Deace: Gay-marriage ban in Iowa is dead

first off…Mr Deace…is “Gay as the day is long”…never seen his pic til now…and he suffers from a severe case of GAYFACE…..its ok Deace, “Come out” already……on 2nd thought – don't bother. No self-respecting gay person would have anything to do with you after ALL the viotrol you've spewed in thier direction….plus, your “christian” radio station would FIRE you on the spot…and where would that leave you? …..Still Fat,Unemployed with a Case of severe gayface, and no sex partners…..so, stay in your closet/

I downloaded and read every word of the Walker's 136 page judgement. I'd encourage any other poster to this column to do likewise before jumping to conclusions.  Some public commentators are implying that Judge Walker made his judgement solely out of self interest, in accordance with an apparently conspiratorially agreed gay agenda to trivialise, undermine and ultimately destroy heterosexual marriage followed of course by civilisation as we know it.  This colourful allegation does not withstand close scrutiny.

Gay senator Roy Ashburn voted down every single gay rights bill but was homosexual the whole time. He stated he was voting the way his constituents expected him to vote, even though it was undermining his own civil rights in the process. George Rekers, US psychologist and founder of NARTH has worked against homosexuals his whole life, despite taking at least one gay sex worker from rentboy dot com on a steamy holiday with him.

Comparably, black judges don't automatically acquit all black defendants in criminal cases or routinely convict whites, nor do female judges always acquit women accused of crimes and convict only men. It is part of a judge's job to look at evidential fact. However I am sure that very many people are going to make the same accusation of bias implicitly evident in a few postings here, so again, i can only recommend looking at the document first, and then coming back with any proof of bias on the basis of the judge's self interest.

Hard to see though how his self interest could in any way be readily served by shafting his own career with blatant partisanship. This line of reasoning also calls into question whether a heterosexual or religious judge could therefore impartially rule on the very same issue.

This specious argument does remind me, despite how far we've come, how much further there is to go, and and makes me wonder whether the day will ever come when folks won't always assume every homosexual person to be entirely incapable of ethical behaviour, or of ever working for the public good.

I was conceived and brought up by heterosexual parents in the company of heterosexual siblings in an openly heterosexual society.  I was educated at a religious private school, which taught me all about loving heterosexual marriage.  Without exception, dramaturgical portrayals of relationships to which I was exposed were heterosexual. 

Notwithstanding this, I still managed to turn out entirely homosexual, which, given the above circumstances, could be said to be surprising.  Gay was not an easy thing to be in the 1960's, when I could have been imprisoned, merely for having this positive interaction with another human being.  Yet my life was made rewarding and fulfilling by the love and unstinting support of friends, colleagues, and most of all, my family who never once treated me any less favourably because my passion was for a person of the same gender as my own.



There is no doubt that LGBT rights we have already gained could never have made it into legislature without the overwhelming support given by the heterosexual majority, responding to our appeals for human compassion, justice and fair play. 



There is also no doubt that the public perception of a great many cogent issues of public interest has been profoundly changed by individual activism and education, such as Aneurin Bevan's founding of the NHS in the UK, Florence Nightingale's championing of the high nursing standards we enjoy today, the enactment of women's suffrage, emancipation of slaves in the USA, and the outspoken advocacy of Harvey Milk. In all these cases public opinion changed, because it was ultimately seen to be right.  The veil of ignorance and prejudice was lifted by strong individuals of high moral character, who never gave up. 


While there is not universal support even in the gay and lesbian communities for gay marriage, few would want to deny this to people who seek it.  Marriage has formalised the love and mutual commitment of countless heterosexual couples, and poll results on the subject now make it clear that increasing numbers do not wish to deny this to others wishing the same lawful acknowledgment for their relationships.

The granting of universal access to marriage and all that it connotes does not in any way threaten heterosexual marriage.  The various heterosexual marriages of my family will be as strong as ever, no matter whether I have a gay marriage or not.

At this very moment. Some guy from the WND is on Steve Deace's show spouting lots of crap about how this is the most important issue in our country today. Steve is silent, he is also bashing republicans for taking a back seat to this issue. Which is exactly what this article is proclaiming republicans should do.