Gay Marriage in the Midwest: Why Iowa Kicks California's Toned, Tanned Tushie

[dannno]

Warning: This is a column from a liberal California publication written in a cliche style by woman named Sharshine. Still kinda interesting, and ultimately she does say a lot of great things about Iowans.



Gay Marriage in the Midwest


http://www.independent.com/news/2009/jun/02/gay-marriage-midwest/

Tuesday, June 2, 2009
By Starshine Roshell

We used to be the shizzle. Remember? For decades, California was the nation's pacesetter. The birthplace of Barbie, blue jeans, and the birth control pill, the Golden State prided itself on dragging the rest of the nation into tomorrow. Or, at the very least, into Tomorrowland.

Faced with decisions like, "Shall we elect a glute-flexing cyborg as governor?" and "Should we light up the country's first medical marijuana initiative?" we grinned our laidback grins, sipped our Left Coast syrah, and said, "Sure! Why not?"

We were the heralds of "hot." The harbingers of "hip." But no more.

Last week, our high court handed that mantle over to a pot-bellied, farm-belt state called Iowa. Perhaps you've heard of it. Whereas California's Supreme Court voted to uphold a ban on gay marriage, Iowa has been marrying gays since April.

They're not the only ones. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont have given their blessings to gay nuptials, too.

But Iowa? The court's decision was unanimous, and emphatic. Stephen Colbert joked that the ruling makes sense. "There's nothing else to do in Iowa: shuck corn, drag race, pound a sixer, shuck more corn, propose to your football coach."

In fact, Iowa has a long history of defending equality. It desegregated its schools almost a century before 1954's landmark Brown v. Board of Education, and was one of the first states to permit interracial marriage. All of which confirms that California is now humiliatingly bass-ackward. And the heartland prairie that is Iowa—origin of the Winnebago—is wicked cool.

"They have those covered bridges!" says my friend Alex Kuisis, who drove through the state once. "And Amish people! Who isn't fascinated by Amish people?"

I went looking for more evidence that Iowa rocks. Home of Glenn Miller, John Wayne, and the guy who painted “American Gothic,” the Hawkeye State boasts the esteemed University of Iowa Writers' Workshop, and the telltale Iowa Caucus.

You thought San Francisco's Lombard Street was the crookedest street in the world? That honor goes to Snake Alley in Burlington, Iowa. And the largest Danish settlement in the U.S. isn't Solvang. It's Elk Horn, Iowa. How do you like them aebelskiver?

Though Iowans grow soybeans, their tastes run toward less foo-foo fare like the Maid-Rite "loose meat" sandwich, a scoop of ground beef between two puffy, white, grease-dipped buns. Iowans swear crime rates and housing prices are low. And while the weather is bad, the people are extraordinarily good.

"We were in a gnarly tornado several years ago," recalls my Santa Barbara friend Kelly Tanowitz, who was visiting a family homestead there, "and the entire high school football team had come and cleaned up everything before we were awake the next morning."

"The people are amazing," echoes JenHolly Anderson, who grew up in Santa Ynez but fell in love with Iowa while attending college there, and moved there permanently. "I have found Iowans to be incredibly supportive, open, and kind in their interactions."

She says there are plenty of residents with conservative social views, but the state's decision to allow gay marriage is in keeping with its primary values. "It shows that Iowans care more about another individual's rights as a human being than their own political convictions."

Look, gay marriage is inevitable. All civil rights battles end badly for bigots, and this one, like those before it, is a forgone conclusion, a done deal. Or fait accompli, as they never ever say in Iowa.

Until then, take a cue from The Music Man, the corn-belt-set quintessential American musical: "What the heck, you're welcome, glad to have you with us. You really ought to give Iowa a try."

[ARealConservative]

The reason I commend Iowa's decisions is their supreme court didn't reconstruct the U.S. constitution, they found the right to gay marriage was in the state constitution, which is where such protection should lie.

[Theocrat]

The courts, whether on a state or federal level, have no right to define what marriage is. To legitimize marriage is to take the place of God. Iowa is supposed to be such a "conservative, God-honoring" state, and yet its court's decision that gay marriage is okay reveals they are truly not.

Gays do not have any intrinsic nor forensic rights to be married, period. Marriage, as instituted by God (not men) is defined as a holy union between one man and one woman for life.

