Removal of Iowa judges may inspire similar efforts

Nov 5, 2010 Full story: Kansas City Star 396

Emboldened by the success of a ballot initiative to oust Iowa judges who supported gay marriage, conservative activists are looking for new ways to use the power of the vote to strike back against the courts.Judicial-removal campaigns have generally been difficult to sell to the public.

Full Story
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#168 Nov 8, 2010
Jonah wrote:
<quoted text>
And you would not call it marriage based on what specific criteria?
Stupid question, but I'll answer it yet again anyway. And, being a proud heathen, religion has nothing to do with my position. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I support civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay relationships. And do NOT bore the crap outta me with that stupid "separate is not equal" thing. I've heard it before and don't need that silly bullsh!t yet again. I refer yet again to the fact that not onlpy are apples not oranges, but tangerinmes, while close, are also not tangerines.

I have a feeling that you're going to bore the crap out of me anyway. Just a feeling, of course. Let's find out if you're going to insist on being a crashing bore. And don't bother calling me a bigot or homophobe. I can assure such silly bullsh!t will have no effect on me since I know far more than you. But if you need to do it to get a tingle, have your cheap tingle with my compliments.(I'm generous that way.)
G Whiz

Largo, FL

#169 Nov 8, 2010
Jonah wrote:
<quoted text>
And you would not call it marriage based on what specific criteria?
How about common sense.

“Down To Earth”

Since: Apr 07

Indianapolis

#170 Nov 8, 2010
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Stupid question, but I'll answer it yet again anyway. And, being a proud heathen, religion has nothing to do with my position. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I support civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay relationships. And do NOT bore the crap outta me with that stupid "separate is not equal" thing. I've heard it before and don't need that silly bullsh!t yet again. I refer yet again to the fact that not onlpy are apples not oranges, but tangerinmes, while close, are also not tangerines.
I have a feeling that you're going to bore the crap out of me anyway. Just a feeling, of course. Let's find out if you're going to insist on being a crashing bore. And don't bother calling me a bigot or homophobe. I can assure such silly bullsh!t will have no effect on me since I know far more than you. But if you need to do it to get a tingle, have your cheap tingle with my compliments.(I'm generous that way.)
Well, when the best answer you can muster is essentially, "Don't call it marriage because I don't want you to," what exactly do you expect?

You're pretty much on the mark about many things, but your reasoning here seems to be... lacking.

There is no rational reason to establish a separate institution just because the participants are the same gender - or, at least, I have never seen a rational reason. "I believe..." is not a rational reason.
Jonah

Alpharetta, GA

#172 Nov 8, 2010
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Stupid question,
What made it a stupid question? You've expressed quite an opinionated and unsubstaniated view point. I simply wondered where it came from.
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
And this believe is formed from what specific criteria?
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
I support civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay relationships. And do NOT bore the crap outta me with that stupid "separate is not equal" thing.
I see. So, "separate is not equal" is crap to you. Good to know. Can we go back to segregating schools and bathrooms then? You know, based on what you support.
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
I've heard it before and don't need that silly bullsh!t yet again. I refer yet again to the fact that not onlpy are apples not oranges, but tangerinmes, while close, are also not tangerines.
What are you blathering about here? The subject was marriage. And despite your "beliefs" and your lack of criteria in establishing them, marriage is NOT defined by the gender of its participants. Two women entering into marriage do not somehow alter or redefine what is required in order for it to qualify as marriage.

If you disagree, then please provide specifics, not prattling on about apples and oranges.
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a feeling that you're going to bore the crap out of me anyway. Just a feeling, of course.
Yes, you also feel that homosexuals are unequal to straight people and that their relationships are somehow different than straight peoples. Forgive me if I could care less about your "feelings".
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's find out if you're going to insist on being a crashing bore. And don't bother calling me a bigot or homophobe. I can assure such silly bullsh!t will have no effect on me since I know far more than you.
Your bravado about your knowledge and self importance bores me.

You stated an opinion, I asked you what criteria you used in forming it. Rather than answer, you went on and on about nothing, attempted to insult my character, and pretended you were some how privy ahead of time to what I might say.

You waste my time.
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
But if you need to do it to get a tingle, have your cheap tingle with my compliments.(I'm generous that way.)
No, I wouldn't call your comment generous, I'd call it childish.

Sorry I asked you a question to begin with. Please do go about your day basking in your self created importance.
Mona Lott

Jackson, NJ

#173 Nov 8, 2010
Ole wrote:
<quoted text>There was no effort to limit anyone, except to end anti-democratic efforts to force the concocted, failed philosophy of homosexual marriage onto an unwilling electorate.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage and homosexuals have overwhelmingly rejected marriage as an actual practice in every jurisdiction that permits the concocted oxymoron.
Tells us why the Court denied you visitation rights to your ex-wife's children........

hmmmmm????????

“Change v. Tradition, FiiiGHT”

Since: Nov 10

The Field

#174 Nov 8, 2010
WeTheSheeple wrote:
What is really telling about this is that the judges were voted out by just 54%. The news reports make is sound like it was 90%+. So once again, if not for the fact that this was a midterm election in which only old people tend to vote, these judges would have been retained.
Again it comes down to waiting another decade for the current crop of anti-gay old geezers to die off and gay rights won't be an issue anymore.
Remember, 75% of the "Yes on 8" vote came from those over age 65.
You kind of have to respect the fact that these old geezers created this nation what it is today, fought our wars, and made life better for us, who you could easily see as spoiled and out of control at this point. Even though they do possess a dated idealogy, come on dude. Obviously they had something going for them.

“Change v. Tradition, FiiiGHT”

Since: Nov 10

The Field

#175 Nov 8, 2010
Jonah wrote:
<quoted text>
What made it a stupid question? You've expressed quite an opinionated and unsubstaniated view point. I simply wondered where it came from.
<quoted text>
And this believe is formed from what specific criteria?
<quoted text>
I see. So, "separate is not equal" is crap to you. Good to know. Can we go back to segregating schools and bathrooms then? You know, based on what you support.
<quoted text>
What are you blathering about here? The subject was marriage. And despite your "beliefs" and your lack of criteria in establishing them, marriage is NOT defined by the gender of its participants. Two women entering into marriage do not somehow alter or redefine what is required in order for it to qualify as marriage.
If you disagree, then please provide specifics, not prattling on about apples and oranges.
<quoted text>
Yes, you also feel that homosexuals are unequal to straight people and that their relationships are somehow different than straight peoples. Forgive me if I could care less about your "feelings".
<quoted text>
Your bravado about your knowledge and self importance bores me.
You stated an opinion, I asked you what criteria you used in forming it. Rather than answer, you went on and on about nothing, attempted to insult my character, and pretended you were some how privy ahead of time to what I might say.
You waste my time.
<quoted text>
No, I wouldn't call your comment generous, I'd call it childish.
Sorry I asked you a question to begin with. Please do go about your day basking in your self created importance.
What qualifies marriage is between a man and a woman is the fact that, yes, they are in fact the only two who can successfully complete natural intercourse with one another and are naturally predetermined to be suited for one another. The problemmmm is that being married in the U.S. brings on its own set of benefits, since the state assumes you will be a successful child-rearing productive couple, you earn tax exemptions and the such. Can Gay couples say the same? There's a lot to deal with here not so simple.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#176 Nov 8, 2010
Jonah wrote:
<quoted text>
What made it a stupid question? You've expressed quite an opinionated and unsubstaniated view point. I simply wondered where it came from.
<quoted text>
And this believe is formed from what specific criteria?
<quoted text>
I see. So, "separate is not equal" is crap to you. Good to know. Can we go back to segregating schools and bathrooms then? You know, based on what you support.
<quoted text>
What are you blathering about here? The subject was marriage. And despite your "beliefs" and your lack of criteria in establishing them, marriage is NOT defined by the gender of its participants. Two women entering into marriage do not somehow alter or redefine what is required in order for it to qualify as marriage.
If you disagree, then please provide specifics, not prattling on about apples and oranges.
<quoted text>
Yes, you also feel that homosexuals are unequal to straight people and that their relationships are somehow different than straight peoples. Forgive me if I could care less about your "feelings".
<quoted text>
Your bravado about your knowledge and self importance bores me.
You stated an opinion, I asked you what criteria you used in forming it. Rather than answer, you went on and on about nothing, attempted to insult my character, and pretended you were some how privy ahead of time to what I might say.
You waste my time.
<quoted text>
No, I wouldn't call your comment generous, I'd call it childish.
Sorry I asked you a question to begin with. Please do go about your day basking in your self created importance.
You didn't want an answer, you just wanted an excuse to rant (as predicted), and be dishonest. You got it and you lied. Your character deserves to be insulted... if had had any. Your problem, not mine.

If I really waste your time, you won't bother to respond. But since you have already clearly displayed your dishonsty, my guess is that you'll stupidly respond with another rant again, making no sense again, thus showing your dishonesty again.

What a surprise that will be.

And I'll go about my day just fine, thank you, knowing that exposed yet another BS'er.

“You'll love me!”

Since: Sep 10

I promise.

#177 Nov 8, 2010
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> I checked your link and I understand why you cited it. I agree that Sen Savino's speech was eloquent and I further agree that gay relationships should fiund a way to be codified. I just would not call the sanction marriage. I even respect that you disagree and thoroughly respect how you have presented your position with both eloquence and civility, and also with logic. Since it's none of my business who you are attracted to or have a relationship with, that's not the issue (with me). Ancillary consideration, people like McMike, Oxydipshit, and a whole gaggle of idiots on your side does not do your side any good. Normal people will look at them and dismiss them as stupid, irrelevany fags and you get to pay for their stupidity, just like I get to pay for being a Republican whether I support and/or agree with Sarah Palin or not. That's just the way of the real world.
Thanks for the link. Really a good speech.
What exactly makes a marriage a "true" marriage though? The entire debate comes down to one question. Which is more important in a marriage; genitalia or love?

I believe that marriage is about love. Two people are bound together, spiritually or not, and they promise to love one another for the rest of their lives. People get so hung up on the fact that the people who want to get married have the same genitalia.
So what? There is more to a marriage than a penis and a vagina. There is more to a relationship than procreation. Those things take a back seat to what REALLY makes a marriage last; happiness, joy, commitment, and most importantly, LOVE.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#178 Nov 8, 2010
Coy91 wrote:
<quoted text>
What exactly makes a marriage a "true" marriage though? The entire debate comes down to one question. Which is more important in a marriage; genitalia or love?
I believe that marriage is about love. Two people are bound together, spiritually or not, and they promise to love one another for the rest of their lives. People get so hung up on the fact that the people who want to get married have the same genitalia.
So what? There is more to a marriage than a penis and a vagina. There is more to a relationship than procreation. Those things take a back seat to what REALLY makes a marriage last; happiness, joy, commitment, and most importantly, LOVE.
Love whoever you want. It's none of my business. I don't support redefining something that needs no new definition.

It's interesting that so many are desperate to convince and convert me. You have your position and I have mine. Some get downright belligerent as if it mattered that they don't agree with me, or that it made a difference in the integrity of their relationship if I said the words they wanted to hear. Worse yet, it seems as if they would feel more normal if only I would agree with them. I don't. They'll have to find their feeling of normalcy without my vote. And somehow, I'll have to find a way to survive without their approval.(I don't think that will be difficult.)

But from the bitchiness and downright hate from some, it's no wonder that some simply don't like gays and use terms that they might not like. Comes with the territory of being bitchy and hateful.

You have gone out of your way to be civil, pleasant, reasonable, and everything else that is healthy about a disagreement/discussion. I appreciate that, and I thank you for that. While wishing you nothing but the best, I can, and do, still disagree with you. I'm not sure there's a problem in that.

Since: Oct 10

Newark, NJ

#179 Nov 8, 2010
It would be nice if we could remove Obama in similar fashion.
Leave Our Kids Alone

Amesbury, MA

#180 Nov 8, 2010
@coy91, how come the gay community doesn't ever talk about he high divorce rate amongst them? There is one you know. The majority of gay men admit to having sex with over 500 partners in a lifetime to. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with love to me.
Leave Our Kids Alone

Amesbury, MA

#181 Nov 8, 2010
And Kagan.
ancient echos

Fallbrook, CA

#182 Nov 8, 2010
Leave Our Kids Alone wrote:
@coy91, how come the gay community doesn't ever talk about he high divorce rate amongst them? There is one you know. The majority of gay men admit to having sex with over 500 partners in a lifetime to. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with love to me.
where is your proof of this, or do you go on hearsay of one gay man.... what about some of the heterosexuals that have over 2000 notches in their belt, like gene simmons, wilt chamberlin claiming to have slept with 20,000 women, hmmmmm yep that is for love in the heterosexual world, and divorce rate among heterosexuals is very bad it is above 50%, some sanctity, huh?
Bill Of Rights

Oakland, CA

#183 Nov 8, 2010
Herp Da Derrrp wrote:
<quoted text>
What qualifies marriage is between a man and a woman is the fact that, yes, they are in fact the only two who can successfully complete natural intercourse with one another and are naturally predetermined to be suited for one another. The problemmmm is that being married in the U.S. brings on its own set of benefits, since the state assumes you will be a successful child-rearing productive couple, you earn tax exemptions and the such. Can Gay couples say the same? There's a lot to deal with here not so simple.
Gee,I wasn't aware that there was a new law that if you can't procreate you can't get married! When did they pass this law? Oh,you mean it isn't a requirement or a law? Ridiculous post!
Bill Of Rights

Oakland, CA

#184 Nov 8, 2010
Leave Our Kids Alone wrote:
@coy91, how come the gay community doesn't ever talk about he high divorce rate amongst them? There is one you know. The majority of gay men admit to having sex with over 500 partners in a lifetime to. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with love to me.
What a load of crap! Are you simply ignorant or are you lying on purpose?

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#185 Nov 8, 2010
Leave Our Kids Alone wrote:
@coy91, how come the gay community doesn't ever talk about he high divorce rate amongst them? There is one you know. The majority of gay men admit to having sex with over 500 partners in a lifetime to. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with love to me.
Once again, Topix troll, R1, hiding behind his little proxy server, posts his usual drivel. What the fruck do you know about any "gay community" and it's divorce rate? I live in NE, across the border from IA, and pick up Iowa news stations. The only people I have seen on the news bitching/moaning about marriage equality are old dried up coots, goaded from outside sources, heading for the grave. I know 5 same sex couples married in Sioux City, Council Bluffs, and Des Moines. There has been no big "uprising" until the freaks from out of state came in stirred crap up.

“Choose wisely!”

Since: Jul 07

Los Angeles

#186 Nov 8, 2010
What happens if the next set of Judges rules EXACTLY the same as the set just ousted?

Are we going to be a society that just keeps hacking away at decisions and people and laws we don't like? IS THAT HOW THIS WORKS? IS THIS THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC ENVISIONED BY THE FOUNDERS AND FRAMERS and worse - is this the society you want?!

What happens if the rulings keeps saying that there is no Constitutional basis for discrimination against gays? What if the U.S. Supreme Court rules "Pro-Gay"? Are you going to amend the Constitution itself to unseat U.S. Supreme Court Justices?!?

This IS the logical conclusion of such a path. It says that Joe McCarthy was right. That there are "good" Americans and "bad" Americans and the "bad" will be purged from society and ANYONE who gets in our way will be suspect, removed from office or worse!

This IS history repeating itself. This IS McCarthyism. This is how the Weimar Republic became NAZI Germany with a leader elected with only 33% of the popular vote!

Uncertain times, high unemployment, greed run rampant, corporations getting away with ripping off the people and getting Government to bail them out, this leads people on the fringes to say - LOOK! THERE - SEE THE "OTHER"!!! He is "different" and he and those like him, are NOT like us! WE are REAL Americans and we must purge those "others" until we are pure again.

Look! I dare and defy you all to look at the campaign just ended and NOT find history staring back at you, mocking you, laughing! Be careful of what you wish for!

Reason must prevail. Civility must be brought back. This is NOT about "us" and "them" it's about ALL OF US! We are all afraid, but we can make things better. We have only to not give into fear and hate and know that at our core, we share FAR more in common than we do not. CHOOSE to not be afraid.

Eric

“You'll love me!”

Since: Sep 10

I promise.

#187 Nov 8, 2010
Leave Our Kids Alone wrote:
@coy91, how come the gay community doesn't ever talk about he high divorce rate amongst them? There is one you know. The majority of gay men admit to having sex with over 500 partners in a lifetime to. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with love to me.
Evidence? Do you have any? I have some and it goes completely contradictory to what you just said.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/08/07/2...

There were 24,629 gay marriages in the United Kingdom in 2007. Couples must be married for 1 year before they can file for divorce. After two years, only 245 of those couples filed for a divorce.

245/24,629=.009947=.9947%

Less than 1% of gay marriages end in divorce after two years. Truthfully, same sex marriage hasn't been legal for a long enough duration to establish ANY statistics on it, but the evidence we have so far, which I just showed you, shows that you are wrong.

Even if the divorce rate was 99% it wouldn't make a difference. There has to be a way for the gay community to obtain the legal rights that come with a marriage license. It's discrimination to withhold them. You're suggesting that because couples eventually divorce they shouldn't be entitled to a marriage license. In that case, no one should be able to get married since half or even more of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce.

Also, 500 men in a lifetime? What study says that? Medicalnewstoday.com reported in an article that;

"according to two large population surveys, the majority of gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners annually as straight men and women."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/8233...

Trust me, it's better if you just walk away right now.

Since: Jul 09

Indy/Philly/Toronto

#188 Nov 8, 2010
Fact #1:
It's Iowa!

Fact #2:
Elections are NOT a barometer of the will of the people. They are a representation of who has the most money to spend on "spin.".

Fact #3:
Gays are the new terrorists. How did that happen?
Answer:
Straight people in America are terrified of gay people. Why?
Answer:
I don't know, but it has something to do with insecurity.

Fact #4:
Gay people don't care what others think about them and therefore don't play much defence.
Note:
Not caring what people think is a GOOD THING. But, not fighting back isn't. Therein, lies the rub.

Fact #5:
As soon as this Post War generation dies off, things will be MUCH BETTER. Hang in there.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Illinois Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 6 hr Boy G 51,249
Former Hells Angels Leader Sentenced (Nov '06) 13 hr Mike 141
Tuesday's election will be hard to take sober Thu swedenforever 190
GOP Victory Sets Stage for Fresh Antiabortion... Wed tha Professor 78
Illinois Governor Recall Amendment (Oct '10) Wed Justice1313 1,970
U.S navy Dec 15 Justin 1
Governor Blagojevich being forced to put commit... (Jun '06) Dec 13 Banana Hammock 16
More from around the web