Iowa strkes down ban on same-sex marriage
poto101
Posts: 406
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/03/ ... index.html
The Iowa Supreme Court struck down a state law Friday that banned same-sex marriage.
Iowa becomes the third state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage, after Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Friday's decision upheld a 2007 ruling by a lower court that Iowa's 1998 law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples went against the state's constitution. It becomes effective in 21 days.
"This is a great day for civil rights in Iowa," said attorney Dennis Johnson, a co-counsel with Lambda Legal, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of six same-sex couples seeking to marry in Iowa. "Go get married. Live happily ever after," he said at a news conference where there was loud clapping among plaintiffs.
Other organizations were not pleased. "It's, quite frankly, a disaster," said Brian English, a spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center. "Obviously, we're extremely disappointed. We're saddened, perhaps a little bit surprised in the unanimous decision that the court handed down."
The state's highest court determined that "the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution," court spokesman Steve Davis said in a written statement. Read PDF of court ruling
"The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage," the statement on the court's Web site says.
The Iowa Supreme Court said it has the responsibility to determine if a law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution. "The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," the court said.
Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson found that the law violated the Iowa Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, and hurt gay and lesbian couples "in numerous tangible and intangible" ways
"Civil marriage in Iowa is the only gateway to an extensive legal structure that protects a married couple's relationship and family in and outside the state," Hanson ruled in Des Moines.
"Iowa reserves an unparalleled array of rights, obligations and benefits to married couples and their families, privileging married couples as a financial and legal unit and stigmatizing same-sex couples."
The case was joined on appeal by several state lawmakers who opposed Hanson's ruling, calling it "a mockery of the judicial system." They argued that the ruling stepped on the state Legislature's authority by using the courts "to effectuate fundamental changes in public policies regarding marriage."
Legislatures in two New England states, Vermont and New Hampshire, have taken steps toward legalizing same-sex marriages.
The Vermont Senate and House have voted to legalize same-sex marriage -- the House voted Thursday night -- but Vermont's governor has said he will veto the measure. New Hampshire's governor has signaled his opposition in the past.
Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey allow civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.
Nationwide, the issue of same-sex marriage remains highly divisive. A June 2008 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 44 percent of adult Americans believe gay marriage should be recognized by law as valid; 53 percent are opposed.
The issue took center stage in the largest U.S. state in November, when California voters narrowly approved a proposition amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. California had been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples since a May 2008 ruling by the state Supreme Court legalized the unions
Not an Iowa native, but i am proud to be in the state right now.
The Iowa Supreme Court struck down a state law Friday that banned same-sex marriage.
Iowa becomes the third state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage, after Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Friday's decision upheld a 2007 ruling by a lower court that Iowa's 1998 law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples went against the state's constitution. It becomes effective in 21 days.
"This is a great day for civil rights in Iowa," said attorney Dennis Johnson, a co-counsel with Lambda Legal, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of six same-sex couples seeking to marry in Iowa. "Go get married. Live happily ever after," he said at a news conference where there was loud clapping among plaintiffs.
Other organizations were not pleased. "It's, quite frankly, a disaster," said Brian English, a spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center. "Obviously, we're extremely disappointed. We're saddened, perhaps a little bit surprised in the unanimous decision that the court handed down."
The state's highest court determined that "the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution," court spokesman Steve Davis said in a written statement. Read PDF of court ruling
"The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage," the statement on the court's Web site says.
The Iowa Supreme Court said it has the responsibility to determine if a law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution. "The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," the court said.
Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson found that the law violated the Iowa Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, and hurt gay and lesbian couples "in numerous tangible and intangible" ways
"Civil marriage in Iowa is the only gateway to an extensive legal structure that protects a married couple's relationship and family in and outside the state," Hanson ruled in Des Moines.
"Iowa reserves an unparalleled array of rights, obligations and benefits to married couples and their families, privileging married couples as a financial and legal unit and stigmatizing same-sex couples."
The case was joined on appeal by several state lawmakers who opposed Hanson's ruling, calling it "a mockery of the judicial system." They argued that the ruling stepped on the state Legislature's authority by using the courts "to effectuate fundamental changes in public policies regarding marriage."
Legislatures in two New England states, Vermont and New Hampshire, have taken steps toward legalizing same-sex marriages.
The Vermont Senate and House have voted to legalize same-sex marriage -- the House voted Thursday night -- but Vermont's governor has said he will veto the measure. New Hampshire's governor has signaled his opposition in the past.
Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey allow civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.
Nationwide, the issue of same-sex marriage remains highly divisive. A June 2008 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 44 percent of adult Americans believe gay marriage should be recognized by law as valid; 53 percent are opposed.
The issue took center stage in the largest U.S. state in November, when California voters narrowly approved a proposition amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. California had been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples since a May 2008 ruling by the state Supreme Court legalized the unions
Not an Iowa native, but i am proud to be in the state right now.
It's all happening....
East Troy 2003
Chicago x2, Summerfest x2, 2006
Chicago THE VIC, Lollapalooza, 2007
bonnaROOOOOOO 2008
Chicago x2 2009
(EV chicago 2008 night 2)
East Troy 2003
Chicago x2, Summerfest x2, 2006
Chicago THE VIC, Lollapalooza, 2007
bonnaROOOOOOO 2008
Chicago x2 2009
(EV chicago 2008 night 2)
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
can't wait to see the day that this happens in all 50 states. one by one, we'll get there, and rightly so. marriage is first and foremost a legal right/agreement of all citizens...the religious/spiritual aspects, if they exist, are a whole other - seperate - institution.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Good to hear they struck that down! While I thought California would have done it waaaaaay before Iowa, it just leads me to believe that Iowa is just a much smarter state
Go Iowa!
