equality blooms with spring

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Not open for further replies.


Blue Crack Supplier
Dec 4, 2003
the West Coast
Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman


The Iowa Supreme Court this morning unanimously upheld gays’ right to marry.

“The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” the justices said in a summary of their decision.

The court rules that gay marriage would be legal in three weeks, starting April 24.

The court affirmed a Polk County District Court decision that would allow six gay couples to marry.

The ruling is viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families.

• Read the summary: Iowa Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage.
• Read the full opinion: Iowa Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage.

The decision makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages. Lawyers for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group that financed the court battle and represented the couples, had hoped to use a court victory to demonstrate acceptance of same-sex marriage in heartland America.

The Iowa Supreme Court’s Web site was deluged with more than 350,000 visitors this morning, in anticipation of the ruling, a Judicial Branch spokesman said this morning.

Steve Davis, a court spokesman, said administrators added extra computer servers to handle the expected increase in Web traffic. But “this is unprecedented,” Davis said.

Richard Socarides, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay civil rights, said today’s decision could set the stage for other states. Socarides was was a senior political assistant for Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin in the early 1990s.

“I think it’s significant because Iowa is considered a Midwest sate in the mainstream of American thought,” Socarides said. “Unlike states on the coasts, there’s nothing more American than Iowa. As they say during the presidential caucuses, 'As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.’”

Democratic Sen. Bill Dotzler of Waterloo said he hopes people treat each other with respect today.

“Everyone just needs to remain calm,” he said. “We need to analyze the decision.

By giving a unanimous decision it seems to me the court really thinks it’s an issue of rights. It will be up to the legislature to look at their ruling and see how we’re going to proceed.”

“Iowa loses,” said Republican Sen. David Johnson of Ocheyedan. “There have been attempts in the past few years to allow Iowans to weigh in on this issue through our constitutional amendment process and it’s been blocked by majority party leadership. That’s why Iowa loses.”


Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley (R-Chariton) issued the following statement this morning in response to the Iowa Supreme Court's decision to allow gay marriage in Iowa:

"The decision made by the Iowa Supreme Court today to allow gay marriage in Iowa is disappointing on many levels. I believe marriage should only be between one man and one woman and I am confident the majority of Iowans want traditional marriage to be legally recognized in this state. Though the court has made their decision, I believe every Iowan should have a voice on this matter and that is why the Iowa Legislature should immediately act to pass a Constitutional Amendment that protects traditional marriage, keeps it as a sacred bond only between one man and one woman and gives every Iowan a chance to have their say through a vote of the people."


“I’m off the wall,” said Democratic Sen. Matt McCoy of Des Moines, who is openly gay. “I’m very pleased to be an Iowan.”

Then, as he saw a stream of grim-faced activists from the Supreme Court passing through security at the Iowa Capitol, he said: “The God squad’s coming in the door now.”

A Des Moines couple was waiting at the Polk County Recorder's Office to await the ruling.

Shelley Wolfe, 38, and Melisa Keeton, 31, who is 21 weeks pregnant, had gone through a commitment ceremony two years ago. Their marriage certificate was among the 26 that were put on hold when Hanson delayed the matter.

When the cell phone cqll came shortly after 8:30 a.m., Keeton said: "We're going to make it legal."

The women planned to call their pastor and have him meet them at the courthouse to request a waiver of the three-day waiting period so that can be wed today.

Lobbying began immediately for lawmakers to launch the long process of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
No such legislation will be approved this session in the Iowa Senate, McCoy said. Senate Democratic Leader Mike Gronstal won’t allow it, he said.

Such an amendment requires the votes of a simple majority in both the Iowa House and Iowa Senate in two consecutive sessions, followed by a passing vote of the people of Iowa.


Diane Thacker's eyes filled with tears as the words were read aloud on the north side of the Iowa Judicial Building.

"Sadness," she whisper when asked for her reaction. "But I'm prayerful and hopeful that God's word will stand."

Thacker of Des Moines said she went to the site of the announcement on Friday morning, “...because I believe in the marriage vow. I can’t see it any other way."

Craig Overton's jaw dropped when he heard the news. He's opposed to same-sex
marriage, he said. Overton, of Pleasant Hill, had been carrying signs before the result was known. He was stunned to hear the news; his arm holding the signs dropped until the signs were resting on the sidewalk.

“I don’t want this taught in schools,” Overton said. “Animals don’t do that. I don’t like it. I have small children, and I just don’t think this is right. I think the people ought to be allowed to vote on this instead of letting just a few people make all the rules.”


Opponents have long argued that allowing gay marriage would erode the institution. Some Iowa lawmakers, mostly Republicans, attempted last year to launch a constitutional amendment to specifically prohibit same-sex marriage.

Such a change would require approval in consecutive legislative sessions and a public vote, which means a ban would could not be put in place until at least 2012 unless lawmakers take up the issue in the next few weeks.

“If you’ll remember when we proposed the Iowa marriage amendment, the Democrats’ excuse for not taking it up was that it was in the hands of the Iowa Supreme Court,” Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley of Chariton said Friday. “It was implied that should they find against traditional marriage, that the Legislature would handle that. I would certainly hope they’ll keep their promise.”


Until today, Iowa law said marriage could only be between one man and one woman.

The case, Varnum vs. Brien, involves six same-sex Iowa couples who sued Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien in 2005 after his office denied them marriage licenses. Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson sided with the couples last year but then suspended his decision pending a high court ruling.

In Dec. 10 arguments to the high court, Assistant Polk County Attorney Roger Kuhle said Hanson erred in his ruling, which declared the 1998 Iowa Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and threw out several expert witnesses that gay marriage opponents had hoped to use at the trial. Hanson ruled that the witnesses did not qualify as experts on issues relevant to the case.

Brien, the Polk County recorder, rejected the marriage license requests because he “has no say in this law,” Kuhle said. “He can no more give these plaintiffs a license than he could give a license to a man and three women,” he added.

Kuhle argued that same-sex marriage could loosen the definition of marriage to include polygamy. Future generations might discard the institution if they come to believe that opposite-sex parents are not necessary, he argued.

A ruling favorable to gay marriage also could hurt children, who are best raised by a mother and father, he said.

“One could easily argue, and we do, that fostering same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage as we know it,” Kuhle said. “It’s not going to happen tomorrow. We’re not going to see any changes tomorrow, next week, next year, in our generation. But you’ve got to look to the future.”

Kuhle said state support for same-sex marriage would teach future generations that marriage is no longer about procreation despite thousands of years of history.

Nor does the case belong in the courts, Kuhle said. The debate should fall to the Legislature.

and ...

Vermont House Backs Gay Marriage

The Vermont House of Representatives approved a bill legalizing gay marriage Thursday, a divisive measure that now faces a veto from the state's governor.

The Democratic-controlled house voted 95-52 in favor of the bill, which had already cleared the state Senate in a 26-4 vote. The state's Republican governor, James Douglas, says he now plans to veto it.

Supporters of the bill would need additional votes in the house to override the veto, which requires two-thirds majorities in both chambers of the legislature. If they succeed, Vermont would become the third state in the country, after Connecticut and Massachusetts, to allow same-sex couples to marry. California briefly recognized gay marriage until voters banned it in a referendum last year.

With lawmakers in New Hampshire and Maine also considering bills that would allow gay marriage, the battle over the issue has once again migrated to New England, where it started. It could set the stage for a broader federal debate.

The Defense of Marriage Act says that under federal law only a marriage between a man and a woman is recognized. President Barack Obama has said he wants to repeal the 1996 law. That could give same-sex couples in states that recognize gay marriage or civil unions access to federal benefits, such as Social Security payments in the event of the death of one of the partners.

Opponents of gay marriage say the legislative efforts in Vermont and elsewhere in New England are part of a lobbying campaign to hasten the demise of the Defense of Marriage Act.

"They are trying to provide new reasons for the repeal," says Maggie Gallagher, president of the conservative National Organization for Marriage.

Gay-marriage supporters in Vermont say they are completing a process that began in 2000 when the state became the first in the country to allow full civil unions for same-sex couples. Since then, four other states, including California and New Jersey, did the same, meaning that at the state level a same-sex couple is treated like a married couple in almost all regards but name. Four other states give gay couples some of the rights enjoyed by married couples, according to Family Equality Council, a gay-rights group.

After Massachusetts, Connecticut and Quebec allowed gay marriage, the mood brightened for advocates in Vermont. "People here have seen what it looks like and realized it doesn't harm anybody," said Shap Smith, the Democratic speaker of Vermont's House of Representatives.

Still the issue remains divisive. A poll cited by a group called Vermont Freedom to Marry says 55% of Vermonters support gay marriage while 38% oppose and 7% are undecided.

The battle began in 1997 when a man named Stan Baker and his partner teamed up with a lesbian couple in a bid to get the state of Vermont to recognize same-sex relationships. The state's Supreme Court ruled in their favor in 1999, and the legislature authorized civil unions a year later, stopping short of approving full marriage. Mr. Baker says he had to accept the compromise even though it amounted to "separate but equal" treatment for gay couples.

The issue remains highly charged. Last week, Mr. Douglas, the governor, said he would veto the gay-marriage bill if it reached his desk. He called on lawmakers to focus on the economy instead.
you can read the eminently logical ruling here: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D213209143.PDF

some of my favorite parts:

Equal Protection Principles. Under Iowa’s tripartite system of government,
courts give respect to the legislative process and presume its enactments are
constitutional. The deference afforded to legislative policy-making is manifested
in the level of scrutiny applied to review legislative action. In most equal
protection cases, the court applies a very deferential standard known as the
“rational basis test.” Under this test, “[t]he plaintiff has the heavy burden of
showing the statute unconstitutional and must negate every reasonable basis
upon which the classification may be sustained.” Classifications based on race,
alienage, or national origin and those affecting fundamental rights are, however,
evaluated under a “strict scrutiny” standard. Classifications subject to strict
scrutiny are presumptively invalid and must be narrowly tailored to serve a
compelling governmental interest. The court also recognized that an
intermediate tier has been applied to statutes classifying persons on the basis of
gender or illegitimacy. Under this level of scrutiny, a party seeking to uphold the
statute must demonstrate the challenged classification is substantially related to
the achievement of an important governmental objective.

“No two people or groups of people are the same in every way, and nearly every equal protection claim could be run aground [under] a threshold analysis” that requires the two groups “be a mirror image of one another.” Rather, equal protection demands that the law itself must be equal. It requires that laws treat all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law alike. Thus, the purposes of the law must be referenced for a meaningful evaluation.

The purpose of Iowa’s marriage law is to provide an institutional basis for
defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of persons in
committed relationships. It also serves to recognize the status of the parties’
committed relationship. In this case, the court concluded, plaintiffs are similarly
situated compared to heterosexual persons; they are in committed relationships
and official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining
their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities

Four factors utilized in determining whether certain legislative classifications warrant a more demanding constitutional analysis were considered: (1) the history of invidious discrimination against the class burdened by the legislation; (2) whether the characteristics that distinguish the class indicate a typical class member’s ability to contribute to society; (3) whether the distinguishing characteristic is “immutable,” or beyond the class members’ control; and (4) the political power of the subject class.

In its analysis, the court found each factor supported a finding that classification by sexual orientation warranted a heightened scrutiny. The court, citing historical as well as present-day examples, concluded that gay and lesbian people as a group have long been the victim of purposeful and invidious discrimination because of their sexual orientation. There was no evidence that the characteristic that defines the members of this group—sexual orientation—bears any logical relationship to their ability to perform productively in society, either in familial relations or otherwise. Addressing the issue of immutability, the court found sexual orientation to be central to personal identity and that its alteration, if at all, could only be accomplished at the expense of significant damage to the individual’s sense of self. This, the court concluded, would be wholly unacceptable for the government to require anyone to do. Finally, the court found that, despite their securing of significant legal protections against discrimination in recent years, gay and lesbian people have not become so politically powerful as to overcome the unfair and severe prejudice that produces discrimination based on sexual orientation.

now how's that for some old fashioned midwestern common sense?​
can we now start talking about "Des Moines" values and "heartland liberals"?

because i'd enjoy that.
don't start tapping your foot yet,
the troglodytes are already talking about putting it on the Iowa ballot,
a la Prop 8 style

and in Vermont, will there be a 2/3s vote to override the veto?

it seems there are still people that want a chance to go down in history as haters (of course they will tell you the love the sinner, but hate is hate!)
I find it funny how conservatives are always talking about being "fiscally conservative", yet they are willing to spend millions just to prove there are more haters. :shrug:
I find it funny how conservatives are always talking about being "fiscally conservative", yet they are willing to spend millions just to prove there are more haters. :shrug:

i don't know about you, but i don't want my son coming home from school and informing me that he just learned that a prince can marry a prince, or a princess can marry a princess.
Time waits for no (wo)man, the troglodytes must be figuring that one out by now.
Interesting....contentions that the US is a hotbed of homophobia are starting to look a bit dodgy! I think it vindicates the thesis that the last few years of religosity and social conservatism (in the US) are the aberration, and currently we are seeing the return to the prevailing long term trend towards greater social liberalism.

Whether that is a good or bad thing I will leave for others to judge.
don't start tapping your foot yet,
the troglodytes are already talking about putting it on the Iowa ballot,
a la Prop 8 style

The good news is that it appears that Iowa's amendment process seems to be similar to Massachusetts' in that it would take a minimum of two years and a receptive legislature to be able to get it on the ballot. From all indications, though, the latter isn't even certain, so, unlike California, the "troglodytes" have an uphill battle on their hands here.
Interesting....contentions that the US is a hotbed of homophobia are starting to look a bit dodgy! I think it vindicates the thesis that the last few years of religosity and social conservatism (in the US) are the aberration, and currently we are seeing the return to the prevailing long term trend towards greater social liberalism.

Whether that is a good or bad thing I will leave for others to judge.

the US, as ever, is composed of extremes. you have Provincetown, and you have Odessa, TX. you have arguably the most dynamic gay culture in the world, and you have arguably the most reactionary, know-nothing religious folk in the western world.

possibly, one needs the other to exist.
Interesting....contentions that the US is a hotbed of homophobia are starting to look a bit dodgy! I think it vindicates the thesis that the last few years of religosity and social conservatism (in the US) are the aberration, and currently we are seeing the return to the prevailing long term trend towards greater social liberalism.

Only if you look at court rulings. When the people speak, same-sex marriage is 0 for 30 something. Not that matters of course.

Isn't that nice?

Least I remind the clucking hens of tolerance and superiority. Being 44th president of the United States. So easy even a caveman can do it.
Only if you look at court rulings. When the people speak, same-sex marriage is 0 for 30 something. Not that matters of course.

The good thing about having a constitution is that the wolves don't always get to decide whether they want to eat the sheep or not.
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom