Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iowa Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Ruling an Assault on Midwestern Values
Americans for Truth ^ | April 3, 2009 | Peter LaBarbera

Posted on 04/03/2009 12:00:09 PM PDT by DesertRenegade

Today Iowa becomes the first state not on either of the nation’s two liberal coasts to impose counterfeit, homosexual ‘marriage’ or its mischievous twin, ‘civil unions,’ on its citizens through judicial tyranny. To call this decision bankrupt is to understate its perniciousness. The evil genius of the pro-sodomy movement is that it targets noble institutions like marriage and adoption in the name of ‘rights,’ and then perverts and uses them to normalize aberrant and destructive behaviors.

'Homosexual ‘marriage’ is wrong because homosexual behavior itself is wrong and destructive – as proved by its role in the needless, early deaths of countless ‘gay’ men. We must shake loose of the secularists’ and libertarians’ amoral nonchalance regarding ‘same-sex marriage’ by asking questions like this: how exactly would two men consummate their ‘gay marriage”’ Answer: by engaging in what one Founding Father, Noah Webster, writing in saner times, rightly defined as a ‘crime against nature.’

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty," said abolitionist Wendell Phillips, and the evidence keeps pouring in that the entire homosexualist agenda is at war – not just with our nation’s Biblical heritage – but the freedoms that made the United States of America great and blessed among nations. When the courts order society to effectively pretend that changeable sexual misbehavior is a ‘civil right,’ the law itself becomes perverted by punishing people of faith for their proper opposition toward deviant sex. The battle between ‘gay rights’ and religious freedom is a ‘zero-sum’ game – as even lesbian Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum admits.

I’m afraid that the pro-family movement – eager to provide secular, public-policy arguments against ‘gay marriage’ – has failed to convey the monstrous evil of expanding, state-sanctioned homosexualism in our midst. Our Creator is pure, perfect and holy, and homosexual behavior is diametrically opposed to His will for people’s lives and His purpose for sex within the healthy boundaries of marriage, for the procreation of children. This same God graciously provides a way out of this sinful lifestyle through His son Jesus Christ, a path many former homosexuals have taken – including those now living in real (man-woman) marriages.

It is high time for pastors, in Iowa and across the land, to shake off their stifling, politically correct timidity and again become the prophetic voices for Truth they were called to be: by boldly warning Americans – Christian and non-Christian alike — about the perils of our growing accommodation with the sins of proud homosexuality, and sex outside marriage in general.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Iowa
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; gaystapo; homosexualagenda; ia2009; perverts; ruling; samesexmarriage; sodomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last
I am pretty confidant that this absurd pro-homosexual ruling can be vacated within a few weeks. The vast majority of Iowans are sickened by this type of homosexual militancy and will have no problem supporting an amendment to the State Constitution banning all homosexual 'marriages'. Let's hope this can be accomplished swiftly.
1 posted on 04/03/2009 12:00:09 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Why is Iowa so liberal?


2 posted on 04/03/2009 12:01:04 PM PDT by Sequoyah101 (Get the bats and light the hay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

What makes anyone, at this point, believe that a state constitutional amendment won’t be overturned by the federal courts?


3 posted on 04/03/2009 12:01:55 PM PDT by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

I believe that, according to the Iowa State Constitution, next year Iowans will be asked if they should hold a State Constitutional Convention. This ruling guarantees a majority of Iowa voters will voted “yes”.


4 posted on 04/03/2009 12:03:40 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Iowa’s amendment process is very different. It takes several years to go through the process, so gay marriage will be legal there for at least a few years.


5 posted on 04/03/2009 12:04:31 PM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

What makes you confident?


6 posted on 04/03/2009 12:05:12 PM PDT by Conservativegreatgrandma (When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule the people mourn. Proverbs 29;2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjo

“What makes anyone, at this point, believe that a state constitutional amendment won’t be overturned by the federal courts?”

It is a certainty not to be overturned. DOMA denies the recognition of artificial homosexual ‘marriages’, so it would in no way conflict with federal law for Iowa to do the same.


7 posted on 04/03/2009 12:05:46 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Marriage is between a man and woman and the king of all kings. The government can’t change that.

Judge calls out the law, we call the lord.


8 posted on 04/03/2009 12:06:40 PM PDT by devistate one four (Cw II on the way! Stand by. TET68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

It swings back and forth. What the problem here is a handful of radical judicial activists that think they can rule millions at will and disregard the law and precedent. Every last one of them should be removed from office for misconduct.


9 posted on 04/03/2009 12:08:47 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

“Iowa’s amendment process is very different. It takes several years to go through the process, so gay marriage will be legal there for at least a few years.”

This is not the whole truth at all. There are multiple legal avenues. The legislature can pass an emergency act within 48 hours, the Governor can also pass an emergency executive order, the Courts can issue a stay based on the damage the ruling will cause to religious institutions (a bright line federal right). Religious freedoms have the highest priority in our Constitution and therefore have numerous venues of protection. Believe me, these sham homosexual ‘marriages’ will be shut down before the end of the month.


10 posted on 04/03/2009 12:09:35 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade
Churches are responsible for this mess. If any Freeper reading this belongs to any church on this list, you are partly responsible for this ruling.

These churches not only fail to teach that homosexuality is a sin, many of them even promote homosexuality and perform "same sex" unions and ordain homosexuals.

• African Methodist Episcopal Church
• The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
• Alliance of Baptists
• American Baptist Churches in the USA
• Diocese of the Armenian Church of America
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
• Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
• Church of the Brethren
• The Coptic Orthodox Church in North America
• The Episcopal Church
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• Friends United Meeting
• Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
• Hungarian Reformed Church in America
• International Council of Community Churches
• Korean Presbyterian Church in America
• Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
• Mar Thoma Church
• Moravian Church in America Northern Province and Southern Province
• National Baptist Convention of America
• National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc.
• National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
• Orthodox Church in America
• Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA
• Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
• Polish National Catholic Church of America
• Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
• Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.
• Reformed Church in America
• Serbian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A. and Canada
• The Swedenborgian Church
• Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch
• Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America
• United Church of Christ
• The United Methodist Church •

11 posted on 04/03/2009 12:09:41 PM PDT by Conservativegreatgrandma (When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule the people mourn. Proverbs 29;2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

“Iowa’s amendment process is very different. It takes several years to go through the process, so gay marriage will be legal there for at least a few years.”

Yes, changing the state constitution in Iowa is a lengthy process. It has to be approved in TWO CONSECUTIVE legislative sessions, and then has to be put to a public vote. So unless it is taken up immediately in the legislative session that is about to end, gay marriage will be legal in Iowa until at least 2012.


12 posted on 04/03/2009 12:09:44 PM PDT by Hawk720
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

That will not happen. RATS control the whole ball of wax and this is the ruling they anxiously awaiting.


13 posted on 04/03/2009 12:11:07 PM PDT by Conservativegreatgrandma (When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule the people mourn. Proverbs 29;2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

The SCOTUS likes the 14th Amendment and typically will side with litigants who cite the Equal Protection Clause.


14 posted on 04/03/2009 12:11:17 PM PDT by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at I00 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101
"Why is Iowa so liberal?"

It goes right along with our stupidity.

You could have asked: "why are Iowans so stupid?"

Consider that we are right in the middle of the Bible Belt, in the center of the Heartland, with nothing but traditional values streching back many generations, but YET we elect a democrat governor, and a majority of our state legislature, and a majority or our U.S. representatives are democrat as well. And the one that are Republican, are not all conservatives.

Just plain old stupidity.

15 posted on 04/03/2009 12:14:06 PM PDT by Designer (We are SO scrood!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Steven Breyer, and Ruth Baden Ginsberg both believe that the Constitution needs to “grow”...it wouldn’t have to “grow” much at this point for the SCOTUS to start striking down state constitutional provisions.

If there can be found a federal right to abortion...there can be a federal right to sodomy.

It’s coming.


16 posted on 04/03/2009 12:14:39 PM PDT by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

It’s a fact that the amendment process in iowa takes several years. I’m not sure what court you expect to issue a stay, because I don’t see that happening


17 posted on 04/03/2009 12:15:12 PM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
Iowa’s amendment process is very different. It takes several years to go through the process, so gay marriage will be legal there for at least a few years.

Here's Article X, Sections 1 & 3 of the Iowa State Constitution:

§ 1. Any amendment or amendments to this constitution may be proposed in either house of the general assembly; and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment shall be entered on their journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and referred to the legislature to be chosen at the next general election, and shall be published, as provided by law, for three months previous to the time of making such choice; and if, in the general assembly so next chosen as aforesaid, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to, by a majority of all the members elected to each house, then it shall be the duty of the general assembly to submit such proposed amendment or amendments to the people, in such manner, and at such time as the general assembly shall provide; and if the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments, by a majority of the electors qualified to vote for members of the general assembly, voting thereon, such amendment or amendments shall become a part of the constitution of this state....

