Iowa Supreme Court Rules On Gay Marriage

[Belegon]

The Iowa Supreme Court has released a unanimous opinion upholding the earlier decision of a lower court that found the denial of marriage licenses to gay couple to be unconstitutional.

I am thrilled to see a midwestern state take this leap forward!

ETA: yahoo link = http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage

 

[Stella_Omega]

I was not expecting that! Fantastic!

 

[Belegon]

I was not expecting that! Fantastic!

Even better, no pro-ban parties were involved in the case and no federal issues were raised.

That means the decision is final. No appeal.

 

[impressive]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Someone will get a boner to slip the issue into the Supreme Court. They want it for everyone, everywhere.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Aw, you beat me to it!

Yeah, bit by bit . . .

 

[fieryjen]

Yay!

 

[JagFarlane]

Even better, no pro-ban parties were involved in the case and no federal issues were raised.

That means the decision is final. No appeal.

[Downer ALERT]

Actually if you read CNN's article on Iowa Supreme Court Decision, you'll find that several state lawmakers opposed it, and there is already a plan in the works to write up an amendment to the Iowa State Constitution specifying marriage as between a man and a woman.

[/Downer ALERT]

Otherwise I'm happy to see another state supporting this.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Supremes will likely compromise by allowing gay marriage but let the Republicans pick your bride.

 

[Xelebes]

Iowa has a new motto.

Iowa: Anti-Kansas

 

[amicus]

I suspect the good people of Iowa have already drafted a constitutional amendment and it will soon be on a ballot to ban gay marriages.

Then you can curse the 'people' of Iowa for exercising their inherent power.

Amicus...

 

[matriarch]

Saw this yesterday. Wonderful news. Who'll be next I wonder?

 

[alyxen]

I was happy and surprised to see this also. Hoping this will help the CA courts since now there will be precedent. Perhaps that is part of why they were dragging their feet a bit.

 

[S-Des]

[Downer ALERT]

Actually if you read CNN's article on Iowa Supreme Court Decision, you'll find that several state lawmakers opposed it, and there is already a plan in the works to write up an amendment to the Iowa State Constitution specifying marriage as between a man and a woman.

[/Downer ALERT]

Otherwise I'm happy to see another state supporting this.

I'd be happy if the people voted for it. Things are only going to get better when everyone is convinced that it's the right thing to do, not by courts. On the bright side, I read this.....

The Iowa justices upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman.

The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which could take years to ratify.

So at least this won't be subject to a California-style fight right away (and most likely people who oppose it will stop caring long before it could become an issue). I still want to see civil unions for the entire country (which would probably enjoy a wide base of support in almost every state), then worry about gay marriage when it will pass everywhere, but I guess this is going to be the way it happens. I'm not a fan of the courts legislating for us (because they can just as easily legislate against what you want), but I'll be happy for the result. Hopefully it won't cause a backlash by states afraid their courts will be next.

 

[TallMan60]

I suspect the good people of Iowa have already drafted a constitutional amendment and it will soon be on a ballot to ban gay marriages.

Then you can curse the 'people' of Iowa for exercising their inherent power.

Amicus...

They are not fucked up like California; changing their constitution cannot be done by a simple majority vote through the initiative process, it's much more difficult and requires legsilative approval and that's not going to happen. Iowa has had a long history of being progressive when it comes to civil rights. It's great to see this tradition continue.

A Californian.

 

[amicus]

Interesting information and possibly decisive, we shall see. I also expect a backlash to the new administrations quick action on fetal stem cell research and paybacks to Unions, the heartland of America may not fold as easily as you might think.

amicus...

 

[Belegon]

As to this whole "majority rule" thing...

remember, the majority of the British Empire felt it was just fine to tax the colonies without granting them representation.

The majority of voting southerners thought it was just fine to keep people as property.

The majority thought "seperate but equal" was just fine.

The majority thought it was just fine to imprison people of japanese ancestry in camps in CA because they looked like the enemy in WWII.

Part of the reason we have a Bill of Rights and the system of judicial review is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Just because most people agree with it does not make it right and moral.

 

[3113]

Apt I think. Just press the MP3 player there and listen to the song

 

[alaskabibear]

As to this whole "majority rule" thing...

remember, the majority of the British Empire felt it was just fine to tax the colonies without granting them representation.

The majority of voting southerners thought it was just fine to keep people as property.

The majority thought "seperate but equal" was just fine.

The majority thought it was just fine to imprison people of japanese ancestry in camps in CA because they looked like the enemy in WWII.

