Sen. Paul McKinley asks Dems to work together

[HumanStrategy]

You completely missed the point.

I can see that there is no getting through to you. You really do enjoy white noise, don't you?

[HumanStrategy]

You are using a modern definition of marriage that is very recent and is still in living memory from which was changed the original meaning which was put forth at its infancy as a social convention. You actually support my previous point, though you seem not to grasp this fact.

I can see that you are simply not taking what I said before seriously.

Please, educate yourself.^^

[Permaglo]

So this guy is seriously comparing allowing gays and lesbians to marry to raising taxes?

[simo3300]

If we cared about children and the bible, we would ban remarriage. It is adulterous.

[kuscheldrache]

No, I actualy did not mention a thing about what I believe or not. It is a scientific fact that mankind can reproduce outside of M/F relationships. And your marriage is more valid exactly why? Because it is sanctified by a religious denomination?To avoid misunderstandings, I start with the premise that one behaviour doesn't have more rights than another . Society has defined that it's members are equal in their rights which should include marrying the person you love. Gender should not matter

[highrtruth]

Reproduction still needs material from M/F. My marriage is not sanctified by a denomination, but by

God, a transendent power, beyond me. Your self refuting statement that 'Society has defined' means society can redifine base on what, convenience, feelings, power, politics. Find for me the where it says Gender should not matter..just your feeling? Based on what? But remember, everyone says they don't care....so why not leave it to those of us that do and are informed...

[highrtruth]

You can't take away a right that was only invented by the political class, is based on behavior and never existed.

The judiciary was designed as the weakest of the 3 branches and exists only to give opinion, (see founding fathers Federalist papers), Otherwise we don't need the legislature or the executive branch. We should submit all laws to the court for their approval and not waste time voting. Do we want 7 unelected, unaccountable men in black robes to make law base on their whim? Hmmm

[CyRox98]

Um, they are interpreting the Iowa Constitutuion as it was written that states that the citizens are equal and therefor cannot be denied equal marriage rights. Seriously, do some homework.

[highrtruth]

Hey, I have done a lot of homework, a behavior does not have civil rights...What if a 40 year old man wants to marry 2 women, or a 14 year old.....or 2 14 year olds......Not every warped behavior is a right. Check out a little history. So you don't care. As long as you get American Idol in HD and that favorite latte at Starbucks life is OK...What a deep generation....NOT.

[kuscheldrache]

Mh so what you are saying is that being gay is a behaviour and since behaviour does not have civil rights it doesn't need or have the right of protection?

Well allright then, it shouldn't matter if gays can marry or not because M/F marriages as well are nothing but adopted behaviour . *Shrug* So nobody needs to protect that right as well but I'm sure when somebody would try to take that away there would be a ruckus of gigantic proportions.

[highrtruth]

that is a non sequitor. Man and Women married is more than behavior, it is the basic social unit designed by God, it is a covenant that provides society with future generations of children, (my bio class taught me gays can not reproduce and cannot have intercourse to consimate a reltionship)and is a social and moral contract to provide and protect the family unit. Prevous generations understood this. You want to overturn DOMA so 2 people can share mutual masturbation??

[kuscheldrache]

Religion just had to be mentioned . Thanks to modern science one does not necessarily need M/F partnerships to ensure future children. As for the social and moral contract, exactly how is that impossible between gays? I'm not sure I got that. But yes it is a fact F/M marriages are socialy accepted behaviour, does that make them more valid? More right than gay marriages? Quiet frankly it is nobodies buisness but those of the people involved whom they marry . All man are created equal wasn't it?

[highrtruth]

Yes, religon is mentioned, you mentioed yours, secular Darwinism, we are just random blobs of matter, so let everyone do what they want. Yes, my marriage is more valid. I reject that gays can marry. We do have standards, must be of a certain age, can't marry more than one person etc.  You have the right to be gay, or whatever distructive behavior you want. Society has the right to say what is given legal status. You start with a false premise, that a behavior has rights...

[WrkdJargn]

"Man and Women married is more than behavior, ... it is a covenant that provides society with future generations of children, ... and is a social and moral contract to provide and protect the family unit."

Should a marriage not occur or be dissolved if either the male or female is incapable of producing children?

[highrtruth]

The question is a nonsequitor...

[bubbaryu]

Having their voices silenced? What a load of bull!!!! Here you are trying to takes right away??? How does that make any sense?

[HumanStrategy]

"There is a definition for marriage, it is a contract between a man and a woman."

That is not the original definition of marriage and you know it. It used to be about 'property rights'. Please open a history book and familiarize yourself with how you're working with a changed definition to begin with.

[cairycat]

Just because a majority would deprive a minority of rights, would enshrine their bigotry, doesn't make it right, and doesn't make it constitutional.

Gronstal is absolutely right to block the minority party from putting this to a vote to amend in Iowa constitution. Civil rights are absolutes, not to be decided by campaigns financed by out-of-state interests, like California's Prop H8.

[highrtruth]

I can't figure out why the left is so overjoyed if no one cares????

[Zestaer]

People can't vote on taking away other people's rights. They just can't.

[thndrgd]

Well J0hn3577 those 7 elites as u call them are there to protect our rights and uphold the law of the state of Iowa I guarrantee u that any supreme court judge whether appointed by elected officials or by the people of Iowa would come to the same conclusion as according to the state constitution.

[J0hn3577]

Right, right. Those 7 elites. The ENTIRE Court. They are all rogues, every last one of them. How did they get on the bench in the first place? Oh yeah, they were appointed by elected officials. One rogue judge is a mistake. Seven is settled constitutional law.

[highrtruth]

Check out some of the rulings in the last 10 years where the court itself has said it can not make law, this is a case of a setup case by and activist court, legislating from the bench, invalid, and has no standing if the other two branches has the cajones to assert their constituional authority......look it up...

[thndrgd]

WOOO HOOO this is a statement released by Iowa gov. chet culver "The court also concluded that the denial of this right constitutes discrimination," Culver said. "Therefore, after careful consideration and a thorough reading of the court's decision, I am reluctant to support amending the Iowa Constitution to add a provision that our Supreme Court has said is unlawful and discriminatory."

[estellar123]

First of all, the Supreme Court's right and responsibility is to do exactly what it did, which was to decide whether or not a law is constitutional. So nothing happened in a way that it ought not to have done. Secondly, Thomas Jefferson said, "The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime; abuses its strength, and, by acting on the law of the strongest, breaks up the foundations of society." It is wrong for the civil rights of a minority to be subject to a vote of the majority.

[highrtruth]

Behavior is not a right. Society has the right and obligation to decide what behavior is acceptable. T.J. also said that the courts were the weakest of the 3 branches, they serve and are funded by the legislature. He also said that judges making law would be tyranny, just like what we fought to break away from...I wish your generation would put your Ipods down long enough to study historym, and stop emoting made up garbage.

[kuscheldrache]

Part 1)

You were talking about relationships for reproduction and not about material. Material is indeed needed but that's about it. And yes society has the right to define what it is acceptable and it has done so in stating that all man are equal under the law . And if M/F marriages are sanctified by the law so should gay marriages. Your marriage is sanctified by God, but God has no place in the law, because by definition Church and state are to be seperate. Religious believes have no place in

[kuscheldrache]

Part 2)

legislation. God, the Church, faith can sanctify your marriage however they want it should not matter under the law. Again, society has defined that everybody is equal under the law then the law needs to reflect that. Therefore the law needs to offer the same rights to gay people as it does to straight people.

And I wish your generation would get their heads out of the bible long enough to see the difference between faith and law. ..

[kuscheldrache]

What you believe in does not matter and is your personal buisness, churches have the right to refuse marriage to gay people the state however does not unless it wants to scratch the equality idea out of your constitution. Which law explicitly states that gender matters?

[jonathandlaw]

If you think most people agree with Gronstal...why is he so scared of letting the legislature vote on it? If the legislature passes the resolution, and the people of Iowa don't like it, then they can vote them out.

[atl002]

He isn't scared. There are MORE IMPORTANT things to vote on than denying individual equality. Iowa law requires a balanced budget. Why would we worry about marriage when the economy is crumbling?

[Zestaer]

I guess I won't even mention how much money a spike of gay marriages all across Iowa (including people from other states) would bring in. Oops.

[DanOLGB]

Gronstal spoke from his heart and was so eloquent. This is a guy reading from a piece of paper and blah blah blah. Dinosaurs should remain extinct.

[obamadidit2008]

sen. mc kinley; SIT DOWN, AND SHUT UP!

[xtianrkr4lfe]

Senator McKinley, Senator Gronstal's daughter is absolutely correct. We, as the young population, are tolerant of every group, no matter their religious beliefs, race, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, etc. I, for one, am tired of the lousy exuses that the conservative population is giving to be against this issue. I am apathetic towards the issue because it does not affect me, but I am for the issue because I want everyone to be able to live a life of happiness. We have the right to pursue happiness.

[neenerpuss]

Does anyone under the age of 30 care if GAYS get married? NO! Does anyone over 60 want to let GAYS get married? NO! It goes to show that America is changing and as people die we WILL have EQUALITY! This issue has NO affect on anyones life...but GAYS who will gain the 1138 rights granted with a marriage license. American is once again going to became the great country it once was. Land of the free.

MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR ALL!

[jonathandlaw]

I'm under 30 and I care.

[GrimRoguePrince]

That guy's daughter is entirely right. I'm glad he is listening to her.

[kz10863]

the public should have vote on a minority's civil rights!

[atl002]

Should have NO vote on civil rights.

[ryanwfrederick]

Go Senator McKinley! Let us vote!!!

[simo3300]

As a republican from Des Moines, I would have to say that allowing gay people to marry has NO affect on my family. I am opposed to spending any more time debating this issue.

[eugeneonegin09]

N.O.!