The longer we fail to understand that, the longer our country is going to suffer, not in just economic matters, but in other areas such as civil liberties, education, and medical/environmental well-being. Mark my words.

[dannno]

The courts, whether on a state or federal level, have no right to define what marriage is. To legitimize marriage is to take the place of God. Iowa is supposed to be such a "conservative, God-honoring" state, and yet its court's decision that gay marriage is okay reveals they are truly not.

Gays do not have any intrinsic nor forensic rights to be married, period. Marriage, as instituted by God (not men) is defined as a holy union between one man and one woman for life.

The longer we fail to understand that, the longer our country is going to suffer, not in just economic matters, but in other areas such as civil liberties, education, and medical/environmental well-being. Mark my words.

This post is actually something that I closely agree with, especially the part about the state legitimizing marriage is attempting to take the place of God. But the thing is, it doesn't matter if the state is marrying a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple, they are still attempting to play God!! What if the heterosexual couple partakes in unholy acts with other couples, often known as spouse swapping? What if they indulge heavily in alcohol and other drugs? What if they are extremely dishonest in their everyday business dealings? What if their Pastor knew about all this, do you think he would marry them? NO!! Neither would the Pastor marry a gay couple.. But the fact is the state IS marrying heterosexual couples on demand.. these couples receive benefits that people who are not married don't receive. Therefore as individuals, gay people are entitled to the same equal treatment under the law and should be able to get married at the state level if the state is in charge of marrying straight people as well.

My point is that you can't go after state sanctioned gay marriage if you don't go after state sanctioned straight marriage.

[Theocrat]

This post is actually something that I closely agree with, especially the part about the state legitimizing marriage is attempting to take the place of God. But the thing is, it doesn't matter if the state is marrying a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple, they are still attempting to play God!! What if the heterosexual couple partakes in unholy acts with other couples, often known as spouse swapping? What if they indulge heavily in alcohol and other drugs? What if they are extremely dishonest in their everyday business dealings? What if their Pastor knew about all this, do you think he would marry them? NO!! Neither would the Pastor marry a gay couple.. But the fact is the state IS marrying heterosexual couples on demand.. these couples receive benefits that people who are not married don't receive. Therefore as individuals, gay people are entitled to the same equal treatment under the law and should be able to get married at the state level if the state is in charge of marrying straight people as well.

My point is that you can't go after state sanctioned gay marriage if you don't go after state sanctioned straight marriage.

That is an excellent point, and it's one well worth telling to pastors around the country (which I've been working to do in my local community). The Church needs to stop abdicating the institution which God entrusted it with as a steward to the State.

[ceakins]

The courts, whether on a state or federal level, have no right to define what marriage is. To legitimize marriage is to take the place of God. Iowa is supposed to be such a "conservative, God-honoring" state, and yet its court's decision that gay marriage is okay reveals they are truly not.

Gays do not have any intrinsic nor forensic rights to be married, period. Marriage, as instituted by God (not men) is defined as a holy union between one man and one woman for life.

The longer we fail to understand that, the longer our country is going to suffer, not in just economic matters, but in other areas such as civil liberties, education, and medical/environmental well-being. Mark my words.

Who's god? Are you saying your religion outweighs the rights of other religions?

[Theocrat]

Who's god? Are you saying your religion outweighs the rights of other religions?

No. I'm saying my religion makes the notion of rights possible in the first place, and because of that, people of other religions are afforded asylum here.

[ceakins]

No. I'm saying my religion makes the notion of rights possible in the first place, and because of that, people of other religions are afforded asylum here.

But there are other religions that do gay marriage.

[Theocrat]

But there are other religions that do gay marriage.

You're right, and one such religion which allows that is secular humanism. The courts are promoting secular humanism whenever they allow gay marriages as the norm for society, disregarding any other religious claims and reasons for why gay marriage should not be tolerated in society (such as those based upon Christianity). Remember, there is no neutrality of beliefs in civics.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

YOGA-FLAME WAR
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/10/7/1489425/DhalSF3.JPG

[BuddyRey]

Hooray for Iowa! :D

I never thought I'd see marriage freedom endorsed in such a rural, "un-urbanized" state.

[Sandman33]

Like I needed another reason to avoid Iowa?

I hope every state bans gay marriage EXCEPT Iowa....and ALL the ****'s move there to be FREEE....at least it would get them the fuck out of Hollywood.

[dannno]

Like I needed another reason to avoid Iowa?

I hope every state bans gay marriage EXCEPT Iowa....and ALL the ****'s move there to be FREEE....at least it would get them the fuck out of Hollywood.

Did you read the convo between me and Theo on the first page? If you really want to fight gay marriage, you should also be fighting state sanctioned straight marriages as well, otherwise you are being hypocritical.

To fight one but not the other is hypocritical, and you are also imposing inequality and unjust standards on the population, which makes you even more wrong than simply the fact that you are supporting state sanctioned marriages.

[heavenlyboy34]

That is an excellent point, and it's one well worth telling to pastors around the country (which I've been working to do in my local community). The Church needs to stop abdicating the institution which God entrusted it with as a steward to the State.

I love it when you sound like me! :D;):):cool:

[Sandman33]

Did you read the convo between me and Theo on the first page? If you really want to fight gay marriage, you should also be fighting state sanctioned straight marriages as well, otherwise you are being hypocritical.

To fight one but not the other is hypocritical, and you are also imposing inequality and unjust standards on the population, which makes you even more wrong than simply the fact that you are supporting state sanctioned marriages.

I think the federal and the state government should have absolutely NOTHING to do with marriage.

I think Churches that preach the BIBLE should stick to it and not marry gays.

Other than that I really don't give a shit if I am hypocritical. I'm not going to support something that disgusts me.

Honest enough?

[TonySutton]

I'm not going to support something that disgusts me.

Why does a contract between two consenting adults disgust you?

[Dr.3D]

Why does a contract between two consenting adults disgust you?

I'm pretty sure, if they didn't call it marriage, it wouldn't be a problem.
How about they call it a civil union?

[TonySutton]

I'm pretty sure, if they didn't call it marriage, it wouldn't be a problem.
How about they call it a civil union?

Only if the government calls ALL of them civil unions. Separate is not equal. I do not think any of us want to set that precedent.

Of course, my personal stance is that the government should not be involved in marriage at all. It should be up to each church.

[Mesogen]

I'm pretty sure, if they didn't call it marriage, it wouldn't be a problem.
How about they call it a civil union?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155043

[Sandman33]

I'm pretty sure, if they didn't call it marriage, it wouldn't be a problem.
How about they call it a civil union?


How bout the government stay the fuck out of marriage and Churches preaching the BIBLE refuse to marry gays like the bible says?

What do I care about two consenting adults? I DON'T and thats TOLERANCE...now when they want to claim marriage, adopt our nations children and subject them to their perverted lifestyle, and parade around our streets nearly nude then I have a fucking problem. And I really don't care if you call me a "hater" for not supporting it.

[Dr.3D]

Only if the government calls ALL of them civil unions. Separate is not equal. I do not think any of us want to set that precedent.

Of course, my personal stance is that the government should not be involved in marriage at all. It should be up to each church.

If it is to be sanctioned by the state, all of them should be called civil unions.
If people want to be married as well as declare a civil union with the state, they should have that option. Also if a couple don't want to have a state sanctioned civil union, they should be able to be married but of course not have any favors from the state.

[Sandman33]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155043


AHAHAAAA.. Thats funny as hell.

It's not even about "rights" its all about pushing their agenda mainstream even further.

Two happy people really don't need the approval of the STATE. It's fucking ridiuclous alltogether really. It should remain with your Church or faith.

If two gays really want to be "married" then just slap a ring on whomever the bitch in the relationship is and be monogamous....thats really all there is to it.

[zach]

AHAHAAAA.. Thats funny as hell.

It's not even about "rights" its all about pushing their agenda mainstream even further.

Two happy people really don't need the approval of the STATE. It's fucking ridiuclous alltogether really. It should remain with your Church or faith.

If two gays really want to be "married" then just slap a ring on whomever the bitch in the relationship is and be monogamous....thats really all there is to it.

I'm guessing you know more about the attention-getters and the stereotypes rather than the ones who live a life as interesting as a straight person does.

[Sandman33]

I'm guessing you know more about the attention-getters and the stereotypes rather than the ones who live a life as interesting as a straight person does.

As interesting as a straight person does?

What do you mean by that?

