Is this heaven? No, it's Iowa!

[Theben]

Every time MrFun posts about Iowa I think of this song.

[flash9286]

Unfortunately, in the long run this is probably going to harm the move toward equal rights for homosexuals.

[MrFun]

Every time MrFun posts about Iowa I think of this song.

I'm shocked that you think so highly of me and my home state.

[Zkribbler]

Iowa? Do we really want to see two fat mustachioed pig farmers get married?

I have nothing against fat mustachioed pig farmers...except they're fat...and mustachioed...and pig farmers. But if they want to get married, who am I to say they can't. Zkribbler stands foursquare in favor of love.

And if someone comes along,
Who's going to give you love and affection,
I say get it while you can.
Get it while you can.
Get it while you can.
Don't you turn your back on love!

[Ben Kenobi]

Unfortunately, in the long run this is probably going to harm the move toward equal rights for homosexuals.

Yep, it's the same here. Folks are just tired of the bull****.

You need to take a page out of Dr. King and realise you can't legislate love. Did he not say, the Law cannot make the white man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me? You've got equal rights already.

[Zkribbler]

They're not trying to legislate love. They just want the same rights as everyone else.

[Asher]

Actually, people like Ben are trying to legislate love.

He just is too stupid to ever comprehend that.

[flash9286]

Yep, it's the same here. Folks are just tired of the bull****.

You need to take a page out of Dr. King and realise you can't legislate love. Did he not say, the Law cannot make the white man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me? You've got equal rights already.

My point was that is better for the legislature to tackles these issues instead of the courts. Without knowing the specifics how accepting Iowa is to homosexuals, if there is enough backlash to pass an amendment banning gay marriage then it is going to worse for homosexuals rights.

[MrFun]

You've got equal rights already.

No, we don't. Gays do not have equal employment protection on the federal level. Marriage between two gay men or two lesbians is not legally recognized on the federal level.

[MrFun]

My point was that is better for the legislature to tackles these issues instead of the courts. Without knowing the specifics how accepting Iowa is to homosexuals, if there is enough backlash to pass an amendment banning gay marriage then it is going to worse for homosexuals rights.

Did you notice in my OP that I already expressed concern about a possible backlash? But we cannot deny the courts' role in protecting rights of minorities from tyranny of majority.

[flash9286]

Did you notice in my OP that I already expressed concern about a possible backlash? But we cannot deny the courts' role in protecting rights of minorities from tyranny of majority.

The court's role is (or should be) to protect enumerated rights. And yes I know the Iowa Constitution has a equal protection/privileges and immunities clause but a textual reading of that clause would produce ludicrous results and I'm pretty sure the intent behind the clause was not to protect homosexuals.

Again I'm in favor of homosexual rights but in the long run I think it would be better if the legislatures act on the matter instead of the courts.

[Theben]

I'm shocked that you think so highly of me and my home state.

I never said I thought highly of either.

[Ben Kenobi]

My point was that is better for the legislature to tackles these issues instead of the courts. Without knowing the specifics how accepting Iowa is to homosexuals, if there is enough backlash to pass an amendment banning gay marriage then it is going to worse for homosexuals rights.

Yep, you are quite sensible about it. I'm sure they have one in the works, and this will just spur it on even more.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, we don't. Gays do not have equal employment protection on the federal level. Marriage between two gay men or two lesbians is not legally recognized on the federal level.

You mean I'm not allowed to fire someone for being gay? Damn, that sucks. Hmm. I guess 'lacks professional attitude' will fit.

I don't see why employers should be required to pay domestic partner benefits. If they want to, great, but it shouldn't be required. If an employer wants to give gay people benefits, then they should be able to go right ahead and do so.

[ColdWizard]

If it weren't for the people living in Iowa, the world would not have pork and corn!!!!!

How dare you leave out the soybeans!? You're not a real Iowan.