Comments on: Iowa gender-neutral marriage bill withers

By: drewski

drewski — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:09:19 +0000

Iowa deserves congratulations for taking on this issue. I don’t fault them for failing to de-sex marriage. Look at the path from discussion to legislative action. If you look at it like an expressway on-ramp, it’s very short compared to the marriage issue in New York or California. If anything, the frankness in Iowa is far more impressive than anything a California activist has said or done, not least because Iowa is as Middle America as it gets. Small-town doesn’t mean stupid or unreflective. Contrast? Look north, to Minnesota, and the idiocy over the smoking ban (bars becoming “theaters,” customers allowed to smoke because they were “actors”).

I’d like to acknowledge Iowans for even taking up this issue, and I expect they’ll be part of a real solution for the whole country.

By: WondersofIme

WondersofIme — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 10:08:29 +0000

Wait, this is the state to start OBAMA (that is Mr President) off on the path to the Whitehouse, but can’t get it straight (no pun intended) to get right with Marriage Equality?

I am getting dissappointed in IOWA, It seems the WHINERS in Cali need to let the courts there do their work and get their Cali. Azzes on busses and head on over to IOWA…. Where is Ashton Kushner(?sp) and Tom Arnold, and other Liberal, equal minded IOWANS??? Get to Des Moines and start lobbying. PLEASE!

By: Morgan

Morgan — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:47:24 +0000

David,

marriage is for the joy and comfort of a couple and children if children are wanted. In case of a gay couple options being adoption or birth by surrogate mother.

By: KrisDM

KrisDM — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 02:55:57 +0000

I am so disappointed in my lawmakers here in Iowa. I would have loved to marry my partner in our home state but, they are seeing to it that we can’t do that. It’s getting harder and harder to want to stay in Iowa and raise a family when there are so many people still considered fourth class citizens here. Mr. McCoy, thank you for your efforts, you make us all proud!!! Mr. Kuhle, I watched you present your case before the Iowa Supreme Court, I couldn’t believe the things you were saying. Where do you get your information and so called facts??? I live in Des Moines and I vote–I’ll be watching for you in the future….

By: David

David — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:18:42 +0000

Marriage has never been about procreation as people can procreate without being married.

By: FlexSF

FlexSF — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:13:52 +0000

Spaulding. No, Mr. Kuhle would not support a ban on infertile opposite sex couple from marrying, nor should he. He was using religious/political mantra as an argument. That is the core of contemporary religion. They can’t attract anyone into their pews without using homophobia to generate interest. It has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with political power and money. Religion has raised hundreds of millions of dollars by opposing anything gay. That is the bottom line for them. They are disgusting!

By: John

John — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:01:57 +0000

Isn’t it interesting how the very same people who will argue that “marriage” is only a word and doesn’t matter as long as rights are equal will scream bloody murder at the suggestion that the term “marriage” be replaced with “Civil Union” in applicable statutes?

By: spaulding

spaulding — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:55:50 +0000

So I take it then that Assit Cty Attny Kuhle would support disallowing marriage between heterosexuals where one or both are not fertile for whatever biological reasons. He would also support a “marriage license period” werein if a couple did not procreate withing a specified lenght of time, that marriage would be dissolved by the state.

Kuhle, get a hint, join the 21st century.

Equality for all.