By attention getters and "sterotypes" do you mean the ones parading around our streets in bondage? Like thats supposed to be ACCEPTABLE???

What do you think the ratio of "mild mannered" and "truly monogamous" homosexuals is compared to the ones flaunting the free sex dont judge me lifestyle?

[zach]

As interesting as a straight person does?

What do you mean by that?

By attention getters and "sterotypes" do you mean the ones parading around our streets in bondage? Like thats supposed to be ACCEPTABLE???

What do you think the ratio of "mild mannered" and "truly monogamous" homosexuals is compared to the ones flaunting the free sex dont judge me lifestyle?

I was being somewhat sarcastic about being interesting.

However, no, I don't think it's acceptable to parade around like that and expect people to tolerate, like, or condone that kind of behavior. I don't care what sexuality surrounds it.

I'd say for the LGBT population, the ratio of "normal, monogamous" to "wild and crazy, sex with whoever" would be 3:8.
I'd say for the straight population, the ratio would be similar.

But, hopefully you realize that there are people who aren't straight that don't feel the need to proclaim it into the streets or force its acceptance onto the public eye.
It simply exists.

[Sandman33]

I was being somewhat sarcastic about being interesting.

However, no, I don't think it's acceptable to parade around like that and expect people to tolerate, like, or condone that kind of behavior. I don't care what sexuality surrounds it.

I'd say for the LGBT population, the ratio of "normal, monogamous" to "wild and crazy, sex with whoever" would be 3:8.
I'd say for the straight population, the ratio would be similar.

But, hopefully you realize that there are people who aren't straight that don't feel the need to proclaim it into the streets or force its acceptance onto the public eye.
It simply exists.

Well then the flailing armed loud mouth flamers are ruining it for the "normal perverts"

[zach]

Well then the flailing armed loud mouth flamers are ruining it for the "normal" ones*

it happens with every group. :(

*fixed

[Bruno]

Get government out of the marriage business, period. Until that occurs, I'm glad for my state's decision on the subject.

[dannno]

How bout the government stay the fuck out of marriage and Churches preaching the BIBLE refuse to marry gays like the bible says?

What do I care about two consenting adults? I DON'T and thats TOLERANCE...now when they want to claim marriage, adopt our nations children and subject them to their perverted lifestyle, and parade around our streets nearly nude then I have a fucking problem. And I really don't care if you call me a "hater" for not supporting it.

You don't have to support state sanctioned marriage, in fact, you can be against it and still advocate for equal application of the laws across the board, which is all most of the LGBT community and supporters of equal marriage are trying to do.

[Sandman33]

You don't have to support state sanctioned marriage, in fact, you can be against it and still advocate for equal application of the laws across the board, which is all most of the LGBT community and supporters of equal marriage are trying to do.

I agree with Bruno.

I don't think the gays can be right either way on this one Danno. Because for one I don't think that its "all they are trying to do" but if they are pushing to get the govt OUT of marriage by stopping any tax breaks for families then they are attacking NORMAL families with children that really do USE those tax breaks.

If they want tax breaks designed for families to be given to themselves it's not right EITHER because they can NEVER have a family with that lifestyle...and I know you will say that they will adopt, but I don't like gay adoption either because the VAST majority of children are born straight and shouldnt be subjected to that lifestyle, It's just not right.

[dannno]

I agree with Bruno.

I don't think the gays can be right either way on this one Danno. Because for one I don't think that its "all they are trying to do" but if they are pushing to get the govt OUT of marriage by stopping any tax breaks for families then they are attacking NORMAL families with children that really do USE those tax breaks.

If they want tax breaks designed for families to be given to themselves it's not right EITHER because they can NEVER have a family with that lifestyle...and I know you will say that they will adopt, but I don't like gay adoption either because the VAST majority of children are born straight and shouldnt be subjected to that lifestyle, It's just not right.

So you think the government should be able to give special tax breaks to married couples?? What is that, like an ugly tax or something?

No sir, I don't like it.

Besides, a platonic woman and man could potentially get married just for the tax breaks, and they might never have kids.

[Sandman33]

So you think the government should be able to give special tax breaks to married couples?? What is that, like an ugly tax or something?

No sir, I don't like it.

Besides, a platonic woman and man could potentially get married just for the tax breaks, and they might never have kids.

I don't really care since I'm not married. But it would be nice to pay fewer taxes if you have children to pay for.

But again, I think the govt should stay out of marriage completely so it doesn't matter.

[Revolution9]

Why does a contract between two consenting adults disgust you?

Because the subtext is deplorable acts that amount to the biological dead end of a genetic lineage. The only thing gay is about is sucking dick or getting boned up the ass.. Other than that the LABEL is meaningless. The contract sidestep shuffle is just a satin corset on a fat and hairy guy. "My contract states that i perform fellatio on a man and get benefits on my tax return." Whoopee.. Gives the "bend over for the government" phrase a new tangential meaning.

HTH
Rev9

[idiom]

Ya know in New Zealand the anti-gay people and the pro-gay people both demobilised. So did the pro and anti-abortion groups.

We came up with compromises that everyone hated equally.

If the court thinks you have been living together for three years or so, then they impose a defacto civil union on you whatever your gender. No more fornicating!

Anyways, a little introspection for the angry people:

YouTube - Middle Sexes - Experiment on homophobia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy-7AoxFEJA)

[Minarchy4Sale]

Im in agreement with Sandman on this. Getting .gov out of marriage is the goal. This gay marriage thing isnt about equal rights, as all citizens have the equal right to marry a person of the opposite gender...

No, this is about forcing acceptance. Tolerance isnt good enough, apparently. Well, I dont give two shits what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, so long as they arent harming anyone, but I'm not going to be forced to condone and accept what God says is unacceptable.

As an aside, has anyone else noticed that the Feedback ad popping up on this thread is for Palm Springs Gaycations? ROFLMAO.

[TonySutton]

Because the subtext is deplorable acts that amount to the biological dead end of a genetic lineage. *hyperbole snipped*

There are many gay and lesbian couples who do not experience a biological deadend to their genetic lineage. There are numerous ways to circumvent this, more and more gays and lesbian couples are doing it every day.

[Pennsylvania]

The only thing gay is about is sucking dick or getting boned up the ass.. Other than that the LABEL is meaningless.

I would say the label is meaningful regardless because it carries two potential connotations with it. The first connotation is the natural psychological (including sexual) attraction of an individual to a member of the same sex. The second is interpersonal actions between members of the same sex. What you have described here of course falls into the second category. However, when you remove that connotation, you are still left with a potential for affection and love which is compatible with the first. This view is consistent with our observations in nature wherein many species outside of our own develop same-sex relationships, yet do not necessarily engage in the activities you've mentioned.

[zach]

YouTube - Middle Sexes - Experiment on homophobia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy-7AoxFEJA)

I've heard about this.. thanks for posting! It's interesting because a saying goes that sometimes what we hate in another person, we usually hate in ourselves. It finishes that "what isn't a part of us, we don't care." Though, I would put "usually" somewhere in there.


Because the subtext is deplorable acts that amount to the biological dead end of a genetic lineage. The only thing gay is about is sucking dick or getting boned up the ass.. Other than that the LABEL is meaningless. The contract sidestep shuffle is just a satin corset on a fat and hairy guy. "My contract states that i perform fellatio on a man and get benefits on my tax return." Whoopee.. Gives the "bend over for the government" phrase a new tangential meaning.

HTH
Rev9

That would mean that the only thing straight for a male would be to perform acts upon the vagina, and for females.. the penis obviously.

But humans aren't only fascinated with sexual organs, are we?
Love, affection, intelligence, common sense, patience, loyalty.. those traits are usually admired within every population, regardless of sexuality. To narrow it down to sexual acts within the LGBT population (or straight, for that matter) is referring to someone as a common animal, bent on pleasing the self without regard to the other person.


I would say the label is meaningful regardless because it carries two potential connotations with it. The first connotation is the natural psychological (including sexual) attraction of an individual to a member of the same sex. The second is interpersonal actions between members of the same sex. What you have described here of course falls into the second category. However, when you remove that connotation, you are still left with a potential for affection and love which is compatible with the first. This view is consistent with our observations in nature wherein many species outside of our own develop same-sex relationships, yet do not necessarily engage in the activities you've mentioned.

This.. Though sex can be a rewarding experience that brings the couple closer together, it does not have to be necessarily present if both members agree that they are fine with not doing that. Maybe it'll be a platonic relationship, who knows.