Senator Harkin: Fair

February 13th, 2009

160px-tom_harkin_official_portraitI find myself not too happy with Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today. It appears that on Wednesday he went on to the liberal talk radio show of Bill Press and said?

BILL PRESS:? Alright, well good for you. You know, we gotta work on that, because they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another. All we want is, you know, some balance on the airwaves, that’s all. You know, we’re not going to take any of the conservative voices off the airwaves, but just make sure that there are a few progressives and liberals out there, right?

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Exactly, and that’s why we need the fair — that’s why we need the Fairness Doctrine back.


Read more

< |||| > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Definition of Marriage

For several days now, I?ve been in a running argument with an individual who goes by the name of ?On Lawn? over in the comments sections of the blog ran by anti-gay equality group National Organization for Marriage. In several comments here, here, and here, this person seems to imply that procreation, or at least the potential for procreation, is a requirement of marriage. I?ve tried several times to get this person to explain this concept but they keep brushing off the question calling it absurd. When I tried to point out that there is no link between marriage and procreation they came back with this.

Well, there shows the damage they want to do to the institution. If marriage can?t look equally at the interests of all involved in the practice of human mating, then you tell me what can.

Prehistoric humans didn?t marry before they mated, they just found a bush did it. When you look at the whole of human history, marriage is a relatively new creation, only being a few thousand years old. Our very existence proves that marriage is not a requirement or an essential element of the human mating process.

My mother and step-father married well after I was born and I suspect that if you asked them if they were planning on ever having children again they would both laugh you out of the house.

The debate with On Lawn, and also with Chairm, has continued on, evolving and shifting back and forth as most debates do. I?ve actually learned a lot and have found a lot of new resources while researching various parts of the debate.

For example?

The legal definition of marriage in the state of Iowa per civil code 595.1a is?

Marriage is a civil contract, requiring the consent of the parties capable of entering into other contracts, except as herein otherwise declared.

There is no specification of gender or sexual orientation in the state definition. There is also no implication that procreation or even the potential for procreation be necessary, of which On Lawn and Chairm both continue to argue that it does. I attempted to point this out to On Lawn in a recent comment.

On Lawn?s reply was?

Thats because Blacks Law dictionary took care of the reference?

I?m not sure if On Lawn realized that, according to Slate, in 2004 Black?s Law Dictionary added same-sex marriage to it?s definition of marriage. Just as the American Heritage Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary did in 2000.

Now, granted, in 1999 the Iowa Legislature passed a bill which added to code 595.2 to the state laws surrounding marriage.

Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.

It was this part of the state law that the Iowa Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional under the equal protections clause of the state constitution. Both On Lawn and Chairm seem to brush off the Supreme Court decision that made 595.2.1 null and void as if it has no legal foundation, and that it was nothing more than the misguided opinion of some folks in black robes.

The Iowa State Constitution specifically states in Article I section 6?

All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

I can only surmise that they believe that 595.2.1 could be applied equally to all Iowa citizens, but in reality it did not. The law prevented same-sex couples from enjoying the benefits of civil marriage. The law could not be equally applied to both Heterosexual individuals and Homosexual individuals, because under that law the only way a homosexual individual could get married is if they married someone of the opposite sex. To someone who is homosexual, marrying or even having a relationship with someone of the opposite sex is just as absurd as having a relationship or marrying someone of the same sex is to someone that is heterosexual.

I won?t deny that some homosexual people have been able to deny themselves their true identity and form a relationship with someone of the opposite sex in order to be acceptable to the social ?norm?.? There is nothing however that makes that right. That would be like the government telling everyone that had blue eyes that they have to wear contacts to make their eyes green if they want to be treated equally under the law. If the person wants to do that then so be it, but no one, and not the government has the right to say you have to be this way or that if you want equal treatment. That?s what the whole civil rights fight was about in the 60?s. African Americans were told that sure you can have equal rights but only if you do this or that and they couldn?t mix with Whites. I wonder how Michael Jackson would have been treated by the Jim Crow laws of the 60?s. He has basically gone from being Black to White. Sure he is still an African American but if you knew nothing about him and saw him on the street you would hard pressed to make the connection.

The bottom line is, that laws of the states and of the United States are constitutionally required to treat everyone the same regardless of their genetic traits. States that have no constitutional amendment or state statue baring marriage of same-sex couples do treat everyone equally by the book. However when same-sex couples attempt to put that into practice they find themselves bumping up against the social ?norm? which means that they have no choice but to resort to the courts to get the laws enforced as they are written. The mater gets worse when states permit constitutional amendments or state statues to be passed that are designed to specifically bar same-sex couples from enjoying the same happiness and benefits of heterosexual couples.

Side Note: I am working on an Essay detailing the History of Marriage. It?s not much more than an outline at the moment as I am doing a lot of reading and research for it. Also, if you want to read more about On Lawn and Chairm?s side of the argument they both contribute to a blog called The Opine Editorials. While I respectfully disagree with just about everything they write, the posts and discussions certainly give an in depth look at one of the many views of same-sex marriage.

Last but not least, I think it?s important to note a new lawsuit that has just started moving through the court system. Gill et al v. Office of Personnel Management. The case is in essence a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act. However it does so in a unique way. It basically claims that the Federal Government, by not recognizing same-sex marriages, is infringing on the right of states to grant such marriages. It?s not asking the fed to make same-sex marriages legal nationwide. It is simply stating that the fed should be required to recognize same-sex marriages from states where such marriages are legal. It will be a fairly interesting case, as it has been the tendency of the US Supreme Court to put family law, of which marriage is a part of, in the sole purview of states rights. DOMA in effect attempts to put marriage under a federal definition which goes against states rights.

  • http://www.phuckpolitics.com phuckpolitics

    Those people are fucking morons. Why do you even bother arguing with them? It isn’t going to change their minds.

  • Vast

    Yeah, I’ve probably let them jerk me around more than I like. They arguments don’t even make any real sense half the time.

  • http://www.phuckpolitics.com phuckpolitics

    Yep. It’s pointless to argue with retards.

  • Annette

    Ask them from my POV.. if after having a hysterectomy at 29, since I could never have more children then should I have never been allowed to marry again?

    From their argument that would seem to be the case.

    You have to quit letting them set the agenda as just same sex. Take it to them from the other example then hit them with same sex… see… destroy their argument.. then hit them with same sex.

Categories