Iowa: No Gay Marriage Ban

[DPDarkPrimus]

This is from today's Cedar Rapids Gazette.

DES MOINES-
The Iowa Senate last night rejected amending the state Constituion to ban gay marriages.

Four Republicans joined 21 Democrats to vote down Senate Joint Resolution 2002 that defined marriage as a legal bond solely between a man and a woman. Twenty-five senators voted against the amendment and 24 voted for it.

Critics said a constitutional charge is not needed because the language is already in the statutory code.

"People voted their conscience," said Sen. Robert Dvorsky, D-Coralville. "Rarely does this happen. Somebody came up to me after this and said I haven't felt this good since I voted against hte death penaltyand I share a similar feeling."

Proponents said a constitutional protection for male-female marriages is needed because people promoting alternative lifestyles and activist coursts are threatening to undo a "2,000 year plus" societal tradition.

"Let's remember that marriage is not an invention of man," said Sen. Ken Veenstra, R-Orange City. "It's genesis is in fact found in Genesis. To protect, defend and promote this institut8ion is critical to the future of our society. Marriage is the union of two sexes."

However, Sen. Mary Lundby, R-Marion, one of hte four GOP opponents, said, "I will never vote to put discrimination in the Consitution - period."

She said backers knew they lacked the votes coming to last night's debate but must have hoped "someone would have a change of heart" in taking it to its 25-24 defeat.

Republicans Sens. Donald Redfern of Cedar Falls, Doug Shull of Indianola and Maggie Tinsman of Bettendorf also voted agains the constitutional resolution.

"Obviously, I"m disapointed in the outcome," said Veenstra, who held up 15,000 signed petitions in support of the resolutoin during floor debate. "I knew it was going to be close. I fully expected more of my colleagues t o join me in voting for the resolution. But that's the process around here and I have to accept the outcome."

[/quote]

[Alferd Packer]

Proponents said a constitutional protection for male-female marriages is needed because people promoting alternative lifestyles and activist coursts are threatening to undo a "2,000 year plus" societal tradition.

I love how they added the "plus," as though the majority of human history barely registers for most of these people.

The stratification is clear enough, though: only the last 2,000 years are important to them. Hell, I bet some of those senators think Jesus invented marriage or something equally ludicrous.

[General Zod]

so their only justification is an appeal to tradition. big surprise.

[Andrew J.]

Good for them. Didn't government only get involved in marriage sometime after the fall of the Roman Empire?

[Darth Yoshi]

Wow. Go Iowa, I guess. Now if only the rest of the country voted the same way.

[Xenophobe3691]

Good for them. Didn't government only get involved in marriage sometime after the fall of the Roman Empire?

Yeah, Traditional Judaism doesn't require a rabbi to officiate for a marriage.

[The Albino Raven]

so their only justification is an appeal to tradition. big surprise.

Well, what more do you need? I mean, if people keep changing things, then the world won't be anything like how the Bible says it should be. So ridiculous.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Kewl! The fact it's Iowa doing this is even better!