Equal Rights In Iowa, Finally: Gays and Lesbians Get To Wed

"I hereby pronounce you......Husband and Husband!!!"

As often and as far as I have remembered since I have heard of gay pride, my stance towards gay marriage has often been of one mantra: Give everyone the same privilege and rights, as well as the same legal responsibilities.

As far as marriage is concerned, I think it is pretty much litigious crap, and I don't expect everyone to share my erstwhile views. Differences in opinion, however, does not mean that I am against marriage in general: Some people like cabbage, others like spinach. I am not in a position to convert anyone to my own libertine ideals, and unlike religious fundamentalists I am educated and rational enough to understand that everyone aspires to different ideals, and so long as it is within the legal confines of secular law, there is absolutely no reason for me to lampoon gay marriage, or any other form of marriage beyond my own personal skepticism.

Unfortunately, for religious folks, they are not so magnanimous: Like Daniel Chew and his homophobic gang of pious folks, they do think that gays are, by biblical standards, immoral and some would liken them to an abomination. Thinking that only straight people have a divine right to the institution of marriage, they are quite adamant to the idea that marriage is exclusively a one-man-one-woman preposition.

So, imagine the chagrin of Christians in Iowa when the law finally passed a bill legalizing gay marriages!

Excerpts from Yahoo:

Gay Marriages Expected to Begin in Iowa on April 24

1. Gay Marriage Finally Approved!

DES MOINES, Iowa – Gay marriage, seemingly the providence of the nation's two coasts, is just weeks away from penetrating the heartland and it appears there is nothing social conservatives can do immediately to stop it.

The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman. Now gays and lesbians may exchange vows as soon as April 24 following the landmark decision.

The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which couldn't get on the ballot until 2012 at the earliest.

2. Christians Mourn Victory for Gay & Lesbian Marriage

Some folks won't be too happy..........

"I would say the mood is one of mourning right now in a lot of ways," said a dejected Bryan English, spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage.

3. Gays Cheer Victory: Equality at Last!

In Iowa, hundreds cheered, waved rainbow flags and shed tears of joy at rallies in seven cities Friday evening. "Corn-fed and Ready to Wed!" read one man's sign at a gathering at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls.

In downtown Des Moines, about 300 people gathered beneath rainbow flags to celebrate including Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie.

"We finally have equality in Iowa," said Harold Delaria, of Des Moines, who attended the rally and has two gay children. "It's kind of the last wall of legalized discrimination and it's coming tumbling down."

The Rev. Diane McLanahan of Trinity United Methodist Church in Des Moines acknowledged that many people of faith won't agree with the ruling. With that in mind, she said the court has reached a decision that "pretty much insists that this will not be a debate about religious rights but a matter of equality and fairness."

4. Supreme Court: Gay Marriages A Constitutional Right

In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.

The Right to Marry Extends to All and Sundry

Unlike religious morons like Daniel who chimes on and on about the perceived ills of liberalism and with it, gay marriage, everyone should be entitled the right to marry as per secular marriages decree.

Invoking religion as a moral basis to restrict or ban gay marriages is an unfair and unjust decision, simply because there is no legal basis for the courts to do so. And the Iowa courts certainly did the right thing they have been asked to do.

As for the Christians.....I am already hearing chants of "Persecution, Persecution!" ringing incessantly in my ears!



-"No government has the right to tell its citizens when or whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody. "
Rita Mae Brown, speech, 28 August 1982

Demystifying The Sanctity of Marriage

The Sanctity of Marriage?

Marriage: The Delusion of Bliss?

Its an exhilarating day for the couple; Adam, decked out in a charming tuxedo and bow tie, and Eve, dressed in a floral gown looking all glamorous and splendid, walking down the aisle in a church.....ah, the very definition of marriage. The bride and the groom, the one and final bastion in the institution of marriage, so romantic, and so.....ok, you get the point.

One of the most perplexing claims pandered about by religious folks of the Christian-Judaism variety is the "Defending the Institution of Marriage" campaign: It is often claimed that marriage in the form of the "one-husband-one-wife category" is the sole, legitimate family format, passed down through generations from the time of antiquity, sort of like a family heirloom. This type of rhetoric has become the basis of most arguments against gay and lesbian marriages.

In this post, I shall attempt to demystify the definition of marriage and how it has evolved through time and across a myriad of cultures and religions.

The Definition of Marriage from a Modern Point of View

Marriage, by today's secular definition, is a tripartite contract; the State serves as a key witness to a civil union between a couple. A marriage contract is signed, and it entitles, amongst other things, properties, kids (if any) and the type of privileges both parties are expected to be entitled to, during the period the contract is binding or after, should a divorce to terminate the contract is activated.

Such a strictly litigious mode of marriage, however, is often not mentioned or highlighted in the media or any other form of official medium; rather, a more romanticized version of marriage is pandered about as if it were the ultimate, orgasmic experience: A holy union of two loving couples, tying the knot in the presence of a priest and an unseen, ubiquitous God-Almighty.......A happy family, flanked by loving, adorable kids, and yes, love is generally in the air. Ah, such bliss.

If history and modern trend is of any guide, this utopia version of marriage is so totally screwed.

The Purpose of Marriage


Throughout history, marriage is often regarded as a bridge between two families, usually of a similar social class of people. For example, if you are a businessman and your business partner has a financial arrangement with you, you might want to further cement that relationship by marrying off your daughter to his son, or taking his daughter to be your son's wife. It is a amiable arrangement to tie families together to forge an alliance, and from a political point of view, such arrangements are commonplace; conduct a cursory study of all the noblemen, kings, and princes of Europe and one would not miss out the intimate relationships of royalty amongst Europe's leading monarchs. It didn't matter whether you exhibit any fondness for your perspective partner; if your parents have agreed with the other party you will have to tie the knot.

It is also the standard norm for the men and women of a poorer class to aspire towards marriage to members of the rich in order to attain a better, comfy life; it didn't matter if the guy or girl is fat, obnoxious and hideous, as long as he or she is loaded with cash. In this case, marriage becomes an indirect form of sex-for-cash transaction.

In short, marriage wasn't about free love and free choice in many societies: You marry whoever your parents or some higher authorities wanted you to marry, or under tough financial circumstances, and you can be damn sure that romance isn't part of this equation.

Types of Marriages

In many prevalent cultures since the dawn of civilization, it was not an uncommon practice for a man to have many wives: It was a sign of status for a guy to have multiple wives, particularly so if it was approved by religious institutions. Islam, for example, allows a man to have up to a maximum of four wives at any one time. Rather than being viewed as a symbol of infidelity, marriages of this sort were not frowned upon, and there was no limit with regards to how many wives a man can procure or even how old his respective wives were.

In such marriages, there is usually a system of hierarchy amongst the harem of wives; the first wife is usually the matron of the harem, followed by the respective concubines.

The idea of polygamy was not lost amongst the rich and the powerful; several monarchs, particularly King Henry VIII, was particularly fond of multiple marriages, and most Chinese Emperors in ancient China had harems filled upwards of a few hundred wives!!!

Talk about the sanctity of marriage.......damn are we so screwed!!!

In some societies, it is also prevalent amongst womenfolk to have multiple husbands! While this is a rarity particularly in conservative, eastern cultures, some Polynesian tribes do practice this form of polygamy, even if it seems a tad strange to us and most male chauvinists.

Of course, there's always the odd gay marriage or two: If you think gay marriage is only a recent phenomenon, think again:

1. From the Ming dynasty onwards, it was not uncommon for lesbians and gays to tie the knot under the auspices of ancient Chinese marriage rites.

2. In the ancient Roman empire, rich Roman citizens often cavorted with male slaves and yes, pederast relationships between men and boys leading to marriages were not banned.

In short, there has never been one mode of marriage in history; marriage comes in all shapes and sizes, and yes, people generally married in accordance to the customs of their respective societies.

The Sanctity of Marriage is Bullshit

Many religious fundamentalists want us to believe in the sanctity of marriage as if it is a standard norm throughout history. The truth is there has never been one strictly conformist code of practice in marriage, and gay and lesbian marriages are not abominations of society as so unctuously proclaimed by these morons.

Today's marriage mode is almost akin to a financial arrangement and a life-time contract: You marry your spouse, he or she is entitled to certain rights, you stick to them until one of you croaks and bites the dust, or failing which, the marriage succumbs and breaks down in which case a divorce, along with its whole set of litigious bullshit, pertains to the annulment and separation and the division of property and monetary assets. It is as simple, and at the same time complicated, as that.

Personally, I view marriage with as much skepticism as I would with regards to religion: I don't really have any aspiration towards lifetime contracts of this sort, and it baffles me as to why gays are getting all worked up and bothered about getting married (it isn't as if you need to get hitched to have hot monkey sex anyway), but I respect human rights, and if these group of people are willing to get themselves tied down to marriage contracts, by all means let them have it.

Just don't give me the bullshit about the sanctity of marriage.

Our Civil Liberties: Why They are Important and How Atheism is Targetted for "Shut Down"

I sit here cruising the net and I can't help but purposefully look for stuff relating to this issue. Much of what I come across is relatively innocuous: a post on a blog, a comment on a blog, a small article in some far off local newspaper, a comment on an article in some far off local paper; what have you.

What resurfaces time and again are peoples notions of civil liberties. How often have I heard that the ACLU "needs to be stopped"? I can't tell you.

Some past post comments here on Atheist Haven (yes, I'm pointing to the fundies) carry with them an air of...not disdain necessarily, but "wrongfulness" of the atheist mind-set. As if what is "wrong" should probably be snuffed out; left with no voice. Here we venture forth into minority rights. After all atheists do comprise a minority of people. The same could be said of black people in the run-up to the civil rights movement in the 60s.

Ok, now I have to talk about it. One particular comment before I joined Beast in the endevour known as Atheist Haven, Shaun said that my wife should be ashamed (if she be a Christian) for marrying an atheist. Taken into context; this would mean that Shaun believes that it is wrong for a Christian to marry an atheist and I'm assuming that he wouldn't have any qualms about a law being passed to bar this type of union. This is the utmost example of bigotry. Atheists, as a minority, are unworthy of the rights of the "faithful" majority.

Currently this debate is a firebrand amongst the gay and fundamentalist communities. The right to marry the opposite gender. So far it isn't illegal for me to marry my wife, be she Christian, Muslim, Jew, Black, Hispanic or Russian. It is illegal in much of the United States for gays to have the same benefits afforded to same-gendered couples.

Why do I bring up the gay marriage issue? Because the rationale is based entirely on the Christian biblical/moral code. If this kind of sentiment can shape the the law of the land; what can stop it in other aspects of our lives? And how has it affected our lives already?

As much as I like conspiracy theories, this is no conspiracy theory. Far from it. It's real. It's "wrong" for a man to have a marital relationship with another man and conversely it is "wrong" for a woman to have marital relations with another woman. I don't have to point any further than conversations I've had with Christians about this. It goes against god. Period. Hence, the infringement of civil liberty in this regard.

My main point is that we atheists, as minorities, are entitled to civil liberties as well as the next person. Currently this is so, but with the burgeoning rise of the atheist voice comes an equal rise of Christian enmity stemming from their "faith" being called into question and/or it otherwise being scrutinized. What else gets their goat is the rise of secularism in society and within the state.

This I think is the real hot-bed issue. After all with a true secular society comes virtual abolition of religion within the public sphere. This is probably why we are seeing increased enrollment of "Christian children" into private charter schools rather than send them to public schools that are secular. On the face of it that's fine. In the end though these types of schools are essentially Christian factories churning out citizens that will probably have a particular bias against secularism. Because they themselves have no experience with an education system that's secular. Hypothetically, some of these citizens are going to go on to become leaders in our communities having been raised with a bias FOR Christianity. I would hope that these citizen-leaders would embrace the notion of secularism, but that hope is ever so finite.

What happens when these citizen-leaders reach into politics? Under my assumption they will invariably tow the line of Christian mores. Generation by generation we could very well see the erosion of secularism in society and with that will come the erosion of our civil liberties.

So why are our civil liberties important?

-Larro

Atheist Blogroll Search: "Civil Liberty", Secularism, "Charter School", ACLU, "Minority Rights", "Civil Rights", "Gay Marriage", "Christian children", "Public Education"