7 responses to “Iowa Supreme Court Upends Marriage”

1. 

   Philip France

   April 5, 2009

   Selwyn’s commentary is duly impassioned and eloquent but, to use a phrase he once coined in a previous article, he missed the 800-pound hippopotamous in the room.
   These so-called judges, in their filthy black robes cite DOMA legislation as a denial of equal rights. BULLSH*T!!!!!! You lousy cretins! You verminous overgrown children!
   Every adult human being in the United States has the right to marry. This right is guaranteed under the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that no state takes exception to.
   What the homosexual mafia seeks is an exclusive right to redfine marriage. This is impossible, no matter what perverted lawyer in a filthy black robe declares. Selwyn has been right all along in declaring such efforts as seeking ‘faux’ marriage. It abrogates the very term. It calls something that which it is not. In plain parlance, this is known as a lie. It matters not what certificate a “couple” may hold, it is still a lie.
   When our society has really gone over the edge, it will the so-called “liberals” and/or “progressives” that will suffer first, especiallly the homosexuals. I do not wish for this, but it will happen.
   For the homosexuals that might be rejoicing the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision that might also be reading this, conduct a little web search of Ernst Rohm and kristallnacht. You will see my point.
   May the Lord have mercy on us all.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   correspondence courses

   April 6, 2009

   I learn more from this site

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   John Q. Public

   April 7, 2009

   The winds of change come from deep in the bowels of my country. The great bible belt of the Midwest as fallen. As the god haters gather to claim their throne, beware to us all…God will not be mocked, for God gave this great land to the pioneer, who claimed it with a plow in one hand and a Bible in the other. God will take it back from the unjust and turn it into salt. So to those who party upon hearing news of great sin and gleefully spit in God’s face, know this, these are the first days in our destruction, for God punishes the whole nation and its generations.
   Sadly, America has no one to blame but itself for its lust of the flesh and the joyfulness of exploring its deepest perversions. Our leaders sit on the Devil’s lap, rocking while sucking their thumbs, we hear from them no cries for repentance. We see no tears for our coming loss.
   For we cannot collectively imagine the power of an angry God nor the calamity that awaits us as He rectifies our fallen nation.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Robert Berger

   April 8, 2009

   Like other non-conservatives, I fail to understand why conservatives and the religious right have their panties in a bunch over such a relatively unimportant matter. Gay marriage is not a threat to this country ,nor does heterosexual marriage need to be”protected” or”defended”. It’s the rights of homosexuals that need to be protected and defended! Because denying gays the right to marry is just the toip of the iceberg in the conservative agenda and the agenda of the religious reich(my spelling) in demonizing,stereotyping,scapegoating and stigmatizing gay people,and ultimaately persecuting them.
   If gays can marry, this does not in any way interfere with the right of heterosexual couples to get married and have children. What’s all the fuss about?
   And I don’t knoew about you,but if I were a small child,I would rather be brought up by a gay couple who were responsible and caring parents than a straight one who abused me physically and sexually,or who neglected me,or both. So there. By the way,I’m heterosexual.
   I just don’t like prejudice and intolerance.Against any one.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   John Q. Public

   April 8, 2009

   Robert, why limit marriage to just hetro and gay marriage. There are people who are bi-sexual… are they less in your eyes. As a heterosexual man, you do not know the pain of being denied a complete relationship or of society making you choose to marry only one, when you love both sexes and want children of your own. What about their rights to marry the loves of their lives and live as one loving family. Some could say that only a heartless B. would deny true love and marriage to these bi-people.

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   Shaun

   April 8, 2009

   Robert,
   For most of this country’s history marriage was a pact between man, woman, and God. The state has redefined marriage to whatever the courts are now calling it. So in one way, yes, you could say this an assault on what marriage is. This removes the divine sanctity of marriage. Marriage is now defined by man not God. That’s why I am opposed.
   Shaun
   UCA

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Philip France

   April 8, 2009

   Robert,
   You go on about homosexuals’ right to marry. What you missed in my previous post is that they already DO have the right to marry. Instead, homosexual men and women want a new and exclusive right, set only for those of their proclivity, to marry each other. This is like a screwdriver asking to be called a fork and wanting our legislative system to declare it so.
   Let’s say that Congress passes a law proclaiming that a all screwdrivers are now forks. Does that make the new fork any less a screwdriver? That is the point.
   To call something that which it is not is a lie. We have far too much of this soft tyranny.
   In order for homosexuality to be accepted and normalized, the natural order must be eradicated. Right must become wrong and wrong must become right: Therein lies the danger; to all of us, homosexuals and heterosexuals included.
   Get it?

   LikeLike

   Reply