now.

Well said:

 

When you take a step back and look at the basic legal argument behind these cases, the correct answer is remarkably clear. So clear, in fact, that I'm quite certain that future generations of lawyers and law students will look at these cases and wonder why it took so long for the courts to reach such an obvious conclusion, particularly in light of the extensive (and directly analogous) case law dealing with miscegenation laws and segregation. Once you accept the premise that there is nothing wrong with being gay (a premise which, I think, the vast majority of people--especially educated people like judges--accept), it becomes nearly impossible to make a principled legal argument in defense of laws that prohibit gay people from being married. It's just such an obvious and straightforward violation of equal protection.

Nice work Iowa SC.

 

 

boo!

I am overwhelmed by the staggering profundity of your artfully crafted retort.

 

little to none, but I disagree with it.

 

Wow, i agree with you on something...