@Brandon9000,
It's old news now and the Iowa SC is conservative lead and it was unanimous -- perpetuating the conspiracy theory that liberals are forcing gay marriage on voters is worthless -- you cannot vote something into a state constitution that is in conflict with the Federal constitution:
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Iowa Supreme Court Upholds Equal Protection In Gay Marriage Ruling
The photo to the left shows Dawn and Jen Barbou Roske with their two daughters. If any photo ever reflected family values and devoted parenting, this one does. Dawn and Jen were plaintiffs in a challenge to Iowa's ban on same-sex marriage.
The Iowa Supreme Court did its job in declaring discrimination against same-sex couples like Dawn and Jen unconstitutional. It confirmed the principle of equal protection under the law, as guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution:
Same-sex couples will be allowed to marry in Iowa by month’s end, after a ruling on Friday by the Iowa Supreme Court that found unconstitutional a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
...“We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective,” Justice Mark S. Cady (appointed by a conservative Republican governor) wrote for the seven-member court, adding later, “We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law.”
...“If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded,” the Supreme Court said in agreeing that the 1998 law was unconstitutional.
Republican Representative Steve King of Western Iowa presented the characteristic conservative response:
"This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends. Iowa law says that marriage is between one man and one woman. If judges believe the Iowa legislature should grant same sex marriage, they should resign from their positions and run for office, not legislate from the bench."
King doesn't understand that it is the state law he refers to that is unconstitutional, and that the judges aren't legislating but upholding equal protection. Indeed, King's logic could have been used to argue against the finding in the 1967 case Loving v. Virginia, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that anti-miscegenation laws, which prevented interracial marriage, were unconstitutional. There probably were those who contended that Virginia law said that marriage is between a white man and a white woman"and that the judges were "legislating from the bench."
It's significant that this new ruling came from America's heartland. Now New York and California, supposedly states that set the national cultural pace, will have to catch up to Iowa's progressive and just stance on the equal marriage rights of gay and lesbian citizens.
April 6, 2009
Iowa becomes third US state to legalise same-sex marriage
By News Editor
Iowa became the third state in the country to legalise same-sex marriage on Friday while Vermont's bill " although passed " is short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised veto by Republican Gov. Jim Douglas.
Last Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court in a unanimous decision ruled in favour of same-sex marriages " the third state after Massachusetts and Connecticut on the East coast. More often debated on both coasts, the decision makes Iowa the first state in the American Midwest, an area often referred to as the "American Heartland," to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples. For five months last year, California's high court allowed gay marriage until November's election, when residents rejected the idea in a voter initiative. A ruling on the validity of that initiative is expected soon from California's Supreme Court.
Couples in Iowa are expected to be able to exchange vows as soon as April 24 and reports say the only recourse for opponents appears to be a constitutional amendment, which couldn't get on the ballot until 2012 at the earliest.
The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman. It wrote in its 69-page decision: "We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective." The state's lawmakers "excluded a historically disfavoured class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."
The Associated Press quoted Justice Mark S. Cady, a Republican appointee to the court, who said that excluding a group from marriage merely because of long-standing custom, can "allow discrimination to become acceptable as tradition."
Reports say same-sex marriage opponents may try to enact residency requirements for marriage so that gays and lesbians from across the country could not travel to Iowa to wed.
US Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, urged the Legislature to do so, saying he feared without residency requirements Iowa would "become the gay marriage mecca."
Meanwhile, in Vermont, the state House of Representatives approved a bill last Friday legalising same-sex marriage. The bill passed the state Senate on a 94-52 roll call vote, just short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised veto by Republican Gov. Jim Douglas. Gay marriage supporters hoped to convince a few Vermont legislators to switch when it comes to the override vote, which could be taken as soon as Tuesday.
