Saturday, April 11, 2009

"Urgent Action Needed To Help Save Marriage in Iowa"

Alert from Protectmarriage.com:

April 8, 2009

Dear Friend,

Following the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous ruling Friday that overturned state law protecting marriage as between a man and a woman, organizations across the country are urging ALL citizens to contact Iowa lawmakers. The Iowa House DOES have the ability to protect marriage by passing House Joint Resolution 6 (HJR 6), known as the Iowa Marriage Amendment.

HJR 6 is the first step toward giving Iowans the chance to vote to protect marriage, in response to the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling.

In order to debate HJR 6, the House must force it out of committee with a procedural vote. The House Republicans are prepared to initiate this procedural vote, but to pass it they need your help!

Take Action

Please contact the House Democrats listed below, and ask them to vote to bring HJR 6 out of committee. These legislators have indicated they support traditional marriage and therefore, they SHOULD vote to bring the IMA out of committee.

Representative Brian Quirk – brian.quirk@legis.state.ia.us, 515.242.6436 (desk)

Representative Mike Reasoner – mike.reasoner@legis.state.ia.us, 515.281.3238 (desk)

Representative Kurt Swaim – kurt.swaim@legis.state.ia.us, 515.242.6417 (desk)

Representative Larry Marek – larry.marek@legis.state.ia.us, 515.242.6442 (desk)

Representative Kerry Burt – kerry.burt@legis.state.ia.us, 515.281.7342 (desk)

Representative Wayne Ford – wayne.ford@legis.state.ia.us, 515.281.4061 (desk)

Representative Nathan Reichert – nathan.reichert@legis.state.ia.us, 515.281.7332 (desk)

Representative Paul Shomshor – paul.shomshor@legis.state.ia.us, 515.281.7325 (desk)

Representative Phyllis Thede – phyllis.thede@legis.state.ia.us, 515.281.7336 (desk)

Sincerely,

Ron Prentice
Chairman
ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8



I only wrote about three sentences...that was really quick and easy, actually....

Spencer

17 comments:

Lady Neferankh said...

Oh my gosh--I remember hearing about this, this is terrible :'( .

duva said...

Uhm.. not to be like that but I can't help but find your phrasing of these "problems" over the top to say the least.

Honestly... "Saving marriage"?

How would letting homosexuals marry stop heterosexual couples from doing the same?

Ipwergis-Pudding said...

Oh, dear. This isn't gonna really be over any time soon, no?

Maybe I should post that lesson plan on protecting family... it was pretty exciting.

Rebecca said...

Funny, it would seem as though this amendment is exactly the opposite of saving marriage, given that it would prevent people from getting married and possibly destroy existing marriages. ;) Thanks for the phone numbers, by the way.

(How's it going? Long time no talk - I've been so busy with school!)

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

Well to be fair, as it's in quotation marks that means the title isn't mine. It's the newsletter subject line.

Why we call it "saving marriage"--marriage is nothing different than between a man and a woman. This is how marriage was created (by God, might I add), this is how it was intended. Anything else is no longer true marriage and is a perversion. It's also a deterioration in general--it's something along the lines of "Hey, anything goes!"

I protest!

Spencer

Rebecca said...

I personally think marriage is a lot more "deteriorated" by letting convicted child molesters and wife-beaters get married, or by treating a wife as her husband's property instead of his friend...

As Duva said, the decision of the ISSC is not changing anything for opposite-sex Christian couples. They can still court, marry, and raise their children according to their religion and their wishes. But in the United States we have parts of the Constitution called the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, which state respectively that the government cannot establish a religion and that all citizens must receive equal treatment under the law. These are the basis of the court's decision - there are no arguments against same-sex marriage that are not religiously based, and to deny marriage to same-sex couples is to deny them the equal protection of the laws.

Imagine for a moment that the positions were different - that you were a minority and these laws did not exist. Would you like it if your wife died in the hospital, alone, since you were unable to visit her because you were married in a church instead of a synagogue? Would you like to be forced to recite a prayer of a religion that you did not believe in - for example, would you like to be forced daily to affirm a belief in Mohammed as the prophet of Allah?

This is essentially what happens when laws banning same-sex marriage pass. These couples are discriminated against and forced to follow the laws of a religion in which they do not believe.

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

The thing is, we are not denying marriage to homosexuals. I can marry a woman, and a woman can marry me. I can't marry a man. We have the same exact rights!

"Marriage" between in the same sex is no longer marriage.

As well, all law is moral law. EVERYTHING could be described as "forcing" your religion on someone else. Murder is against the law, but the very fact that we believe murder to be wrong is a religious belief. Why is stealing wrong? Why is child abuse wrong? Why is rape wrong?

All lawmakers legislate morality. They cannot do anything else.

Spencer

Rebecca said...

Notice that this setup distinctly disadvantages people who aren't straight...

