Iowa takes a giant step forward for civil rights; makes Oregon look bad
In a unanimous ruling, the Iowa Supreme Court has held that marriage is not limited to "a man and a woman":
The decision makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages. Lawyers for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group that financed the court battle and represented the couples, had hoped to use a court victory to demonstrate acceptance of same-sex marriage in heartland America.The Iowa Supreme Court’s Web site was deluged with more than 350,000 visitors this morning, in anticipation of the ruling, a Judicial Branch spokesman said this morning.
Steve Davis, a court spokesman, said administrators added extra computer servers to handle the expected increase in Web traffic. But “this is unprecedented,” Davis said.
Richard Socarides, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay civil rights, said today’s decision could set the stage for other states. Socarides was was a senior political assistant for Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin in the early 1990s.
“I think it’s significant because Iowa is considered a Midwest sate in the mainstream of American thought,” Socarides said. “Unlike states on the coasts, there’s nothing more American than Iowa. As they say during the presidential caucuses, 'As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.’”
The issue will inevitably end up with the Iowa Legislature, but that could take some time. Changing the law would require approval in consecutive legislative sessions and then a public vote. That means it can't be overturned until 2012, at the earliest.
A comprehensive local blog take can be found at Iowa Independent.
For Oregon, this issue has not brought out the best in us. In 2004, our state voted to ban gay marriage, changing our state constitution to actually discriminate against a group of citizens. Certainly not our finest hour.
|
April 3, 2009 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (72 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Douglas K. | Apr 3, 2009 9:03:49 AM
No, 2004 certainly was not Oregon's finest hour.
When is somebody going to send out a petition to put a repeal measure on the ballot? I want a chance to vote on this again. See if this state can get it right next time.
Posted by: Steve | Apr 3, 2009 9:05:07 AM
The books aren't closed on Iowa yet. This was the unaccountable judiciary speaking - NOT the people.
Posted by: Torridjoe | Apr 3, 2009 9:14:18 AM
After three years of sin without the deluge coming to Gary and Bloomington, I think opponents will have a tough time selling their bigotry.
Posted by: Billy Car Ma | Apr 3, 2009 9:23:49 AM
tj, did I miss the memo about the Indiana/Iowa merger? It's to fight Illini fascism, right? Wait, Hoosiers are worst fascists. Hawkeyes and huskers are like neither.
Point taken Steve. If we want to take the judgements of the Fed. 9th Circuit Court to mean "people on the West coast", those west coasters would have done some pretty rigteous things!
Posted by: Chuck Anziulewicz | Apr 3, 2009 9:36:22 AM
It is not the courts' job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That's what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of "equality," and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not "activism" on the part of judges to declare that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.
Posted by: Marshall Collins | Apr 3, 2009 9:46:04 AM
Yay Iowa! This is a very happy day for all who support marriage equality.
I don't think it makes Oregon look bad. In fact I think that every state that wins a battle in the fight for equality further boosts our chances of having it in our state.
Oregon started fighting for these things a really long time ago and things came to a fairly big head in a fairly bad year for progressives as a whole. It's tough trying to be all trailblazing and stuff sometimes and I think that while it really really hurt; our "failure" at the time helped secure the victories that we are seeing today all over the country.
Remember this isn't a sprint, it's a marathon and state by state we will see this through to the end/beginning.
Posted by: Bill McDonald | Apr 3, 2009 10:25:39 AM
Gay marriage is a legal no-brainer based on equal protection. If 2 people want to marry someone and one can't because of gender, it is a violation of the Constitution. Think of it as a job interview - you can't discriminate based on sex. And don't tell me marriage isn't real work.
Posted by: Leo Schuman | Apr 3, 2009 10:31:18 AM
Steve wrote "The books aren't closed on Iowa yet. This was the unaccountable judiciary speaking - NOT the people."
The mere fact that you believe my fundamental equality as an American citizen should be subject to your vote, Steve, tells me a great deal about you as a person.
America's founding document stands for equal protection under our laws. Not ballot-mob tyranny. I am sorry this simple truth escapes you.
Posted by: Torridjoe | Apr 3, 2009 10:50:02 AM
good god--Indiana? Wtf with me?