§ 3.At the general election to be held in the year one thousand nine hundred and seventy, and in each tenth year thereafter, and also at such times as the general assembly may, by law, provide, the question, "Shall there be a convention to revise the constitution, and propose amendment or amendments to same?" shall be decided by the electors qualified to vote for members of the general assembly; and in case a majority of the electors so qualified, voting at such election, for and against such proposition, shall decide in favor of a convention for such purpose, the general assembly, at its next session, shall provide by law for the election of delegates to such convention, and for submitting the results of said convention to the people, in such manner and at such time as the general assembly shall provide; and if the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments, by a majority of the electors qualified to vote for members of the general assembly, voting thereon, such amendment or amendments shall become a part of the constitution of this state.

If two or more amendments shall be submitted at the same time, they shall be submitted in such a manner that electors may vote for or against each such amendment separately.

Simply overthrowing that State government would be quicker.

18 posted on 04/03/2009 12:15:24 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade
I don't think so. Iowa long ago left the common sense Midwest, in favor of being more prairie populist (code for gimme federal money.)
19 posted on 04/03/2009 12:15:36 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade
Now Stuart, if you look at the soil around any large U.S. city with a big underground homosexual population - Des Moines, Iowa, perfect example. Look at the soil around Des Moines, Stuart. You can't build on it, you can't grow anything in it. The government says it's due to poor farming. But I know what's really going on, Stuart. I know it's the queers. They're in it with the aliens. They're building landing strips for gay Martians.
20 posted on 04/03/2009 12:16:17 PM PDT by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at I00 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devistate one four

The title is wrong.

Same-Sex “Marriage” ruling is an assault on HUMANITY’S values.

Marriage was created by God as the first human institution, between one man and one woman, with the intent of procreation.

This reflects the very nature of the triune God.


21 posted on 04/03/2009 12:16:56 PM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, Bowman later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kjo

All sodomy laws were struck down by the SCOTUS in 2003.


22 posted on 04/03/2009 12:16:56 PM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Ditto’s. I like your posts by the way.

Stay safe


23 posted on 04/03/2009 12:18:21 PM PDT by devistate one four (Cw II on the way! Stand by. TET68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kjo

There is already a federal right to sodomy. It was the Lawrence vs. Texas case in 2003 that struck down laws against that act and homosexuality in general.

Whether this also means there is a federal right to same sex marriage, time will tell.

Liberal judges can take anything and make it a civil right. Liberals look to judges as a super legislature. Call a spade a spade.


24 posted on 04/03/2009 12:18:42 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

See, under the “penumbra doctrine” interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, there are rights that are not specifically delineated, yet they exist and are enforceable.

Imagine the constitution is like the sun, and during a solar eclipse, though much of the sun is obstructed by the moon, the penumbra appears and is revealed; similarly, the right to engage in homosexual conduct and to be ‘married’ to practitioners thereof, appears in the penumbra of the constitution-—since the moon passed in front of it....and, it became revealed...

well, that’s the theory any way.

I’m surprised you didn’t know that.


25 posted on 04/03/2009 12:20:30 PM PDT by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

I was born, raised, educated, married, lived in Iowa a good 30 years. It’s always been liberal. Very much so.


26 posted on 04/03/2009 12:23:24 PM PDT by FreedomFerret
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Lawrence vs. Texas was a good ruling in that the Court sided against the State who entered a private residence without a warrant and arrested two adults for an act they were doing (sodomy) in the privacy of their own bedroom.


27 posted on 04/03/2009 12:24:12 PM PDT by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at I00 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kjo

See my post about the “penumbra doctrine”, above. When the moon passes in front of the sun during a solar eclpise, the penumbra is revealed, and mothers can kill their unborn babies.

It’s very simple.


28 posted on 04/03/2009 12:24:55 PM PDT by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

“There is already a federal right to sodomy. It was the Lawrence vs. Texas case in 2003 that struck down laws against that act and homosexuality in general.”

And a very good ruling it was. Unless you’re the sort who likes the police in your bedroom.


29 posted on 04/03/2009 12:36:34 PM PDT by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

I predict a large influx of tourist from Minneapolis.


30 posted on 04/03/2009 12:39:14 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB (ACORN:American Corruption for Obama Right Now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad
And a very good ruling it was. Unless you’re the sort who likes the police in your bedroom.