Go Hawkeyes!
Good on them...
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
kinda like being the first caucus..who would have thunk it?
East Troy 2003
Chicago x2, Summerfest x2, 2006
Chicago THE VIC, Lollapalooza, 2007
bonnaROOOOOOO 2008
Chicago x2 2009
(EV chicago 2008 night 2)
Go Iowa!
why didnt they let the people of Iowa vote on this and not let these LIBERAL activist judges decide what they think is best for the people of Iowa. what about the people that oppose gay marrige ? don't they have rights?
:? :roll:
KKK :? WTF are you talkin about what does that have to do with this ? :roll:
so let me get this straight, If people oppose gay marriage we shouldn't respect their opinion? Personally I could care less if homosexuals want to tie the knot all Im saying is they should let the people vote on it.
Sure they do. They have the right to marry whoever they want, just like everyone else!
Pretty much exactly. It's a stupid, outdated belief and it's a religious value that has no place in a secular, civil society. That is the brilliance of our country's form of governance... it allows for rule by the majority, but also provides the means to ensure that the majority cannot use that power to strip minorities of their rights.
Actually, the Iowa legislature did vote on this issue, they voted to ban it several years ago. A lawsuit was filed and the Iowa Supreme Court, which went along with the lower courts, did their jobs by interpreting the constitutionality (based on Iowa's state constitution)of the law. That is the role of the court in the United States. That is not "LIBERAL activist judiciary." In fact a number of the judges that voted on the UNANIMOUS decision were put into place by REPUBLICANS. The court's job is not to look at what is popular or unpopular with the people, it is to look at the law and interpret if it is legal or not. Sorry you have a hard time accepting that.
Now, aside from my rant, as somebody else posted you can still oppose gay marriage. This ruling does not end your right to do that. And I support your right to do that. Please bare in mind I'm not going to be one of those people that sits here and questions your intelligence, or the people of California, because of your beliefs and call you stupid. As we saw with the Bush years, those kinds of invalid, irrational statements and arguments don't get people anywhere.
I lived in Iowa for the first 18 years of my life and I am very happy this ruling took place there. Many people across the country have an incorrect, preconceived notion about the state. As has been mentioned the state has been at the forefront of many controversial social issues. As this poster wrongly assumes with the quote of "LIBERAL activist judiciary," Iowa is not a "liberal" state, nor is it a "conservative" state. Iowa, at least in my mind, has always been a state that looks at issues based on their merit and makes decisions based upon the information at hand. It is an overall open-minded place, although like any place it has its issues. That doesn't mean everyone agrees with each other, as the person I quoted above obviously does not. However, most people in the state are fairly accepting. Hell, if the weather weren't so crappy there I definitely wouldn't have ever left! The people in that state are amazing!
Go Hawks!
Council Bluffs 2003
St. Paul 2003
East Troy 2003
Boston Vote For Change Tour 2004
Montreal 2005
Denver Night 1 2006
Denver Night 2 2006
E PLURIBISUNAM,OUT OF MANY ONE
some activist judges would like to tear that philosophy down,but they have no right to decide how this country operates and what the law should be.The people decide that by voting. In the case of gay marriage in California they decided that marriage should be between a man and a woman and also most of these voters were african american that also voted for Obama, and that decision should be respected.
I have no problem with someone not liking the outcome of the decision, nobody is ever going to agree with everything. I do have a problem with what seem to be irrational, uneducated responses.
Council Bluffs 2003
St. Paul 2003
East Troy 2003
Boston Vote For Change Tour 2004
Montreal 2005
Denver Night 1 2006
Denver Night 2 2006
Relax, I was just joking around...
just my opinion.....
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Exactly! If only it would work this way more often!
Would you have a problem with the judges if they didn't overturn this? Couldn't they then be considered "activist judges" trying to keep down equal rights for everyone, or are they only "LIBERAL activist judges" because you happen to disagree with their decision?
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Sometimes... The People are wrong. Sometimes... the Masses are Asses.
Hail, Hail!!!
Marriage between a two people should be fine, regardless. In matters like property, next of kin, etc.. it makes sense for there to be legalized gay marriage.
Multiple partners makes it a whole different ball game.
ummm maybe yes. I think any religion that is fair to all people to offer positions and opportunity is fair.
Between 'Consenting Adults'? Why not.
The State steps into Polyamist marriages usually because the Groom CHOOSES a 12 year old Bride. That's where the State has a better outlook than the 'people' doing the marrying.
Hail, Hail!!!
sorry but I think there's a pretty big gap between the two.
No it doesn't.... aren't they minority Don't they have rights?
The basic principles are the same. The people living in the South in the 50s and early 60s were perfectly fine with living in Segregation. it was of their opinion that the races shouldn't mix.
If left to a vote of the people of Mississippi, for example, what do you think the outcome for de-segregation would have been? it's not that they were Bad people... just living with outdated opinions.
The same thing comes into play today.
Hail, Hail!!!
I have to disagree .. gays being able to get married and poeple being lynched?
what's a Liberal Activist Judge...?