Do you really not see a difference between murder/theft/child abuse/rape and same-sex marriage? Those are not against the law because they are "wrong." They are against the law because they violate someone else's rights. You have the right to life, liberty, and property - murder, theft, child abuse and rape are a violation of these rights. Precisely which of your rights is being violated when a same-sex couple marries?

duva said...

"Well to be fair, as it's in quotation marks that means the title isn't mine. It's the newsletter subject line."

OK, fair enough ;)

"The thing is, we are not denying marriage to homosexuals. I can marry a woman, and a woman can marry me. I can't marry a man. We have the same exact rights!"

I think you lost me there...

Anyway, I think Rebecca makes the most sense here (or maybe I'm just biased 'cause the name makes me think of an awesome movie ;)). I for one wouldn say the easiest and best solution is to give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexuals on a jurudical level and then leaving it to the churches and different religious groups themselves to decide whether they'll want to give them their blessings or not. That way all get their equal rights while religious groups won't be forced to compromise about their beliefs either...

"As well, all law is moral law. EVERYTHING could be described as "forcing" your religion on someone else. Murder is against the law, but the very fact that we believe murder to be wrong is a religious belief. Why is stealing wrong? Why is child abuse wrong? Why is rape wrong?"

I'm not sure I agree there. Those wrongs listed there are seen as wrong in whatever culture, religious or not, that you can see. I think it's a simple matter of tieing a society together - it simply won't work if violence between individuals passes by unpunished.

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

I wouldn't say so much that they "aren't straight" rather than "they choose not to be straight". Being homosexual is nothing less than a choice, plain and simple.

I disagree that state-sanctioned sodomy will not affect us. Just to start with, think of homosexual, same-sex couples getting children via adoption or even invitro or something along those lines. These children certainly are affected, and have no say in the matter either. A child needs a mother and a father, not two dads or two moms, and nothing short of this will be suitable for any stable person, or any stable society.

Also, I believe it would only be a matter of time before other things would begin occuring. The sodomite community has proven that they will not stop at mere so-called "equal rights", they want theirs to be supreme and ours to be trampled. One can only guess what might happen next.

duva: No, these things are most certainly not always wrong in other cultures! Just because we see that today for most countries (but not all!) shows that the world has been at least somewhat influenced by Christian morality, thankfully. Communists clearly do not worry with killing, neither did the Nazis. (State-sanctioned murder is the name of the game here.) There was also a time in 1920's AMERICA when some people were forcibly sterilized, all in the name of eugenics. (Margaret Sanger/Planned Parenthood, anoyne?)

And let's not just look at the modern world; what about the ancient cultures that practiced human sacrifice? That's just to start....

Rebecca said...

I wouldn't say so much that they "aren't straight" rather than "they choose not to be straight". Being homosexual is nothing less than a choice, plain and simple.This argument is plainly silly. If sexual orientation were a choice, why would anyone choose to be homosexual or bisexual? Why would you choose to be a second-class citizen?

I disagree that state-sanctioned sodomy will not affect us. Just to start with, think of homosexual, same-sex couples getting children via adoption or even invitro or something along those lines. These children certainly are affected, and have no say in the matter either. A child needs a mother and a father, not two dads or two moms, and nothing short of this will be suitable for any stable person, or any stable society.Your "what about the children?!" argument has several flaws. (I say "several" to put it nicely.)

1. Many studies have proven that children suffer no ill effects from being raised by same-sex couples; no studies have proved the contrary.
2. Child molesters and violent felons are allowed to raise children.
3. Single parents are allowed to raise children.

I'd also like to hear you explain why a child needs a mother and a father. The most obvious answer, financial stability, doesn't exclude same-sex couples, so that's clearly not what you meant. I'm forced to assume you mean, rather than a male and female parent, a "butch" parent and a "femme" parent - gender roles rather than sexes. Which makes me wonder - would you also like to ban a marriage between a "traditionally" feminine woman and a man who enjoys fancy clothing, cooking, and musical theatre? Between a "traditionally" masculine man and a woman who wears flannel and loves her power tools?

Also, I believe it would only be a matter of time before other things would begin occuring....One can only guess what might happen next.
The slippery slope is a logical fallacy, Spencer.

The sodomite community has proven that they will not stop at mere so-called "equal rights", they want theirs to be supreme and ours to be trampled.Examples? Any?

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

why would anyone choose to be homosexual or bisexual?That's a good question Rebecca, and perhaps you have a better answer for it than I do, because I have no idea. I am at a complete loss to understand how someone can want to be so perverse.

I'd also like to hear you explain why a child needs a mother and a father.If you reject that too, then no matter of explaining on my part can do anything for you here.

Examples? Any?The examples are out there and just as easy for you to find as me. What I meant is that they are clearly attacking us and not just attempting to get "equal rights" for themselves. Just to start with, how about the rash of violent threats on so many of my fellow Californians who supported Proposition 8? (And no mysterious underground group of dissidents did the threatening, it was none other than homosexuals.)

On the other hand, I'd like to ask you to please keep things calm and respectful. I'd really hate to close another conversation. My blog is not a forum for this kind of thing.

Rebecca said...

That's a good question Rebecca, and perhaps you have a better answer for it than I do, because I have no idea. I am at a complete loss to understand how someone can want to be so perverse.I really don't have an answer for you, because I don't believe sexual orientation is a choice - if it were, as I said in my other comment, I can't fathom why anyone would voluntarily subject themselves to the discrimination and oppression that queer people face in society. It would seem that the simplest answer is that it is not a choice.

If you reject that too, then no matter of explaining on my part can do anything for you here.Let's say I'm interested - academically - in hearing what you have to say. I've given my hypotheses as to your theory, with some joking but logical consequences of it. A child is not of course concerned with his or her parents' genitalia, but rather with the role they play in the child's life, which was why I made the comment about marriage between two people of different sexes and same gender roles.

I don't "reject" the idea so much as question it - why should the sex of the child's parents be more important than their ability to love and raise said child? (As I commented, felons, molesters, and single parents are allowed to raise children, so the state isn't interfering on behalf of the child in those situations.) I'm interested in your answer.

The examples are out there and just as easy for you to find as me. What I meant is that they are clearly attacking us and not just attempting to get "equal rights" for themselves. Just to start with, how about the rash of violent threats on so many of my fellow Californians who supported Proposition 8? (And no mysterious underground group of dissidents did the threatening, it was none other than homosexuals.)Naturally, I condemn any violence, but I was hoping you'd provide me with examples of ways in which gay people are seeking "special rights." (Homosexuals, yes, but lone homosexuals, as it were - none of the mainstream organizations condoned the violence, and it is unfair to tar the entire group with the same brush, just as it is unfair to say all Christians condone violence because of the actions of people like Eric Rudolph.)

duva said...

Uhm, about the question of choosing versus being born homosexual I'd say it's been stated beyond doubt that homosexuality is something you're born with but let's not argue.. you've made your points and answered my question. While I don't agree and also think you're "painting the devil on the wall" as we'd say in Sweden (I have no idea how to translate that better but I hope you can get the meaning :P) I'm not going to keep pushing.

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

Rebecca:

I'm interested in your answer.Like I said, my answer will not make much sense to you and I don't think I can explain it to someone who doesn't understand (as in personally sharing) my worldview, either. Just suffice it to say it comes down to a matter of our separate religions.

I was hoping you'd provide me with examples of ways in which gay people are seeking "special rights."For one, I didn't exactly say "special rights" and I largely meant that I personally believed this to be only the beginning of their war, but if you want it, you got it:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14989

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=932&department=CWA&categoryid=family

http://www.ncfpc.org/PolicyPapers/Findings 9907 Special rts.pdf

it is unfair to tar the entire group with the same brushOf course, which is why I said "homosexuals" and not "all the homosexuals".

Overall, this all comes down to our differing belief systems. We've both stated our positions, and as I said my blog is not a forum for this kind of thing, I think it's time the conversation ended here.

duva: Fair enough, thanks! I agree; we both know each other views and have stated them again right here, and sometimes I think it's best just to let sleeping dogs lie. :-D

Have you MOC'd any lately?

Rebecca said...

I hope you'll have the decency to let me respond! :)

Like I said, my answer will not make much sense to you and I don't think I can explain it to someone who doesn't understand (as in personally sharing) my worldview, either. Just suffice it to say it comes down to a matter of our separate religions.You never know. :D

For one, I didn't exactly say "special rights" and I largely meant that I personally believed this to be only the beginning of their war, but if you want it, you got it:Employment non-discrimination is hardly an example of gay people trampling all over everyone else's rights. (I believe those were your words?) The idea of the right to work is not new. The third link you provided uses the red herring of homosexuality not being an immutable characteristic, instead being a choice - of course we just went through this without concluding anything, but it hardly matters. Religion is a choice, and you can't be fired because you are a certain religion. (Nor have we seen a rash of people falsely complaining that they were fired because of their religion, race, or sex, which are currently covered in employment non-discrimination law.)

The same-sex partner benefits are an issue in which I recognize the problems, but I think those would evaporate were same-sex marriage legalized, since then the companies would be able to give benefits only to married partners without getting mired with domestic partnerships and the like.

Overall, this all comes down to our differing belief systems. We've both stated our positions, and as I said my blog is not a forum for this kind of thing, I think it's time the conversation ended here.I guess I could say I want to talk about this with you because we seem to share so many of the same beliefs - even if we have different religious beliefs, as Americans we value freedom and equality and it just makes me wonder why you deviate from those values on this issue.

duva said...

"Have you MOC'd any lately?"

Sadly no.. that's a nasty side-effect of being holed up in a little cup-board in the midle of Stockholm ;) (but what won't you do for your studies!)