Iowa. Reminds me of David St Hubbins of Spinal Tap on the phone telling his girl about tour cancellations...including "De- Moinez." His lady, also being from England apparently asks where it is, because he says "I dunno, it's in Indiana somewhere."
Posted by: johnnie | Apr 3, 2009 11:22:39 AM
Equal protection, ok, but why did you say 2 people? Oregon has several threesomes living together and Utah has several manysomes. Equal protection isn't limited to say 2 people, but provided to all people.
Seems to me like the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Keep marriage to religious institutions where it came from. Govts got into the marriage business to ensure the proper distribution of property to heirs. To that end, before DNA testing, one was only sure who the person's mother was. A simple contract between parties should suffice all non-religious issues pertaining to marriage and provide a separation of Church and State.
Posted by: Bill McDonald | Apr 3, 2009 11:35:52 AM
Really? The old polygamy argument?
I don't think a society saying marriage is between two people discriminates. All had an equal opportunity to become married to the person so once someone has landed the job so to speak, the application process is closed.
As for the religious argument - that's a private matter. For example, if your religion said that marriage can only be between men, I would feel left out and discriminated against, because I love being married to my wife.
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 3, 2009 11:52:21 AM
Johnnie is right. The same Constitution which does NOT say that equal protection is limited to one man and one woman also does NOT say that equal protection is limited to just two people.
And it goes without saying that I strongly agree with his comment viz seperation of Church and State. That's been my position for many years now.
Posted by: jonnie | Apr 3, 2009 11:58:52 AM
Society saying a marriage is between solely to a man and a women or any two people is discrimination to polygamist secular or religious. What's the difference between man/woman or any two people? One discriminates "more"? The US Constitution doesn't state shades of discrimination.
Again, why only limit it to two? Because of "history" and "tradition"? Those are the same arguments the religious groups use.
I don't think feeling left out of "marriage" should be an argument for not separating Church and State issues. The reason for the government for getting into the marriage business in the first place isn't relevant anymore.
Posted by: Buckman Res | Apr 3, 2009 12:15:11 PM
”I don't think a society saying marriage is between two people discriminates.”
Very impressive, the old “it’s not discrimination if I say it’s not” argument. Amusing to watch so called progressives twist themselves into a pretzel justifying their own bigoted discrimination.
Sorry pal, saying marriage should be limited to two people is just as discriminatory as saying it should be limited to one man and one woman. You can put all the lipstick you want on your bigotry, it is still bigotry.
Marriage equality for all!
Posted by: Oregon Bill | Apr 3, 2009 12:48:19 PM
>Changing the law would require approval in consecutive legislative sessions and then a public vote. That means it can't be overturned until 2012, at the earliest.
A definite advantage of Iowa over Oregon.
Catholics and Mormons can't write their bogus religious prejudice into the state constitution as quickly and easily as they did here...
Posted by: Bill McDonald | Apr 3, 2009 1:12:27 PM
Buckman,
You wrote:
"Sorry pal, saying marriage should be limited to two people is just as discriminatory as saying it should be limited to one man and one woman."
I see why you didn't explain that because it doesn't follow - it doesn't make sense.
The second person in the marriage is not limited to anyone based on gender. The 3rd person in a marriage is ruled out for everyone equally.
Where's the discrimination? Don't just declare it. Bring the logic.
Just because you have a right to vote once, doesn't mean it's discrimination that you can't vote twice. States have the right to set limits as long as they're applied equally.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 3, 2009 1:31:06 PM
The difference between gay marriage and polygamy (or polyandry) is that there are compelling state interests at play in the latter. As the Iowa SC noted in their ruling, the plaintiffs provided ample evidence to show that gay parents raise kids just as well as straight ones, and no harm accrues to straight families when gays are allowed to get married.
The state has an interest in banning multiple spouses, in order to protect spousal rights. If you're sick, which ONE PERSON gets power of attorney over your medical decisions? If you die married to multiple partners but childless and without a will, probate law says everything goes to your spouse. So which one gets everything, and which gets nothing? How do three or more people file a "joint" tax return? How do they not get punished by only getting the standard deduction for a maximum of two workers? Etc.
And as Bill points out, NOBODY can marry more than one person of their choice. However, straight people can marry one person of their choice, while gay people may not.
Also on a practical level, at least in Oregon, much of the decision revolves around gays' status as a "suspect class." You can't have a suspect class made up of more than one person, and to have it refer to polygamists, each person would have to be a polygamist AS AN INDIVIDUAL, which is of course impossible. And of course marriage is not an inherited trait.
The "what about polygamy" canard is simply a dodge for bigots to avoid expressing what they truly feel--gays are icky, and letting them have the same license straights have, makes it seem OK to be that way.
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 3, 2009 2:10:51 PM
So, love sees no color and it sees no orientation but it is able to count to two but no further?
The "compelling state interests" all stem from the fact that the entire system has always been predicated upon an arbitrary definition. If the legal system can evolve to cope with monumental paradigm shifts in technology which have rendered many a seemingly *concrete* legal presumption moot, surely it can evolve to cope with plural marriage just as it's slowly evolving to cope with same-gender marriage.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 3, 2009 2:20:05 PM
"surely it can evolve to cope with plural marriage"
OK, hotshot--how does one evolve into giving 100% of something to more than one person? "Here, I have 10 dollars. You get all 10...and here, so do you!" That sounds more like faith-based thinking to me.
Posted by: billly | Apr 3, 2009 2:59:13 PM
Torridjoe: After three years of sin without the deluge coming to Gary and Bloomington, I think opponents will have a tough time selling their bigotry.
B So far, so good.
Torridjoe: The difference between gay marriage and polygamy (or polyandry) is that there are compelling state interests at play in the latter.
B Now his own "bigotry" rises, using the same arguments as the religious right.
I thought this guy was a progressive, yet he shows the same arguments as the religious right.
Posted by: Bill McDonald | Apr 3, 2009 3:01:25 PM
I see how you could argue that there's something arbitrary about limiting marriage to two people. But that's not an equal protection problem whereas limiting marriage based on gender is.
In other words, I could see society saying you could each have 4 votes for President, just as long as we all had 4 votes for President.
But I can't see a system under equal protection that says, "Straight people can have 1 vote for President but Gays are not allowed to vote."
And that's what we have now with marriage.
Posted by: meg | Apr 3, 2009 3:42:23 PM
THE GAY MAFIA IS NOW STAKING OUT TERRITORY IN AMERICA’S HEARTLAND. THE IOWA SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY OVERTURNED A BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE. ONCE AGAIN, THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE HAS ONCE AGAIN BEEN OVERTURNED BY THE STENCH FROM THE BENCH. WHAT IS STRANGE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR OUTRAGE IS THE LOCATION. IN THE PAST, THE PINK HAND HAS ALWAYS STRUCK WHERE IT WAS STRONGEST, IN PLACES LIKE CALIFORNIA, LIKE MASSACHUSETTS, AND NEW YORK. NOW THE GAY MAFIA IS MUSCLING IN TO THE MIDWEST.
IT LOOKS LIKE THIS MAY BE PART OF A LARGER STRATEGY. WHILE THE VOTERS OF IOWA WOULD NEVER VOTE IN GAY MARRIAGE, THE POLITICAL STRUCTURE IN A STATE LIKE IOWA IS MORE VULNERABLE TO THE ATTACK OF A VIRUS LIKE THE PINK HAND. THE COURTS AND OTHER POLITICAL STRUCTURES IN AMERICA’S HEARTLAND MAY NOT BE AS SOPHISTICATED AS THOSE IN THE BIG CITIES OR AT LEAST ARE NOT AS USED TO ATTACKS FROM THIS SORT OF ENEMY. THEY HAVE NOT YET DEVELOPED AN IMMUNITY TO THE DISEASE. SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE BULLS HAVE MOVED INTO THE AREAS WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE MOST EASILY COWED.
NOW THE GAY MAFIA CLAIMED BEFORE THE IOWA SUPREME COURT THAT THE BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE VIOLATED THE 14TH AMENDMENT’S GUARANTEE OF “EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.” BUT GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT EQUAL. IT IS DIFFERENT. IT IS UNNATURAL. AND REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY BLACK-ROBED MORONS SAY DIFFERENTLY, IT WILL NEVER BE NATURAL. AND THE PEOPLE OF IOWA AND THE MIDWEST, WILL NEVER LET IT BE SHOVED DOWN THEIR THROATS WITHOUT A FIGHT.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Apr 3, 2009 3:44:42 PM
Thanks, Meg! You definitely provide evidence as to why gay marriage will eventually be legal in every state.
Posted by: Buckman Res | Apr 3, 2009 4:05:31 PM
OK, hotshot--how does one evolve into giving 100% of something to more than one person?
You must have been absent from school the day they taught division in math class. You can divide 10 by 2, or 3, or any number.
The “compelling state interest” canard truly is a dodge for people who claim to be for marriage equality while wanting to exclude polyandrous marriages. Just one more form of bigotry.
Posted by: Torridjoe | Apr 3, 2009 4:07:29 PM
HEY MEG--DOES THE FACT THAT YOU'RE SHOUTING, MEAN THAT YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS SO UNBELIEVABLY STUPID THAT OTHERWISE NO ONE MIGHT READ IT?
Posted by: Stephan Andrew Brodhead | Apr 3, 2009 4:47:38 PM
Oh?
Posted by: MidwestInOregon | Apr 3, 2009 4:48:26 PM
Meg was being a bit obvious in several areas.
1) Under educated by use of all capitals (shouting)
2) Didn't read a single sentence of the legal brief (or it's much shorter summary) - extremely well put together piece describing the *REQUIRED* logic the justices had to use
3) Unanimous decision of 7 disparate people, in the midwest, on a controversial subject. Along with #2, it looks like they are actually effective justices rather than a kangaroo court.
4) Gay mafia? Does she not realize how silly that actually sounds? If only . . .
5) If the uh, pink hand, was as strong she states, why isn't marriage legal up and down the coasts already. Yep, first place I'm looking is Iowa... Gay rights are stronger on the coasts simply because the mainstream person actually *knows* several gay people (neighbors, baby sitters, cops, grocery store clerks).
6) Marriage is a civil contract between 2 people. If you want to go the "tradition" route, be careful... as you (evangelical christian, likely) are used to it, the tradition is barely a couple hundred years old. Want to go back to dowries? Contracting marriages when your kids are 3 years old? Marrying someone you've never met?
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 3, 2009 4:48:51 PM
But that's not an equal protection problem whereas limiting marriage based on gender is.
Why? Why is two somehow the magic number for equal protection and all other numbers don't qualify?
Historically the legal bans on polygamy and homosexuality in America spring from the same legal premise.
Posted by: Torridjoe | Apr 3, 2009 4:58:23 PM
Buckman, that's the whole point--you can't divide 10 by anything except ONE and still get 10. Only one spouse can possibly get all of an estate. Allowing multiple marriage would discriminate by law, because none of the spouses would be able to claim what is legally theirs?
I notice the power of attorney question is not so easy to spin--how can multiple spouses all have sole dexisionmaking power for an incapacitated spouse? If they disagree, who wins--and on what possible basis?
And don't confuse my points as to why polyamory is fundamentally different, with a position on polyamory. Personally speaking, I don't have a problem with it morally speaking. Forced multiple marriages involving children who cannot consent is another matter--but among consenting adults? Whatever fills your life, man.
Posted by: Marshall Collins | Apr 3, 2009 5:14:51 PM
Acutally Meg it's the Mauve Hand. We in the gay mafia prefer softer colors. It helps us move in and out of the shadows. Now if you will excuse me I have to go try on new hand gun holsters as the one I have now makes my ass look big.
Posted by: rlw | Apr 3, 2009 5:40:25 PM
Dearest Meg: I used to live in America's heartland. I got sick of the horrific, ceaseless wheezing of this heart's congestive failures viz the mercy, compassion and humanity functionalities.
Since I was the equivalent of a dangerous blood clot in that malfunctioning organ, I was certainly at times subject to aggressive efforts at sequester, dissolution, removal. As a kindness, I eventually left.
Meg: there is no mafia as you fantasy. Similarly, the outlandishly rich are not as evil and organized as the poor among us believe; the upper middle class not so callous on purpose; the Jews do not have a noisy fiscal cartel; even white men can't work together well enough in the end to get the job done if they truly wanted to keep everyone else down.
Meg, there is no gay mafia.
Posted by: rlw | Apr 3, 2009 5:49:15 PM
Steve, I think you mean the NON-accountable judiciary? Or "A judiciary not held accountable by and to the people to speak for the people"?
Just checking...
Posted by: pacnwjay | Apr 3, 2009 6:49:37 PM
The second person in the marriage is not limited to anyone based on gender. The 3rd person in a marriage is ruled out for everyone equally.
Exactly. Anyone who wants to promote polygamy is welcome to go change the marriage laws or find another basis for striking 1/1 marriage down, but the equal protection clause simply does not apply.
Those above who are intent on the polygamy argument should go ahead and start the ground work that gays/lesbians have been doing for decades. It's a slow, arduous process to advance civil rights. No one here is stopping you from working toward your goals.
But don't rain on our parade!
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 3, 2009 7:07:35 PM
All I'm seeing are bald-faced assertions that poly-marriage is somehow exempt from equal protection. And that in defiance of American legal history, as far as I can discern.
I'm not even a fan of poly-marriage. I think it's insane, personally. My ability to keep one spouse happy is checkered at best. I can't imagine the seeming futility of trying to keep more than one happy. But who am I to insist that everyone has to conform to my notions?
Posted by: Bill McDonald | Apr 3, 2009 7:53:44 PM
From a historical standpoint, there's always some aspect of any era that seems primitive when you look back from even 50 years out.
Just look at 1959 for example and I'm sure you'll find some shocking things that will have you scratching your head and wondering, "Why didn't they just correct this? How could they let this injustice slide?"
If we get another 50 years in America, people will look back at this great gay marriage debate and marvel that we ever were so wound up about it.
By then the idea that the gay couple who live down the block now have a marriage license from the state instead of just being the gay couple who live down the block - will not seem like a big deal to society.
But it is a big deal now. This is one part of our era where future generations will shake their heads and mumble, "How primitive they were then - way back in 2009."
Posted by: rlw | Apr 3, 2009 8:09:38 PM
Actually, when you consider the power of making such a stand geopolitically, think of how much more-powerful it is that it has happened in Iowa, given the conservative and fundagelical neighboring states. If this happens in Oregon, can't be too soon for me and mine. However, we are treated with a shrug and a knowing wink. Iowa is a culture-coup worth guarding and supporting.
Posted by: rlw | Apr 3, 2009 8:12:06 PM
And: may I ask why you people are even discussing poly in this thread? Might as well invite the conservative schmucks to start up about bestiality and kiddie recruitment.... it would be really nice if we managed to really keep the discussion tight and germane on this one. Do not even recreationally wander over into the non sequitur red herrings of those who oppose on bizarre terms... just a wan wish!
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Apr 3, 2009 8:22:16 PM
And: may I ask why you people are even discussing poly in this thread? Might as well invite the conservative schmucks to start up about bestiality and kiddie recruitment...
Ding!
Posted by: rlw | Apr 3, 2009 8:24:11 PM
Heh. Thank you Carla. I'm trying to keep it under control this time around.
Posted by: compatible partner | Apr 3, 2009 9:10:01 PM
For all of you who don't think there isn't a gay mafia - read this link -
http://blog.nj.com/njv_george_berkin/2009/04/post.html
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 4, 2009 6:29:18 AM
Admittedly, poly is at best a side issue to the topic. But, aside from the issue of informed consent, which neither animals nor children can grant, it strikes me as problematic to give conservatives that much power. Isn't that a big part of why the overwhelming majority of gays in America still don't have the right to marry in 2009?
Posted by: Oregon Bill | Apr 4, 2009 9:27:11 AM
Here's the reason my family still receives fewer basic civil protections than other families in Oregon, in California, etc...
From the AP (Vermont House gives preliminary OK to gay marriage, 4/2/09):
Opponents of the measure spoke of their respect for its advocates. One, Rep. Albert "Sonny" Audette, expressed sadness at having concluded he was required by his church to vote no.
"I am a devout Catholic," Audette said. "My religion at this point would not want me to vote for this. I wish that I could and I hope for the best and I congratulate the people who are trying to get this through."
** So many of YOU could significantly speed up the process of extending equality by withdrawing financial support from the Catholic Church (and the Mormon church, and many Protestant churches). The number one financial contributor to Measure 36 was the (bankrupt, in so many ways) Catholic Archdiocese of Portland...
Posted by: rlw | Apr 4, 2009 10:40:05 AM
And this on the web today:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE53312Q20090404?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
Our military, the military that formally views gays and lesbians as less than heteros, are supposed to be protecting these folks. Wonder how that's gonna work out?
Posted by: rlw | Apr 4, 2009 10:43:33 AM
Hi Kevin - somehow I could not figure out what you meant. I get it you were saying poly is not connected (in our minds, perhaps, and surely by logic!) to bestiality and kiddie using. BUT, am not sure about the rest of the comment. My comment actually dovetails nicely with yours in that the confluence of evils that pools up under the concept of "homosexual" in the bigoted mind.. well, it is NOT ruled by anything logic.
Could not parse the comment on power.
Posted by: Pope Pie Ass LXIX | Apr 4, 2009 11:06:53 AM
This is another side effect of the State subsidizing "family". There is no good answer, because it is not what they should be doing. Your real problem is with the majority that still need their religion crutch and want it sanctioned by the state. As long as it is, religious belief is normal. It is not. It is a stupid, self-perpetuated pathology that society can no longer afford.
Just say no to the whole thing. No subsidizing breeding, no defining what a family is, none of it. The State has no legitimate interest in policing any of this. Like it doesn't affect much. Were did all those hired "killers for Christ" come from? Get real. The State still panders to religion, because believers are the only ones dumb enough to join the military in numbers!
You know what? Tomorrow's a great day for a picket! Capable of doing something without your keyboard? Then, get out there and ruin some Easters like they ruin every day of your life.
Posted by: Pope Pie Ass LXIX | Apr 4, 2009 11:17:17 AM
Oh, and happy "Dead Spook Days". Fast, mourning and penance begins tomorrow. Biggest rising fraud since Viagra. Same bottom line. "Look how powerful our dick is; it can get back up again".
Maybe meditate on how incredibly phallic the resurrection story is. Two women, more eager than the men, enter the dark, moist cavity to find "he is risen"!
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 4, 2009 12:04:47 PM
rlw, what I meant was that I don't understand the reason in avoiding a logically associated issue such as poly just because whack-job conservatives use it to appeal to the base prejudices of bigots.
Posted by: Bill McDonald | Apr 4, 2009 12:40:45 PM
Darn, just when I thought I was finished with this...
The religious angle calls for finesse. Any blunt putdowns will only make the situation worse. You have to realize giving religious people the sense that they are defending God and being persecuted for it, is a win for them. It empowers them.
Now, ultimately it won't matter, and shouldn't matter. Nobody should be allowed to stamp their religious beliefs onto people who don't want them. I'm just saying, if you are trying to change minds, use some skill.
There are plenty of things in the Bible that no Christian today follows. When asked they say that these things were meant for those times - not now. This is where the phrase "cherry-picking the Bible" usually comes in, and it's true.
What has to happen for certain religions to get past their attitudes about gays, is an acknowledgment of the things the religious people no longer believe. How come these things do not apply anymore if the whole thing is supposed to be from God? Explore the concept that some of this was from another time, thousands of years ago.
Then it's just a slow process of placing the parts about gays on that long - and sometimes disturbing - list of things in the Bible that no Christian follows anymore.
That is the process society is in now, and it will go smoother if it's not turned into a huge argument.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Torridjoe | Apr 3, 2009 9:01:07 AM
Yay Indiana Supremes! Boo former Clinton guy! Enough of this crap about coastal states not being as "American" as the flyover states. Boston isn't American? Williamsburg? Philadelphia? Well shut my history books!
I don't know if this year was counted in the part about overturning, but by law they can't introduce a bill this late in the session, so they can't even take it up to start with until next session. And at least one house is Democratic-controlled. The ruling gives them cover to weakly shrug their shoulders at conservative angries and say, "whaddyagonnado?"