Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: charby on February 19, 2020, 08:21:51 AM
-
https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinknews.co.uk%2F2020%2F02%2F17%2Frepublican-dennis-guth-iowa-senate-marriage-licence-divorce-2130-bill%2F&h=AT3vl8bcGNAG5tZL_j3eq5e2Z3q-2rrMKVbjTGT36RHeD53VLAcOZKsC-838T7Vuh8FfIFYimxfm_Q_O2j9l-eyCf6X_a-mJNk6tZlt-jT59awKuzeCf4SL6OTzWVLQ&s=1
Um no, this is about as dumb as a bag of hammers. I can't believe people like him get elected.
Basically, Republican wants to create a record of people’s sexual orientation and hand down harsh penalties to those who lie. (As the title of the article states)
-
If you ever wonder why I've gone Libertarian...
-
If you ever wonder why I've gone Libertarian...
So you can change your gender at will?
-
So... Any link to the actual bill rather than an interest group's fear-mongering interpretation of it?
-
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ba=SF2130&ga=88
https://globegazette.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/new-iowa-marriage-license-requirement-would-require-couples-to-disclose/article_6022dc0a-906e-5624-9562-5786484ea78c.html
Misrepresentation or nondisclosure would constitute fraudulent concealment of sexual orientation, which could be a factor in determining the custody arrangement that is in the best interest of a child if the marriage is dissolved. A court could find a “rebuttable presumption” against the awarding of joint custody if it was determined one party fraudulently concealed a sexual orientation.
Sen. Dennis Guth, R-Klemme, said he brought Senate File 2130 on behalf of a constituent who was involved in a marriage dissolution “where her spouse falsified his sexual orientation and then later on she was not able to reveal that when she went to court. So this is just going to allow people in that specific situation to voice this in court,” he said.
-
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ba=SF2130&ga=88
https://globegazette.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/new-iowa-marriage-license-requirement-would-require-couples-to-disclose/article_6022dc0a-906e-5624-9562-5786484ea78c.html
Thanks I'm on road for work and was going to post the first link when I got home.
-
Seems to me there is a better way to address that than adding another category to the driver's license database.
-
Weird that the alphabet people wanted .gov to get involved in promoting and recognizing their sexual and relationship status, but complain when .gov get involved with recognizing their sexual and relationship status. >:D
Se also: be careful for what you wish for, you might get it, good and hard.
-
Seems to me there is a better way to address that than adding another category to the driver's license database.
Marriage licenses, I believe.
-
I wonder if he a conversion therapy person.
-
I wonder if he a conversion therapy person.
I don't know how much that really matters. My main issue the reflexive BigGov solution when it is obviously unnecessary.
I think the example cordex quoted isn't a bad reason to do "something". He is trying to drag everyone into a "solution" that really only needs to involve those getting married; and doesn't need to use a new govt database at all.
-
I don't know how much that really matters. My main issue the reflexive BigGov solution when it is obviously unnecessary.
I think the example cordex quoted isn't a bad reason to do "something". He is trying to drag everyone into a "solution" that really only needs to involve those getting married; and doesn't need to use a new govt database at all.
Sounds like the solution to a problem that is likely rare. Does said legislator have any data to back up that this is some kind of problem?
I could also argue that any sort of marital betrayal is fraud. Much like frauding an investor out of money, if you enter into a contract and decide to break the contract is that not fraud?
-
Much like frauding an investor out of money, if you enter into a contract and decide to break the contract is that not fraud?
Worse, if that fraud leads to taking 1/2 of everything that investor owns, plus a portion of future earnings.
-
Seems to me there is a better way to address that than adding another category to the driver's license database.
Is this about marriage licenses or driver's licenses?
-
Is this about marriage licenses or driver's licenses?
My mistake. I pulled up the original link on my phone earlier and I could have sworn it said driver's license but it does not. That does narrow the scope of this down a bit. Not sure what I think about that part.
Sen. Dennis Guth, R-Klemme, said he brought Senate File 2130 on behalf of a constituent who was involved in a marriage dissolution “where her spouse falsified his sexual orientation and then later on she was not able to reveal that when she went to court. So this is just going to allow people in that specific situation to voice this in court,” he said.
Is there another way to do this without modifying marriage licenses? I am not sure why this woman was not able to bring this up in court.
-
Sounds like the solution to a problem that is likely rare. Does said legislator have any data to back up that this is some kind of problem?
I could also argue that any sort of marital betrayal is fraud. Much like frauding an investor out of money, if you enter into a contract and decide to break the contract is that not fraud?
Iowa is a no fault divorce state.
-
Iowa is a no fault divorce state.
Well that makes it even more vexing. Why single out sexual orientation? Why not marital infidelity? Financial infidelity?
-
Well that makes it even more vexing. Why single out sexual orientation? Why not marital infidelity? Financial infidelity?
Are people supposed to declare they're adulterous or financially fraudulent, when applying for a marriage license? Sexual orientation is supposed to be a basic fact of one's identity now.
This may or may not be good legislation, but it sounds like we're getting butthurt simply because a Republican said something about sexual orientation, so we must assume the worst, and crack wise about conversion therapy.
-
Worse, if that fraud leads to taking 1/2 of everything that investor owns, plus a portion of future earnings.
Spot on.
-
I think I oppose this bill on principle, but the alarmist version as presented by charby's chosen source is ... misleading at best.
This may or may not be good legislation, but it sounds like we're getting butthurt simply because a Republican said something about sexual orientation, so we must assume the worst, and crack wise about conversion therapy.
It sounds so much better to say "THEY'RE REGISTERING LGBTQRS AND HANDING DOWN HARSH PENALTIES!"
-
I think I oppose this bill on principle, but the alarmist version as presented by charby's chosen source is ... misleading at best.
It sounds so much better to say "THEY'RE REGISTERING LGBTQRS AND HANDING DOWN HARSH PENALTIES!"
Yup. When it comes to any of the diverse, rainbow-colored issues, the content of Republican/conservative speech doesn't matter. Anything we say is wrong.
-
My wife and I count numerous gay married couples amongst our friends, and several of them were first in straight marriages. As I think about it, the majority of the people who came out in the straight marriage and divorced their partners were women. Huh.
-
My wife and I count numerous gay married gay couples amongst our friends, and several of them were first in straight marriages. As I think about it, the majority of the people who came out in the straight marriage and divorced their partners were women. Huh.
I know a number of cases where this has happened as well (although slightly trending toward the male side). As with most divorces it really sucks for the kids. It is a nasty and selfish thing to bring children into a marriage knowing it will fail.
-
I know a number of cases where this has happened as well (although slightly trending toward the male side). As with most divorces it really sucks for the kids. It is a nasty and selfish thing to bring children into a marriage knowing it will fail.
So do we need to say its ok to be homosexual and be with who you love? Not feel judged that you have failed as a human and subject yourself to a relationship you really don't want to be in?
-
So do we need to say its ok to be homosexual and be with who you love? Not feel judged that you have failed as a human and subject yourself to a relationship you really don't want to be in?
So stunning and brave in this benighted age where homosexuality is all but illegal, amirite?
It would be just awful for someone or some group of people to judge someone for something. Worse still that it only happens to homosexuals.
-
So stunning and brave in this benighted age where homosexuality is all but illegal, amirite?
It would be just awful for someone or some group of people to judge someone for something. Worse still that it only happens to homosexuals.
Well your snark shows you really don't care about the problem posted before my last post.
-
Well your snark shows you really don't care about the problem posted before my last post.
Hardly. It shows that I really don't care about weak excuses people give for making terrible choices that impact other people. For that matter, my complaint was intentionally not limited to homosexuals.
Your implication appeared to be that because homosexuals are so disparaged and judged in [current year] that they are forced into heterosexual marriages and forced to conceive children and finally forced to leave that loveless marriage for their true love. If [current year] was 1955 I'd agree with you. Hell, if current year was 1985 I might agree with you. Today? No.
Yes, even today a homosexual person may face judgement by friends, family, coworkers, whoever. So might a fat person, an alcoholic, a Trump supporter, a hunter, a libertarian, a member of any given religion, a flat-earther, or an essential oils fanatic. Big deal. If they choose to make bad choices that impact other people that is ultimately on them, not because people judged them.
-
Hardly. It shows that I really don't care about weak excuses people give for making terrible choices that impact other people. For that matter, my complaint was intentionally not limited to homosexuals.
Your implication appeared to be that because homosexuals are so disparaged and judged in [current year] that they are forced into heterosexual marriages and forced to conceive children and finally forced to leave that loveless marriage for their true love. If [current year] was 1955 I'd agree with you. Hell, if current year was 1985 I might agree with you. Today? No.
Yes, even today a homosexual person may face judgement by friends, family, coworkers, whoever. So might a fat person, an alcoholic, a Trump supporter, a hunter, a libertarian, a member of any given religion, a flat-earther, or an essential oils fanatic. Big deal. If they choose to make bad choices that impact other people that is ultimately on them, not because people judged them.
The folks you mentioned in an earlier post wouldn't of been married today, but 10 or 20 years ago.
-
The folks you mentioned in an earlier post wouldn't of been married today, but 10 or 20 years ago.
Okay I guess? And what do you think that proves?
-
The folks you mentioned in an earlier post wouldn't of been married today, but 10 or 20 years ago.
And that applies to a change in the marriage licenses being granted today, how?
I have to say I'm confused by all of this.
I thought the government got to decide what constitutes a marriage and could put any or no restrictions on it as they liked. It's just a contract after all and this is but another restriction put on the contract. What's the big deal?
Sure, it's an issue that affects a minuscule part of the population, but what is the government for, but to cater to the whims of vanishingly small minorities?
-
It seems like the issue here is people who go into marriages knowing they will probably not honor the vows of the marriage. That is a problem. It would be a problem even if they weren't gay. Plus, I don't think anyone is saying they can't get divorced, just that if they lied going into the marriage, it might affect what they get in the divorce or maybe dissolve the marriage.
I am generally not opposed to the idea. I don't know if this is the best way to do it or if it should be focused just on sexual orientation.
-
Okay I guess? And what do you think that proves?
That 10, 20 or more years ago, there was no accepted understanding that folks could be homosexual and it wasn't a "fixable problem". So they suppressed their true desires due to society telling them it was wrong to be homosexual or being shunned because of it, married someone of a different sex, had children, then since it is more acceptable, they came out, dumped their spouse and children may of suffered. If it was different years ago, they wouldn't of married someone of the opposite sex and had children with them, hence not causing the problem you really didn't seem to concerned about, but need to post about it.
...and back to my OP, why do we need to have an official label on peoples sexual orientation on a government document? We might as well make the Jews were a Star of David on their clothing while were at it. Plus as I said earlier Iowa is a no fault divorce state, don't need to prove a marital fault in court to get divorced.
-
That 10, 20 or more years ago, there was no accepted understanding that folks could be homosexual and it wasn't a "fixable problem".
I'm old enough to remember way back ten or twenty years ago, and had at least two friends who were homosexual at the time. Brokeback Mountain came out right smack dab in that range. Will and Grace was in its third season twenty years ago. Granted we've shifted even more since then and homosexuality has moved beyond well the point where toleration is sufficient to where there is an expectation of celebration, but I don't think you're correctly remembering the period.
So they suppressed their true desires due to society telling them it was wrong to be homosexual or being shunned because of it, married someone of a different sex, had children, then since it is more acceptable, they came out, dumped their spouse and children may of suffered.
Exactly how much acceptance and tolerance is necessary before you consider them responsible for their own choices?
If it was different years ago, they wouldn't of married someone of the opposite sex and had children with them,
So at the very least we agree that this isn't a valid excuse today.
hence not causing the problem you really didn't seem to concerned about, but need to post about it.
Explain again how I "really didn't seem to[sic] concerned about" the problem of people entering into a child-bearing relationship in bad faith to those children's detriment. You keep saying that like it's true and implying the only way for kids' lives not to be unnecessarily turned upside down is for society to be even more accepting of homosexuality and the adults who choose to make the terrible choices that harm those children are actually the victims.
...and back to my OP, why do we need to have an official label on peoples sexual orientation on a government document?
I don't disagree with this.
We might as well make the Jews were a Star of David on their clothing while were at it.
;/ Yes, that is exactly the same thing.
Plus as I said earlier Iowa is a no fault divorce state, don't need to prove a marital fault in court to get divorced.
I thought the issue the legislator here was trying to address was the fact that during the divorce his constituent was for some reason not allowed to bring up the fact that her ex-husband had entered into the relationship in bad faith during the divorce proceedings. I agree that his solution is stupid and heavy-handed, but that doesn't mean there is absolutely no issue.
-
I'm old enough to remember way back ten or twenty years ago, and had at least two friends who were homosexual at the time. Brokeback Mountain came out right smack dab in that range. Will and Grace was in its third season twenty years ago. Granted we've shifted even more since then and homosexuality has moved beyond well the point where toleration is sufficient to where there is an expectation of celebration, but I don't think you're correctly remembering the period.
Sounds like I got a black friend response, when ones says they aren't racist.
I'm old enough to remember teenagers getting the *expletive deleted*it beat out them by other teens and sometimes their parents if they were suspected of being a homosexual. Had three students in HS commit suicide because they were homosexual and felt they would never be accepted, at least that is what their suicide notes said. 2 male and 1 female. Had a few more botched suicide attempts, they came out later and talked about why they did it, same as above. HS was 1989-1992.
Exactly how much acceptance and tolerance is necessary before you consider them responsible for their own choices?
Perhaps everyone needs to quit shunning folks for being homosexual, one doesn't need to accept it, but one does need to realize that one doesn't choose to be a homosexual and the homosexuals aren't out to convert everyone.
Do you really think people have a choice to be a homosexual or not?
-
So do we need to say its ok to be homosexual and be with who you love? Not feel judged that you have failed as a human and subject yourself to a relationship you really don't want to be in?
No one has ever explained why homosexuals shouldn't have to feel judged for their behavior. The rest of us have to feel the shame of our moral failures. Why shouldn't they?
-
Do you really think people have a choice to be a homosexual or not?
Does a guy who cheats on his wife have a choice on whether or not he sleeps around?
-
No one has ever explained why homosexuals shouldn't have to feel judged for their behavior. The rest of us have to feel the shame of our moral failures. Why shouldn't they?
"Moral failure" of homosexually is only subject to the person that believes it is. It is not an universal opinion.
-
Well, predictably, this thread went to hell in a rainbow basket.