My guess is that there are Freepers who advocate the Police (state) entering a person's home without a warrant and arresting adults for sexual acts that they are committing in the privacy of their bedroom.

31 posted on 04/03/2009 12:41:16 PM PDT by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at I00 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101
Why is Iowa so liberal?

I was born in Des Moines and lived there until age 10 when my parents moved to the Chicago area.

My ancestors were among the earliest settlers in Iowa migrating there from Illinois in the 1850's to work in the coal mines in southeastern Iowa. The coal miners were very involved in the union and progressive movements in Iowa. The coal mining industry in Iowa was strong until the mid-1920's. If you read the early 20th century history of states like Illinois, Iowa and Missouri, you'll find that the progressive movement was very strong there.

I can recall my grandfather, who was a miner, putting me on his knee when I was a young boy and telling me that I was a democrat. He told me that the Democrats were for the people and the Republicans were for the rich. My mother grew up in the same small Iowa town as Senator Harkin. Harkin, who is as looney as they come, is typical of many Iowans.

My impression is that most people in Iowa are Democrats because that's an Iowa tradition passed down from the earliest settlers. You'll find Republicans limited mainly to the farmers.

Iowans are not stupid. I once heard that the average IQ in Iowa was the highest of any state. Unfortunately, Iowans may be too smart for their own good given their propensity to support Democrats.

32 posted on 04/03/2009 12:55:12 PM PDT by Rum Tum Tugger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Designer

Iowa flocked to Mike Huckabee and gay marriage, evidently. I can’t fault your logic here, Designer.


33 posted on 04/03/2009 12:56:10 PM PDT by CaspersGh0sts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hawk720

“gay marriage will be legal there for at least a few years.”

Again, this is not true at all. There are various legal avenues. But even if the legislature chose what you suggest, the timing couldn’t be better (for pro-family groups). Since the session is about to expire - there could be a ruling within days and then again in the new session. So two sessions could be covered in a matter of weeks. But like I said previously, there are at least a dozen other avenues of action. The people of Iowa are not going to stand for what these liberal activist judges have attempted.


34 posted on 04/03/2009 12:58:45 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

“Lawrence vs. Texas was a good ruling in that the Court sided against the State who entered a private residence without a warrant and arrested two adults for an act they were doing (sodomy) in the privacy of their own bedroom.”

I don’t believe that is what happened. They were entering the home to arrest one of the men on a warrant and happened upon the illegal activity in the process. It is exactly the same as if they were responding to a burglary and happened upon a man raping a young child. They would not ignore the perpetrator just because they were entering the home on another pretext. The bust was totally legal.


35 posted on 04/03/2009 1:03:32 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

The conservative leaders in Iowa seem to believe that there is no stopping this from a legislative perspective until 2012:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403013

“Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, said lawmakers should debate the issue either in the waning weeks of their regular session or in a special session.

“Hurley said the Legislature should have passed such an amendment years ago. That would have headed off the lawsuit that led to Friday’s Supreme Court decision.

“He said legislative leaders contended in the past that no constitutional amendment was needed, because the state already had a law banning gay marriage. “They said ‘The court’s not going to overturn the statute, you’re crazy,’ ” he recalled. “Well, now who’s crazy?”

“Hurley acknowledged that until a constitutional amendment could be placed on the ballot, there’s nothing gay-marriage opponents can do to stop gay couples from marrying in Iowa. The soonest such a vote could take place would be 2012.”


36 posted on 04/03/2009 1:06:50 PM PDT by Hawk720
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Rum Tum Tugger

My parents, especially my mother, tried to sell me that swill about dumocraps for the people and republicans for business as well. Up until I was about a Junior in high school I didn’t give it much thought but then when I did I told them to peddle that crap somewhere else because I wasn’t buying it.

I delivered an essay about that time with the premise that Roosevelt was an alright guy but WWII is what ended the depression. On civics day they took us to the courthouse where the DA told us about how juries are picked ...I told him that it sounded like the objective of the process was not to get a jury of peers but instead a jury of impressionable idiots to simple to think for themselves. And so it has been for more than half a century.


37 posted on 04/03/2009 1:07:25 PM PDT by Sequoyah101 (Get the bats and light the hay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade
I was not aware that a young child could consent to being raped. However, in Lawrence both participants were consenting adults.
38 posted on 04/03/2009 1:07:30 PM PDT by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at I00 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

“I don’t believe that is what happened. They were entering the home to arrest one of the men on a warrant and happened upon the illegal activity in the process.”

No, there was no warrant. A neighbor had reported a “disturbance” and the police entered. The police had probable cause to enter. The neighbor, however, later admitted to lying about it, and pled no contest to filing a false police report.


39 posted on 04/03/2009 1:13:03 PM PDT by Hawk720
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

“My guess is that there are Freepers who advocate the Police (state) entering a person’s home without a warrant and arresting adults for sexual acts that they are committing in the privacy of their bedroom.”

Plenty of them, in fact. If you can locate the threads from when the Texas ruling came down, you’ll find them. Included were numerous predictions that the courts would soon legalize beastiality, polygamy and sex with children.


40 posted on 04/03/2009 1:17:41 PM PDT by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Judges on Homosexual Marriage in Iowa: “Rule it and they will come.”


41 posted on 04/03/2009 1:29:28 PM PDT by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad
In the end it will be difficult for the opponents of gay marriage to work their way around the Equal Protection Clause.
42 posted on 04/03/2009 1:49:16 PM PDT by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at I00 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Hawk720

“Hurley acknowledged that until a constitutional amendment could be placed on the ballot, there’s nothing gay-marriage opponents can do to stop gay couples from marrying in Iowa. The soonest such a vote could take place would be 2012.”

Not true. Religious leaders are already conferring about an appeal that could be made within the next few days. There is a rock solid legal argument that this new social engineering abridges the rights of religions institutions to refuse to perform artificial homosexual unions. The new ruling threatens to criminalize preachers and ministers who believe that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and immoral. Just like the public decency and morality clauses that many civil service jobs require, the clergy cannot be forced to acknowledge such perverted same-sex union.


43 posted on 04/03/2009 2:02:07 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Hawk720

“A neighbor had reported a ‘disturbance’ and the police entered. The police had probable cause to enter. The neighbor, however, later admitted to lying about it, and pled no contest to filing a false police report.”

Same thing. If someone calls the cops and reports they saw someone being bound and gagged in a neighbor’s home, the police have an obligation to investigate. Even if the neighbor lied, if the police find a homosexual inside the home abusing a child, they can still prosecute. It was all done under probable cause. As much as liberals want to condone homosexual sodomy, it was illegal at the time. So the cops were only following the law.


44 posted on 04/03/2009 2:05:57 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

I didn’t say the police acted improperly. I was just correcting the assertion that they entered the home to execute a warrant to arrest someone. They did come with a warrant.


45 posted on 04/03/2009 2:08:20 PM PDT by Hawk720
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

“In the end it will be difficult for the opponents of gay marriage to work their way around the Equal Protection Clause.”

How so? Sexual preference is a behavior, not a physical trait like skin color. The liberal DemRats are always trying to equate the two, but that argument is totally illogical. There is no “Equal Protection” when it comes to a sexual lifestyle choice. Otherwise polygamists and others would have special rights.


46 posted on 04/03/2009 2:10:24 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

From Colin Powell’s autobiography:

“I think it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline to try to integrate gays and lesbians in the current military structure.” “Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”


47 posted on 04/03/2009 2:11:48 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

“The new ruling threatens to criminalize preachers and ministers who believe that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and immoral. Just like the public decency and morality clauses that many civil service jobs require, the clergy cannot be forced to acknowledge such perverted same-sex union.”

How is the Iowa ruling different from, say, the one in Massachusetts? I’m asking sincerely, and not to be contrary. I’m just wondering, since you don’t hear about clergymen in other states with legal gay marriage talking about being FORCED to marry people.

My church can refuse to marry anyone they want right now. Do you really believe that this ruling would change that?


48 posted on 04/03/2009 2:13:15 PM PDT by Hawk720
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade; Hawk720

DR, Hawk720 is right.

Except - it was a put up job by the two queers so they could file this very suit. They WANTED to be arrested.


49 posted on 04/03/2009 2:18:59 PM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade
Otherwise polygamists and others would have special rights.

You are absolutely correct. If "sexual deviancy" is covered under the Equal Protection Clause, then not only homosexuals, but polygamists, pedophiles, zoophiles and voyeurs enjoy equal coverage.

Scalia broached this very point in Lawrence, but SCOTUS ignored it. Consequently, the courts are setting precedents that will inevitably result in even greater coarsening of society.

50 posted on 04/03/2009 2:26:20 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson