Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

Good on Iowa. :thumbsup:

How very sad.

This gross immorality is being forced on us all.

The Orwellian-named Iowa Family Policy Center wants the state legislature to meet in a special session to push through a state constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.

A family policy organization which is opposed to families. How strange.

Legislatures can push through most any bill in a shorter time frame than the proposed 2012 date. If I lived in Iowa I would ask my congressmen why this is so delayed.

Were the signers of the Constitution aware that it protected gay marriage, as the Iowa court has found? I think many of them might have been surprised to realize that they had given homosexual unions equal status with marriage.

Do you thank God every day that you weren’t born homosexual?
Does God make junk? Homosexuals are made in the image of God just like you. Yes, they are call to a celebrate lifestyle, but will be judged by how the love, honor and serve God.
You didn’t ask, but, mastabation, and oral sex are venial sins, so let them live in a loving relationship if thats God’s plan for them.
Let us pray for each other especially those not like us!

I agree with everything you say. Homesexuals are made in the image of God, as are we all. All are in need of God’s grace. None of that makes homesexual unions the equivalent of marriage, however.

So-called gay marriage is about legalized gay sex, not families. Gay people should have equal protection under the law. The police should not treat them any differently. Marriage is not a right, it is a fully voluntary institution. People need food, clothing and shelter, marriage is optional. But it appears calling it legal gay sex is not as appealing as calling it marriage.

On gay forums, I’ve read posts by gay people who refer to an adopted baby as a gayby. And that gays aren’t supposed to reproduce. That’s the purpose of marriage.

I hope that the truth prevails.


No. I don’t thank God every day that I’m not a homosexual but I, and a lot of heterosexuals, struggle with chastity. And please don’t tell Catholics what sins are venial. We have the Catechism. God’s plan does not include fornication, gay or hetero.


The Iowa State Consitution requiers that the bill be voted on by two different legislatures. That is, there has to be a legislative general election between the two votes.

Then, and only then, is it placed on the ballot.

They’d be surprised they’d given interracial unions equal status, women equal status with men, and minorities equal status with the majority. They’d be surprised about a lot of things - it goes both ways. I think they’d be as appalled by a black president as they would by abortion - we either are strict constructionists, or we are not, and I think it’s pretty clear even the most conservative people acknowledge that if the Constitution was interpreted exactly as the Founders wanted, a lot of things we don’t approve of would be going on as well.

:[RIGHT][/RIGHT]one of the evidence of western moral degeneration in 21st century… a myopic legislatitve/juridical adventures.:rolleyes:"homosexuality is not only an ethical anomaly but a natural aberration’’:frowning: :eek:the move by Iowa court is bleak legacy to the States judicial history.:eek:

Also, a lot of the Constitution, as a whole, didn’t exist when the signers signed it. There are 27 amendments to it since then (following the process determined by the founders). This case was decided under the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868.

So, a more relevant observation would be: “I think many of them might have been surprised to realize that they had adopted an amendment process that would someday give homosexual unions equal status with marriage.” And that may still be true, though the fact that they created a amendment process means that they understood the document had to be able to change and adapt. They balanced this by specifically making it pretty darn hard to amend the Constitution.

According to? Homosexual acts are serious sin and they can be mortal. While I pray for those who have such disordered desires and wish them the true happiness that comes from following God’s will (i.e. chastity), I will not foolishly believe that living out a homosexual relationship is part of “God’s plan for them.”

Homosexuals are currently allowed by our laws to “live in a loving relationship.” However, they are not allowed to marry and the Constitution does not protect that as a right.

God does not make junk. He makes man in His image. God does not make sickness, diseases, and disorder.
‘Male and female, He created them’ if that means anything to you.

Homosexuality is a disorder. Heterosexuality is not.
Do you say a sickness or a disease a good thing or do you say being healthy is good. Do say disorder is good or order is good.

By accepting homosexual marriage, you’re saying a disorder of a sexual orientation is good. One does not and should not encourage/promote the disorder of things in this world. Just as one should not promote sickness or diseases.

You didn’t ask, but, mastabation, and oral sex are venial sins, so let them live in a loving relationship if thats God’s plan for them.

What make you think that is God’s plan for them ??
At your age, I would think you know more about the teachings of the Church.


The culture has lost its mind and we all will suffer for it.

I want anyone, literally anyone, to explain to me that since gay marriage bans are unconstitutional, then how can anyone argue that polygamy is wrong? How?

I am not a supporter of same-sex marriage. However, laws against same-sex marriage have been struck down on ‘equal protection of laws’ grounds under some state constitutions. The same thing happened under the US constitution as to sex in TX between homosexuals compared to legal bans to sex between heterosexuals. Texas lost under our 14th amendment.

So, polygamy does not constitute an equal protection of laws situation. Everyone is treated the same: One spouse to a customer. The question here concerns constitutionality, not what is ‘wrong’. So this explanation is as to legalities. If you want to know what is wrong, you have to ask a theologian, not a lawyer.

Mentioning polygamy in this discussion is just a red herring, like when folks said the ERA would require same-sex public toilets. That was not true.

Thank you for this objective and well informed response.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit