Iowa Celebrates 3 Years of Gay Marriage Rights

[leigh.bess.toad]

Iowa just passed the 3 year anniversary of their Supreme Court decision allowing equal marriage. A news report on a local TV station shared one story:

 

[video=youtube;QRpwIRwHjH4]

[bigvalboy]

Nice video LBT...and a cute couple also. Who would have thunk it, right there in America's Heartland. Kind of keeps hope alive. BTW...hope you and your partner are well. Great meeting you at last in PS...

[KMEM]

I am not a proponent of gay marriage but very much in favor of civil unions between gay folks. Some view this as a matter of semantics but my opinion is my opinion.

 

However, this video was sweet and something I enjoyed seeing. Thanks for posting it.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[leigh.bess.toad]

I am not a proponent of gay marriage but very much in favor of civil unions between gay folks. Some view this as a matter of semantics but my opinion is my opinion.

 

And you are certainly entitled to your opinion And I don't want to turn this into a political discussion, but why should I have to settle for something less than full equal treatment? Marriage is a civil institution and I don't think I should have to settle for a separate but not equal status. As an American citizen, I deserve no less. To me, a civil union is still 2nd class citizenship. Just my opinion.

[KMEM]

Does that mean you think that everyone who was joined together in a civil ceremony is "enjoying" second class citizenship? My point is that I consider marriage as a religious ceremony although that might change with time and effort. Again, is it semantics? The "real" inequality is in the federal treatment of "some" who are joined together through a civil ceremony. I am afraid that is perhaps a constitutional issue partly because the feds do not have "control" of either marriage or civil unions and I happen to agree that they should not. However, it does lead to "problems" such as income tax rules, etc.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[Rick Munroe]

To me, a civil union is still 2nd class citizenship. Just my opinion.

 

it's not just your opinion. It's a fact. Without those 1,138 federal marriage rights, we are just second class citizens.

 

List of federal marriage rights

[KMEM]

Perhaps it is the "other" way around and most of those federal "marriage rights" shouldn't exist for any group.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[leigh.bess.toad]

Perhaps it is the "other" way around and most of those federal "marriage rights" shouldn't exist for any group.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

 

Good luck telling middle America that they will lose their SS survivor's benefits. That'll go over real well.

 

KMEM, to me, marriage is a civil institution. You don't go to a church to get a marriage license. If it was a religious institution, heterosexual atheists would be denied the right to marry. And you sure wouldn't be able to have an Elvis impersonator marry you at a drive up wedding chapel. How religious is that?

 

But even if it were, denying the right to marry to gays impinges on the religious freedom of those faiths that do want to marry members of the GLBT community. There are many that do: United Church of Christ, Unitarians, Episcopalians, Quakers, Reformed Judaism, and of course the MCC among others. Denying them the right to fully exercise the tenets of their religious faiths is, to me, a clear violation of 1st amendment's guarantee for the free exercise of their religion.

 

Civil unions are the "separate but equal" water fountains of the 50's. Hey, it's the same water. What's the difference? Either we are equal citizens of this country or we aren't. Binary choice. Yes or no.

[KMEM]

Unfortunately, we may indeed be faced with some of those choices in the near future (losing so called survivor's "benefits"). I think I said in the beginning that some of what I wrote was semantics and that seems to be most of what you are arguing or proposing. I think heterosexual atheists and Elvis impersator ceremonies ARE civil unions, not marriages. Those faiths that allow gay marriages might be on the right track but I wonder about their biblical right to do so, not their moral or legal right.

 

We seem to have a difference of opinion and there is nothing wrong with that as far as I know. I am all for promoting "goodness" among humanity but there does seem to be "rules".

 

Thanks for your post.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[rguer]

Good luck telling middle America that they will lose their SS survivor's benefits. That'll go over real well.

 

Perhaps he meant that SS shouldn't be tied to current or previous marital status. Ditto for income taxes - perhaps they should be tied only to having dependents, and not to the relationship between the taxpayer and the dependent.

 

But even if it were, denying the right to marry to gays impinges on the religious freedom of those faiths that do want to marry members of the GLBT community. There are many that do: United Church of Christ, Unitarians, Episcopalians, Quakers, Reformed Judaism, and of course the MCC among others. Denying them the right to fully exercise the tenets of their religious faiths is, to me, a clear violation of 1st amendment's guarantee for the free exercise of their religion.

 

No one is saying those churchrs can't perform religious marriages. But why should churches have any right to say what is or is not a legal marriage?

 

Civil unions are the "separate but equal" water fountains of the 50's. Hey, it's the same water. What's the difference? Either we are equal citizens of this country or we aren't. Binary choice. Yes or no.

 

Agreed. But I don't think the way to create equality is to give more power to religious institutions, either directly or indirectly. If it were up to be, churches would not be exempt from property taxes.

[KMEM]

Sorry that jackster and others feel this way. However, one of the precepts of the US constitution was separation of church and state. Therefore the state has no right to interfere with the rights of the church and vice versa. How all this plays out will be a matter of interest to me and, I hope, others.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[operalover21]

Good for Iowa!

[gp0560]

Sorry that jackster and others feel this way. However, one of the precepts of the US constitution was separation of church and state. Therefore the state has no right to interfere with the rights of the church and vice versa. How all this plays out will be a matter of interest to me and, I hope, others.

 

As I see it, and I believe KMEM and I agree here, is that a Civil Union is the state's law that entitles a couple to their civil rights of survivor benefits, tax advantages, etc. A Religious Union is the church's invocation of God's blessing on a couple's union. (For our purposes, these definitions assume that the state and church in question are willing to create such unions for same-sex couples as well as for both-sex couples.)

 

To put it another way, all couples, heterosexual and homosexual, can (or should be allowed to) have Civil Unions. If they are believers in a spiritual being who grants formal blessing of their union, they should be able to ask for a Religious Union and the blessing as well.

 

Please note that I have avoided the word Marriage so far. I think that in our society the word Marriage muddies the distinction between the two types of union, one granted by the state, the other granted by God via the church. To use the word Marriage without qualifying which kind of union you mean just causes confusion. If you MEAN Civil Union but USE the word Marriage, then your audience is likely to think you are referring to the Religious Union, rather than to the Civil Union. Unfortunately, the state does not in the least help matters by calling the Civil Union document a "marriage license" and by granting the right to the clergy to create the Civil Union concurrently with the Religious Union.

 

Further, and I look to our European members to correct or support this, it is my impression that the difference between the two types of union is much clearer in Europe. In France, for example, the couple registers at the mayor's office (or wherever) and THEN heads off to the church for the religious ceremony and the ensuing festivities. In England, when Prince William and what's-her-name got married, they disappeared for a moment to sign the register before they recessed down the aisle. In the United States, you can be "married" by a justice of the peace, which gives the couple a Civil Union. All the excitement you see when a state grants "gay marriage" rights is the right to a Civil Union. Those happy couples do not necessarily all head off to a church for the Religious Union.

 

Finally, a divorce ends a Civil Union. Sometimes, but not always, a church recognizes the civil divorce as ending the Religious Union, too. I may not be up to date on this but I believe the Roman Catholic Church does not recognize civil divorce and uses annulment to end the Religious Union.

 

Please correct my understanding of the European situation and the Roman Catholic position if I have mis-stated them.

 

Your thoughts?

[KMEM]

There seemingly are a lot of semantic "miscues" strewn about in the variouis posts on this thread to include some by me. I notice when I said separation of church and state, although correct, what I meant was church and federal state. Obviously this is not only a complicated subject but also an emotional one. My intention was not to stir up emotions but simply to state part of my opinion.

 

Best regards,

KMEM