Iowa court rules same-sex couples can marry
blackredyellow
Posts: 5,889
I figured that I might as well poke the hornet's nest with this article...
Iowa court rules same-sex couples can marry
(CNN) -- An Iowa district court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples can marry based on the state constitution's guarantee of equal treatment, court documents show.
The ruling was in response to a December 2005 lawsuit brought by six same-sex couples seeking to wed. They were denied marriage licenses and claimed such treatment violates equal-protection and due-process clauses in the Iowa constitution.
The court also struck down a state law declaring valid marriages are only between a man and woman.
The Iowa District Court for Polk County advances the case to the Iowa Supreme Court which will make a final decision on same-sex marriage, according to Lambda Legal, a gay and lesbian legal organization representing the couples.
The 63-page ruling, written by Judge Robert Hanson states: "Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex."
The law describing marriage as between a man and a woman, "constitutes the most intrusive means by the state to regulate marriage. This statute is an absolute prohibition on the ability of gay and lesbian individuals to marry a person of their choosing," Hanson wrote.
Lambda says the six couples are all in long-term relationship - one couple has been together for six years, another couple has been together for 17 years.
"Three of the couples are raising children, others are planning families, and all want the responsibilities of marriage and the protections only marriage can provide," according to the organization.
"We respectfully disagree with the court's decision, and we're going to ask for a stay," said Polk County Attorney John Sarcone.
He said his office will examine whether it's best to file a motion to reconsider. But barring a change in the court's opinion, Sarcone will appeal the ruling.
Co-counsel for the plaintiffs along with Lambda Legal, Dennis Johnson called the ruling "a significant step forward in recognizing the constitutional rights of all Iowans, and it's an amazing day for same-sex couples and their families all across Iowa."
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/30/iowa.samesexmarriage/index.html?section=cnn_latest
Iowa court rules same-sex couples can marry
(CNN) -- An Iowa district court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples can marry based on the state constitution's guarantee of equal treatment, court documents show.
The ruling was in response to a December 2005 lawsuit brought by six same-sex couples seeking to wed. They were denied marriage licenses and claimed such treatment violates equal-protection and due-process clauses in the Iowa constitution.
The court also struck down a state law declaring valid marriages are only between a man and woman.
The Iowa District Court for Polk County advances the case to the Iowa Supreme Court which will make a final decision on same-sex marriage, according to Lambda Legal, a gay and lesbian legal organization representing the couples.
The 63-page ruling, written by Judge Robert Hanson states: "Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex."
The law describing marriage as between a man and a woman, "constitutes the most intrusive means by the state to regulate marriage. This statute is an absolute prohibition on the ability of gay and lesbian individuals to marry a person of their choosing," Hanson wrote.
Lambda says the six couples are all in long-term relationship - one couple has been together for six years, another couple has been together for 17 years.
"Three of the couples are raising children, others are planning families, and all want the responsibilities of marriage and the protections only marriage can provide," according to the organization.
"We respectfully disagree with the court's decision, and we're going to ask for a stay," said Polk County Attorney John Sarcone.
He said his office will examine whether it's best to file a motion to reconsider. But barring a change in the court's opinion, Sarcone will appeal the ruling.
Co-counsel for the plaintiffs along with Lambda Legal, Dennis Johnson called the ruling "a significant step forward in recognizing the constitutional rights of all Iowans, and it's an amazing day for same-sex couples and their families all across Iowa."
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/30/iowa.samesexmarriage/index.html?section=cnn_latest
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
How many states in america is it allowed?
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
REID FORGRAVE
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
August 31, 2007
41 Comments
Two male college students were married in the front yard of a Des Moines residence this morning.
The couple — Tim McQuillan and Sean Fritz, both Iowa State University students — obtained a marriage license at the Polk County recorder’s office and got a judge to sign a waiver allowing them to marry today rather than wait three days, as is required by law.
They were married by the Rev. Mark Stringer of First Unitarian Church in Des Moines at 10:32 a.m. Before the ceremony, Stringer said, " Awesome. It's a long time coming."
After the ceremony, he said, "They are now official. The marriage license is the official document."
The couple is now headed to the Polk County Administration Building to file the marriage certificate.
The couple had earlier been told a rabbi at the Temple B’Nai Jeshurun would perform the ceremony, but the rabbi told the couple he was busy all day.
In a related development, there will be no hearing on Polk County’s request to block implementation of a judge's ruling that allows same-sex marriages.
