I agr... you mean if everyone voted for that, right?

km

I think this analogy is flawed in that Phelp's participation would result in a disadvantage to the rest of the field, therefore denying their right to a fair competition. In the case of affording gays/lesbians the right to civil marriage, there is no diminution of the rights of anybody else in the process -- they would simply be brought to the same level of rights that heterosexual people have been enjoying all along ...



Heh. Andrew Sullivan is a blogger that sometimes goes a bit link-crazy. His nesting of links in this case had me confused as to whom you might be referring. Thanks for the clarification =)



Would that not be likewise with your civil unions in states here that don't recognize them? Seems to me there would probably have to be a critical mass of governments approving civil unions/marriages for them to be accepted universally.

At any rate, I think the goal of advocates here is to have such unions/marriages recognized within all of the United States first before worrying about recognition abroad. Baby steps ...

I didn't see that reasoning in the judgment and if I had I wouldn't have agreed with it. For the many people who believe that marriage has minimum requirements and religious significance there would be a diminution of their rights. Only if everyone votes to give those rights up should there be any change in the law.


Correct. They wouldn't be recognised as marriage because that's not what they are. They're not recognised as marriage in England either but civil partners still have all the same rights as married persons do.

km

See, this is the argument I've never been able to wrap my head around: How does granting a minority group the right to get married and enjoy legal and civil benefits as a result effect the rights *at all* of the majority group who have had that right and those benefits all along, and continue to do so? I mean, it's not like suddenly heterosexual couples could not get married, or that the civil and legal benefits afforded to them by being married would be diminished in any way.

I understand some would see this as "cheapening" marriage -- but that's a matter of ego and attitude, not of law, since the law regarding heterosexuals would have changed not one iota ...

As for religious significance, I believe the Iowa court specifically stated that religious considerations were not germane, since the subject is that of a civil, secular institution and that they are constitutionally obligated to discard religious doctrine as a relevant factor ...

Saw a good sign on Huff Post: "If we are equal will you trade your marriage for my civil union?"

I went to post this, but of course it's already here. Way to go Iowa! Iowa is more progressive than people, even Iowans, give it credit for. Having said that, there are a lot of people in my tiny hometown shaking their heads right now... Can I say it again?: Way to go Ioway!!

.....we'll see how long it lasts......

I'd like to see you validate that claim.

So I guess now that polygamous marriages contracted in traditionalist Islamic countries ought to be rescinded because they'd not be recognized in British law? And here I thought the sun had set on the British Empire. Live and learn!

Good point. As soon as Iowan same-sex couples realize that they can't visit the UK without being stared at, they'll denounce the law and tear up their marriage licenses.

Good grief, what has Iowa done?

And this would prevent Iowan same-sex married couples from doing what abroad? Being invited to dinner at Casa Keymaker? Getting a ride in a taxi? Being admitted to an art exhibit?

Oooooooooooo... The Minister of Universal Acceptance has decreed fair warning!