Congratulations Iowa! (only 47 states to go).

Great news, great post!

Cheers
Cycloptichorn

I grew up in Iowa...clearly it's gone downhill since I left.

When I heard this, I was like "Iowa? Really?"

When a midwestern state like Iowa goes this way, it's time to read the stones. I believe that in the next decade, we'll see at least 10 more states open up marriage to gay couples.

I was not aware this was even going on in their SC.

T
K
O

Yeah, how dare they allow gays to marry! The place is surely going to pot!



Cycloptichorn

Doesn't really have anything to do with the state; it's the simple fact that courts cannot square denying gays the right to marry with Equal protection clauses all across the country. There's just no legal rationale.

My friend from Iowa today pointed out that even if a Constitutional amendment were to pass barring this, it would take at least 3 years. Good news for people of all stripes!

Cycloptichorn

But in 2008, Gov Culver stated that he would call a special session of the legislature if the SC ruled this way. Now to see if he lives up to that threat...

It does appear that it will take such extreme measures to nip this in the bud...and even if the Gov acts quickly, it will not prevent another California like fiasco from happening (a rush of quick marriages and then the legislature lowers the boom)...Democratic leaders in the democratically-led legislature don't appear to be amenable to taking any action unless compelled by the Governor.

Looking at some of the outrage arising from all corners of the state, I don't think it will stand for long though....this is not MA or CT, after all.

So, basically, you have the court "passing" laws because you can't get the voters or their elected representatives to agree to them. Your respect for democracy is overwhelming.

Like Cyclo said, what state it is matters not to the constitutionality. I expressed shock because I didn't realize IA was reviewing this. That's a huge step by itself.

What needs to be nipped in the bud? What are you afraid of?

T
K
O

The court didn't 'pass' any law. It found a law which was passed by the Legislature to be Unconstitutional due to the Equal Protection clause. There's nothing new or particularly shocking about this.

Do you accept that the Judicial branch is an equal branch to the other two, or not? Yes, you do? Then what are you complaining about? One would think that if you respected Democracy, you would respect the Judicial branch's ability to excercize their power just like the other branches.

Cycloptichorn

That's actually respect for checks and balances, not respect for Democracy. Pure Democracy would have no courts....

Other than the court of public opinion.

I envision a giant pile of stones on the national mall...

Cycloptichorn

Diest,
The state matters most definitely....

The supreme court of Iowa rules on the constitutionality of a particular piece of legislation ONLY against Iowa's constitution...has no effect on me or you, other than the momentum it might enable.

I don't fault the SC of Iowa too much...frankly finding a definition that says marriage is just between a male and a female would be hard to be found in any state constitution. However, as I mentioned before, this is more likely to be of a California situation where the people of Iowa quickly rise up to add just such a constitutional amendment. Once that amendment is in place, then it becomes quite easy for these same judges to point out "yep...there it is in black and white..." and counteract this ruling.

This is, at best, a short-lived victory and may even end up being a phyrric victory as other states accelerate marriage constitutional amendments vice legislation.

I am constantly amazed that anyone gives a **** about this issue if gays want to marry who gives a damn... and why, if gays can have all the benefits of marriage with a union but can't use just that one word... why cut off your nose to spite your face?

Pack of childish assholes on both sides of the issue IMO.

Gay rights groups would point out that 'separate but equal' rarely is so in real life.

I think most would be happy, however, with a 'civil union' status which granted full rights. But you don't get anywhere by starting out with the compromise position in politics, now do ya?

Cycloptichorn

If civil union ACTUALLY granted the same rights, perhaps. They don't. For one, a civil union from one state, may not be recognized from one state to another (if they are even offered in the first place), and even if they are not all civil unions provided the same liberties.

Think of the impact this would have on a couple who one or both partners wanted to move to a state to advance their career but the new state didn't offer the same rights for them? Why should they have to wager like that?

Both sides of the debate are not equal. the LGBT community actually has something on the line.

T
K
O

Well done Iowa!!!!

yep. and hopefully california will reinstate equal rights.

I tend to agree.

I do think that Gays should have the right to enter into legally recognized relationships that provide certain legal protections and rights that parallel those afforded marriage.

If the laws governing civil unions do not adequately provide these rights and protections it should be a much easier and less controversial effort to correct this as opposed to challenging the centuries old definition of "marriage."

So why is it so important for Gays to be able to be "married?"

The answer is entirely political.

There are two primary motives behind the movement to legalize Gay marriage:

1) The imposition of a sea change in societal values
2) The perceived defeat of conservative values

Clearly the vast majority of Americans believe that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. If this were not the case, the vast majority of Democratic politicians across the nation would not be telling us they hold the same belief.

Thus, we know American society is not poised to accept gay marriage if not for the sinister machinations of the Religious Right. We also know that, ironically, two voting blocs the Democrats count on as their own (Blacks and Hispanics) are less accepting of gay marriage than the general populace.

So, it's not about legal rights, it's about societal acceptance, and that cannot be legislated by elected representatives or mandated by appointed judges.

In the fight for matching the legal right of Gay civil unions with those of straight marriages, I line up with the Gays.

Whether or not, as a society, we should accept homosexuality as being as "normal" as heterosexuality, we certainly should not be forced to by courts, politicians or activists.

The proponents of Gay marriage are, in general, deliberately masking their agenda for social change with disingenuous claims about legal equality.
Progress is not defined as the unalterable dismantling of tradition, as so many "Progressives" would have us believe.

Why the paranoia? Why can't the reason simply be to grant equality? I understand why you might think this, but I can care less about providing some defeat to conservative values. If this is what you believe to the main motives, it suggests a large insecurity on your behalf.

T
K
O