If a judge issues a stay in the case, it's unclear whether the marriage would remain valid.
Judge Robert Hanson said lawyers have agreed to argue the issue in court motions that were filed earlier this morning.
Hanson is expected to study that paperwork and make a decision on a possible stay sometime today.
McQuillan and Fritz were among 12 same-sex couples who obtained marriage licenses before 9 a.m. this morning at the Polk County recorder’s office. On average, the office issues 30 marriage licenses in a day.
The rush for licenses comes the morning after a Hanson ruled that Iowa law improperly prohibits same-sex couples from marrying.
Fritz, 24, said he proposed to McQuillan last night. The two met more than a year ago on FaceBook.
They were holding hands this morning as they walked into the Polk County office build
Building. Soon after they obtained their marriage license, they asked Judge Scott Rosenburg to sign a waiver allowing them to get married today.
Rosenburg, who is overseeing a ruling involving Microsoft today, signed the waiver but told the men he couldn’t marry them because of his other duties this morning.
Hmm, well, if these dudes want to have a nagging spouse to deal with, be my guest. As a married man, I will say my wife complained far less as a "girlfriend" then she does as a "spouse." :-) Seriously though, as a Conservative Christian, I look at this as something between these men and God. Not my place to cast stones at either of them, so all I can say is Good Luck!!!
Exactly right. The state should have no involvement in the institution of marriage. But since they do, this is a step in the right direction as far as liberty is concerned.
Ok so if the state should have no involvement in marriage what should happen to the legal side of things.
The legal side of it is part of the reason people get married. Next of kin issues, inheritance, pension's.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
I agree! As far as the government is concerned ALL unions should be Civil Unions. Marriage should be left up to the churches. And that's how it would be if we truly had separation of church and state.
Peace and Love
Deni
*coughs*Civil Union*coughs*
Peace and Love
Deni
I think this issue shows that people on all sides don't really want seperation of church and state. They only want seperation of church and state wher eit helps their cause.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Yea didn't read it properly.
Couldn't care less what it's called, in that case why don't we just get rid of marriage all together.
I got married in a registry office anyway. Got no time for churchs. I suppose they look nice though which is why most people chose them.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
The left is not pushing for the merging of Church and State. Recognizing that we have government unions referred to as "marriages", the left simply wants gays to be able to do that. That's how I feel. Should the government be out of the marriage business, and change to civil unions? Sure. But we have marriage and we want all couples to be able to do so. I personally feel that the equality is a more important steps than the terminology.
Personally, I don't view government-recognized marriage as a big thing. I don't think marraige has be be indicitive of religion at all. Whether you call it marriage or civil union is really semantics.
While your second paragraph takes a subtle backhanded slap, implying that the left are phonies for claiming to want separation, it's bullshit. Nobody is fighting for "gay marriage" because they want to help gays and help assure that religion is kept in the sponsorship of civil unions. If there ever is a move toward changing from marriage to civil unions, we'll see who is against it. I doubt it will be the left. The right will be the ones wanting what we apparently see as a religious term to remain. Either that or they will recognize that gays will have an easier time being "civilly united" and fight to keep them from having equal access.
I said all sides for a reason. The right is probably more guilty of this just not on this issue. You have no idea how the religious folks will take to the idea of civil unions, just look what you've written and I think you'll see you bias prevents you from having a meaningful exchange of ideas with them. Even the biggest back assward religious person I know has a whole lot less problem with civil unions being open to all, even multiple partners. They seem a lot more open minded to that idea than you seem to be to actually moving to a speperation of church and state and having the legal deed be a civil union.
Sorry for sounding up tight and angry here. I'm not really, I'm just working under a deadline at work and typing out fast not properly thought sentences so the tone gets abrupt. Sorry.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I know why people get "married".... Pretty white dress... flowers... everybody treating you like a queen for a day... CAKE!... and pictures to remember it all.
Peace and Love
Deni
Personally, I don't care one way or another, but it's going to take a while to change all the tax laws and social security rules and everything else that's based on the term "marriage," which currently applies whether you got married in a church or in the mayor's office. In the meantime, let them get married. This is the biggest imaginable fuss over semantics, it's silly.
I don't think you have to go to the courthouse for another ceremony, but you already have to go to the courthouse to file the paperwork anyway. All you'd have to do is get what is not referred to as a "marriage license" which would then be referred to as a "civil union license" signed by a judge, and have that paperwork filed. That's it.... almost the exact same thing you do with the paperwork anyway.
