Iowa court rules same-sex couples can marry

blackredyellow

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

spiral out

That is good news.

How many states in america is it allowed?

Uncle Leo

I see a constitutional ammendment referrendum passing with 70% in the near future in Iowa.

surferdude

Who cares. It's stupid that states are involved in anything called marriage, you know that seperation of church and state principal. States show only be involved in civil unions and the state should not care who marries who or how many time as long all are consenting adults. Marriage should be a ceromony performed by churches and of no legal value.

jeffer96

BREAKING NEWS: Same-sex couple married in Des Moines
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!!!

jeffbr

surferdude wrote:

Who cares. It's stupid that states are involved in anything called marriage, you know that seperation of church and state principal. States show only be involved in civil unions and the state should not care who marries who or how many time as long all are consenting adults. Marriage should be a ceromony performed by churches and of no legal value.

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.

spiral out

surferdude wrote:

Who cares. It's stupid that states are involved in anything called marriage, you know that seperation of church and state principal. States show only be involved in civil unions and the state should not care who marries who or how many time as long all are consenting adults. Marriage should be a ceromony performed by churches and of no legal value.

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.

Deni

surferdude wrote:

Who cares. It's stupid that states are involved in anything called marriage, you know that seperation of church and state principal. States show only be involved in civil unions and the state should not care who marries who or how many time as long all are consenting adults. Marriage should be a ceromony performed by churches and of no legal value.

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.

Deni

spiral out wrote:

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.

*coughs*Civil Union*coughs*

surferdude

Deni wrote:

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.

The funny thing is that it is noramlly the left who is pushing for more intermixing of church and state on this subject. Why not just fix it? Civil unions for legal purposes and marriage as ceremonial.

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.

spiral out

Deni wrote:

*coughs*Civil Union*coughs*

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.

Uncle Leo

surferdude wrote:

The funny thing is that it is noramlly the left who is pushing for more intermixing of church and state on this subject. Why not just fix it? Civil unions for legal purposes and marriage as ceremonial.

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.

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.

surferdude

Uncle Leo wrote:

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.

I'm fine with you feeling this way but I would like to see some consistancy in that you don't feel that seperation of church and state is a principal to uphold. In this case it just seems like too much work so why bother. And it's not just the terminology that is causing the mongling of church and state it's the fact that this so called government sponsored legal document is presided over and signed by church officials making it legal.

Uncle Leo wrote:

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.

Deni

spiral out wrote:

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.

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.

hippiemom

surferdude wrote:

The funny thing is that it is noramlly the left who is pushing for more intermixing of church and state on this subject. Why not just fix it? Civil unions for legal purposes and marriage as ceremonial.

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.

I think it's more that religious people don't want to have to plan two weddings. As it is now, you get married at the place of your choice, by either a religious leader of some type, or by a government official, and you're done. Who wants to have to go trudging down to the courthouse for another ceremony?

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.

Deni

hippiemom wrote:

I think it's more that religious people don't want to have to plan two weddings. As it is now, you get married at the place of your choice, by either a religious leader of some type, or by a government official, and you're done. Who wants to have to go trudging down to the courthouse for another ceremony?

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.

surferdude

hippiemom wrote:

This is the biggest imaginable fuss over semantics, it's silly.

So let's hoep you never pull the seperation of church and state out in an arguement as a principal that you think should be adhered to. In this day and age of computers it is quite easy to find out where every law refers to marriage and then draft identical legislation replacing marriage with civil union.

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.

hippiemom

As I understand it, a civil union would be performed by a civil official, and a marriage would be performed by a religious official. That would require two ceremonies, although one of them would certainly be an informal one.

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.

CorporateWhore

Gay people seem to think that if they could just get married, that would help solve some of the rampant problems their lifestyle entails. Let them get married - they'll just transfer rampant cheating and multiple partners under the guise of a marriage. Gays are always changing partners.

Oh, and thanks for introducing AIDS to America, gays. I appreciate that one.

Deni

hippiemom wrote:

As I understand it, a civil union would be performed by a civil official, and a marriage would be performed by a religious official. That would require two ceremonies, although one of them would certainly be an informal one.

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.

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.

surferdude

CorporateWhore wrote:

Oh, and thanks for introducing AIDS to America, gays. I appreciate that one.

Give me a break. I know it's Friday and you may be a few drinks into it but c'mon, there's no need for this type of foolishness.