Iowa Supreme Court to issue gay marriage ruling

[Broomstick]

... And that's another point not restricted to gays - my Other Half and I are a heterosexual but non-breeding couple. It's pretty fucking insulting for some asstard to spout off about "the purpose of marriage is procreation" in front of people who can't have children, but yes we've heard it.

Yeah I forget that other people like yourselves would be hit by the same judgment. I'd love to be present at some of the cases where some religious asshole just finished making a comment like that in front of some hetero person or couple that couldn't reproduce and then hear them say something mollifying when they realize it. What exactly would they say I wonder..."Oh you know what I mean...it doesn't really apply to YOU!"...or "but in your case it's not because you have a choice..it's acceptable because it's God's will your infertile.."...or Christ knows what.

Usually it's along the lines of "but children MIGHT happen!" or "God could grant you a miracle!" or "You could (or should) adopt!". For the latter, they usually get pissy when I point out that homosexuals can adopt. For that matter, many homosexuals manage to breed, especially today what with turkey basters and surrogate mothers and what not.

Actually, there is ample evidence that society does place greater value on people who have children; this is why they warrant a greater share of government services, and extra allowances in other ways. There's no point getting whiny and butt-hurt about it; it would be a piss-poor society indeed which did not do so.

Of course people need to reproduce in order for society to continue, and raising civilized human beings is expensive not only in money but also time and energy. If anything, the US doesn't value parents and children - particularly mothers - enough outside of lip service. If they did, there would be better policies on maternity leave and universal health care for all and better social safety nets. However, people who do not or cannot have children are not second class human beings, or they shouldn't be. And childless people certainly can contribute to society just as much (though of course they do not always do so. Then again, some "parents" are pretty worthless). Nor do parents stop being useful once their children are raised and on their own. Making a person's entire worth revolve around reproduction is just... bizarre.

The problem with applying this logic to marriage is that it is not relevant to marriage; the valuation society places upon child-raising is based on the presence of children with or without the arrangement of marriage.

Precisely. Marriage is about things like property rights and power of attorney and other such legal and financial matters.

[Edi]

Somewhat on a tangent to the current thrust of the thread, but if anyone ever needs to smack down someone who whines about "legislating from the bench" (which is what this sort of thing always casues to happen), here's a study of what the term "legislating from the bench" actually means (PDF) by Bruce G. Peabody.

It also has conveniently outlined that recently it's been conservatives mainly and there is trend for the Republicans to bleat about this whenever something doesn't go the way the troglodytes want. So if anyone asks about studies or says "that's not what I meant", that document has enough explosives to utterly flatten any objection they may want to raise.

And it actually goes a bit further than that, stating that due to the nature of the judiciary, precedent creation and a certain amount of legislating from the bench is not only inevitable, but necessary and desirable.

[Thanas]

Thanks for that link, Edi. That will come in handy.

[Darth Wong]

Government should stay the hell out of "marriage" - if a church wants to "marry" anyone they want, why should the government regulate that.

That being said, government should only establish legal rules and financial sharing arrangements (i.e. Civil Contract) for whomever of legal age and consent wishes to enter into it.

This would solve SO many problems.

That last one, of course, perfectly illustrates that a lot of loonies simply do not recognise the difference between a government marriage and a religous marriage. The government marriage already establishes legal rules and financial sharing arrangements. It has no say about religon at all. Whereas the relgous one does the exact opposite. A lot of people simply get hung up on a name.

That last quote perfectly illustrates the incredible ethnocentrism that many right-wing Christians suffer from, where they are so ignorant of any culture outside their own that it honestly doesn't occur to them that marriage is a concept cutting across every human culture. They don't realize how utterly laughable it is to pretend that marriage is intrinsically tied to Judeo-Christianity just because it's been treated that way in Anglo-Saxon nations. If government should "leave marriage to the church", where does that leave married couples from other countries? How about married atheists, buddhists, etc? Or does this imbecile think that a married atheist is a contradiction in terms?

[Thanas]

Or does this imbecile think that a married atheist is a contradiction in terms?

I am willing to bet that he is one of those who thinks only marriages that are made before god's altar are valid.

[Duckie]

Douglas Vetoes Gay Marriage Bill

MONTPELIER — Gov. Jim Douglas has vetoed legislation that would allow gay and lesbian couples to marry in Vermont.

• PDF: Click to read statement here

Douglas delivered his veto message back to the Senate on the same-sex marriage bill, saying the legislature does not provide any more rights to same-sex couples and that he believes civil unions are sufficient.

The governor’s veto came moments after the state Senate voted to concur with a House gay marriage bill that was passed last week.

The governor’s office had his veto message prepared when the bill was delivered by a Senate staff member.

In his message, Douglas says even if the bill were to become law, federal benefits would still be denied to same-sex couples in Vermont.

The House and Senate are expected to try to override the governor’s veto on Tuesday.

The Senate will convene at 9 a.m. Tuesday to vote again to override governor's veto.

The Senate is expected to override the veto, while it’s unclear what the House will do.

Gay rights organisations are claiming they have 4 of the necessary 5 votes from both absent democrats and original nay voters who are angry at the lack of respect the governor showed to the overwhelming will of the legislature; and that they are working on the fifth.

The vote is in 8 hours, so one would hope they're fast about it.