I don't think its a fuss over semantics. I guess maybe it is semantics, but language is important. Maybe its because I'm a writer, but I see words as holding meaning, and that meaning is important. That's just my opinion.
Peace and Love
Deni
I don't understand the thinking of "well it's a lot of work to do it correctly, so let's just forget what the constitution says about church and state to make all our lives easier". This is what people blast, and rightly so, George Bush for. For forgetting what the constitution says because it makes his life easier.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
If a civil union is going to provide exactly the same rights and obligations as a marriage, then civil union becomes a synonym for marriage, doesn't it? So why bother? It seems that some groups of religious people have come to feel they have some sort of proprietary ownership of the word "marriage," when that has never been the case in this country. You've always been able to be married by local officials, captains of ships at sea, etc., and people who had those ceremonies were considered married.
If the majority in our country wants to go to all that trouble over a semantics debate, they can have at it as far as I'm concerned. I don't care, I just think it's stupid, and a waste of time and money.
Oh, and thanks for introducing AIDS to America, gays. I appreciate that one.
-Enoch Powell
Like I said, its just language and as a writer I think that words have meaning. Civil Union implies something more equal. It has no religious connotation. And I think that is important. It might be semantics, but in my personal opinion semantics are sometimes important. As long as the right can SAY marriage means this... then Civil Union should be what we call it. They can't say Civil Union means anything specific, which will lead to more equality in the long run.
And I still don't see how it would require two ceremonies. I mean unless you consider seeing a judge so he can sign the paper a ceremony, but I dont... cause there's no cake involved.
Peace and Love
Deni
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Wow, that last part of your post is right out of the 80's train of thought.
We have learned so much about the spread of AIDS overtime that you have choosen to ignore.
http://hab.hrsa.gov/publications/stigma/introduction.htm
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
CorporateWhore is a TROLL! Please ignore.
He/She/It is on my ignore list for that very reason.
Peace and Love
Deni
I've been to civil marriage ceremonies, and while there certainly isn't all the hoopla that traditionally surrounds a religious ceremony, the judge/mayor/whoever still has to go through all the rigamarole to make sure everyone understands exactly what it is they're agreeing to. They usually take 10-15 minutes, as opposed to a Catholic wedding which can take weeks (or maybe it just felt like weeks to me
It seems to me like this would be more of a pain in the ass for the religious folks than anyone else, but if that's what they want, what the heck.
I can appreciate your putting "he/she", but not here. We all know he's a he.
I really don't think it is that much work. I am fine with doing it. I just fail to see how marriage has to imply religion. Maybe it's the fact that I've grown up in a society that has pretty much secularized it--the benefits/responsibilities of marriage, filling out marital status on forms, etc. But it has never really implied religion to me. Yes, you can be married by a religious person in a religious ceremony. But whether you are or not is irrelevant. The only time a "marriage" has any religious overtone from the government is when government says "no gays."
" By late morning, 20 had applied for marriage licenses when Recorder Julie Haggerty announced that she had been instructed to stop accepting the applications. Hanson later said the judge that he had formally stayed his ruling.
The judge's stay means the recorder's office is not permitted to accept any more marriage applications from gay couples until the Iowa Supreme Court rules on the county's appeal."
I never said it was too much work. Again, I prefer that it be civil unions, but only in the sense that I prefer "In God we trust" not be on the money...I am not going to put my energy toward it. I don't feel it's the comingling of church and state. In fact it never really even occured to me that it was.
Yeah, but the reason I called it a slap at the left is that many on the right acknowledge they are not for separation.
The things that stop meaningful exchanges are also telling someone "you're wrong" or, even worse "you're stupid". You are closer to the latter. Maybe I don't know what religious people would think about it. Maybe they would be all for it. I know many are anti-civil union, but that many are for it as well. But, clearly you don't know how a lot of us feel either--as there is no presence on this thread (and I highly doubt much if any in general) of pro-gay marriage people fighting for the merging of Church and State.
We all have bias. In this case, I think yours is more preventative than mine since you cannot grasp the idea that hippiemom and I are not promoting religion and state in our stance. (I realize I have done the same thing here, no reason to point out the irony).
If this was from anyone else, I would think it was just over the top schtick.
I didn't know. I thought CW was a girl anyway. lol
Peace and Love
Deni
Youre right dude!!!!
Its a good thing married people dont cheat and spread STD's. And its a damn good thing that married men and women only get married because they are in love....never because they are trying to hide a rampant lifestyle.
Nuclear fission