Part of the reason we have a Bill of Rights and the system of judicial review is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Just because most people agree with it does not make it right and moral.

Hey! No fair, I was going to say all that!

But this actually goes to the heart of the future of this experiment we call American Democracy. We have never truly been fully governed by the founding documents of this country. Decisions and policies have mostly been made based on the political expediency of appeasement to the masses. And actually without a strong Judiciary stepping in from time to time and making decisions that are unpopular to the "majority", the country would have already fallen into a typical mob-rule state. With the growing diversity of our population I wonder if we shall actually be able to make laws based on the rights of every individual's guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...or shall we fall into an anarchy of "tribal group interests" with the decisions dictated by the strongest tribe?

The homosexual issue is a perfect example I think because if asked, I doubt if many of the opponents could succinctly describe just what personal infringement such rights would have on them. Mostly the opposition boils down to opinions and beliefs, but no real infringement of rights.

Let us all hope, regardless of our own personal opinion, that the Judiciary of this country will once again stand up and reaffirm the principles of the founding documents, not doing so just for homosexuals, but for the continued life of the individual rights of every American to the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Contrary to those who want to uphold the "people's" right to legislate whatever they can be sold on, the USA ain't Classical Athens. Direct democracy is an anomaly in the greater part of the nation. And anyone with the slightest familiarity with the U.S. Constitution knows full well that the entire homeland is a tensile structure, held up by the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary all pulling in different directions. It's rather like a Roman arch which is held up by gravity. (The innumerate may PM me for clarification on this but believe it. That's how arches work.)

So the tumult and shouting will only last a while and when it comes to everyone's stupefied (or just possibly stupid) realization that letting gay couples be legally married affects no one else, at all, only the most rabidly ignorant will still care.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

VOLUPTUOUS MAMASBOY

Oh! You'd be amazed what mischief one, determined soul can create.

 

[3113]

Actually if you read CNN's article on Iowa Supreme Court Decision, you'll find that several state lawmakers opposed it, and there is already a plan in the works to write up an amendment to the Iowa State Constitution specifying marriage as between a man and a woman.

This video counters CNN's Downer Alert. It won't be so easy this time.

 

[Katyusha]

[Downer ALERT]

Actually if you read CNN's article on Iowa Supreme Court Decision, you'll find that several state lawmakers opposed it, and there is already a plan in the works to write up an amendment to the Iowa State Constitution specifying marriage as between a man and a woman.

[/Downer ALERT]

Otherwise I'm happy to see another state supporting this.

I still don't understand the problem and I probably never will. The government should not, and should never have had, anything to do with marriage. The decision to make that kind of a commitment is a PRIVATE one made between two people. Why does anybody else care what two people do?

I like what Sweden did. The government stopped sticking its nose into marriage, and gave churches the individual right to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. That is how it should be.

 

[Katyusha]

As to this whole "majority rule" thing...

remember, the majority of the British Empire felt it was just fine to tax the colonies without granting them representation.

The majority of voting southerners thought it was just fine to keep people as property.

The majority thought "seperate but equal" was just fine.

The majority thought it was just fine to imprison people of japanese ancestry in camps in CA because they looked like the enemy in WWII.

Part of the reason we have a Bill of Rights and the system of judicial review is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Just because most people agree with it does not make it right and moral.

Well said.

 

[Katyusha]

The homosexual issue is a perfect example I think because if asked, I doubt if many of the opponents could succinctly describe just what personal infringement such rights would have on them. Mostly the opposition boils down to opinions and beliefs, but no real infringement of rights.

There are three common arguments that I've heard to date from people I know who oppose gay marriage. They are the following:

#1: "If gays are allowed to marry, that's that many more people who can collect spousal and other benefits from the government. That means our taxes will go up, Social Security and Medicare will go broke much sooner, and we'll all be up shit creek because of it."

#2: "Where does it stop? If we allow two men or two women to marry each other, then we have to allow multiple men and women to marry. If we allow that, then we have to allow people to marry their dogs or horses or any other animal they want. This is why marriage needs to be restricted to a man and a woman. Otherwise the institution will be ruined by people being able to marry whoever, or whatever, they want."

#3: "What are we teaching our children if we allow gays to marry? We'll be teaching them that homosexuality is okay. We'll be teaching them that it's normal. In short, we'll be teaching homosexuality in our classrooms and kids will grow up even more confused than ever about their sexual identities."

They are also, in my not-so-humble opinion, all equally absurd.