eye-oh-wahhh!

[Avatar] [info]dannipenguin
Previous Entry Add to Memories Tell a Friend Next Entry
Unanimous.

I hope a bunch of crank-jobs don't come up with a way to take your right back from you.

When are you going to fix it, Australia?
Posted 3/4/09 23:37 — 7 comments

Comments

From:(Anonymous)
Date:2009-04-03 16:30 (UTC)
(Link)
The ruling explicitly does not affect “the freedom of a religious organization to define marriage it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman,” the justices stressed.
From:[info]treitter
Date:2009-04-03 17:48 (UTC)
(Link)
Sounds good to me. The religious organizations get to retain their right to make themselves increasingly irrelevant. Everybody wins! :)
From:[info]jaduncan.com
Date:2009-04-03 18:04 (UTC)

And the converse, of course.

(Link)
You are free to go to a church of homophobes or indeed hetrophobes. In that case you'd just have to get your variously-phobic hands in your church and off our nice clean rule of law dear, you'd only stain it.
From:[info]cakeface
Date:2009-04-03 18:21 (UTC)
(Link)
Seriously, what? Iowa, we had no idea. We thought they were like Kansas, or Oklahoma, where they teach Creationism in the schools. Turns out, Iowa rules. Plus, corn is awesome.

Edited at 2009-04-03 18:21 (UTC)
From:[info]nixwilliams
Date:2009-04-03 20:27 (UTC)
(Link)
marriage should not be limited to one man and one woman.

that's an odd way of phrasing it - does this law make poly marriages legal, too? because that would be awesome!
From:[info]dannipenguin
Date:2009-04-04 01:47 (UTC)
(Link)
I wondered that.
From:[info]David Adam <zanchey> [typekey.com]
Date:2009-04-04 02:57 (UTC)
(Link)
Yeah, it does sound like Iowa will end up with a Prop-8 style amendment. Which is dumb, but it sounds like 2012 at the earliest, so uh, get married soon?
Post Comment
© 2002–2009, Danielle Madeley. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons License