Iowa high court legalizes gay marriage in state

DES MOINES, Iowa – Iowa's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state — and the first in the nation's heartland — to allow same-sex couples to wed.

In its decision, the high court upheld a lower court's ruling that found a state law restricting marriage to between a man and woman violated Iowa's constitution.

"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 Supreme Court wrote in its decision. "The Legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

The ruling set off celebration among the state's gay-marriage proponents.

"Iowa is about justice, and that's what happened here today," said Laura Fefchak, who was hosting a verdict party in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale with partner of 13 years, Nancy Robinson.

Robinson added: "To tell the truth, I didn't think I'd see this day."

Richard Socarides, an attorney and former senior adviser on gay rights to President Clinton, said the ruling carries extra significance coming from Iowa.

"It's a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage. And it shows that despite attempts stop gay marriage through right-wing ballot initiatives, like in California, the courts will continue to support the case for equal rights for gays," he said.

Its opponents were equally dismayed.

"I would say the mood is one of mourning right now in a lot of ways, and yet the first thing we did after internalizing the decision was to walk across the street and begin the process of lobbying our legislators to let the people of Iowa vote," said Bryan English, spokesman for the conservative group the Iowa Family Policy Center.

"This is an issue that will define (lawmakers') leadership. This is not a side issue."

The Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr., pastor at the Maple Street Baptist Church in Des Moines, went to the Supreme Court building to hear of the decision.

"It's a perversion and it opens the door to more perversions," Ratliff said. "What's next?"

Technically, the decision will take about 21 days to be considered final and a request for a rehearing could be filed within that period.

But Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said his office will not ask for a rehearing, meaning the court's decision should take effect after that three-week period.

"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said. "This is not a personal thing. We have an obligation to the law to defend the recorder, and that's what we do."

That means it will be at least several weeks before gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses.

Sarcone said gay marriage opponents can't appeal the case at the state or federal level because they were not party to the lawsuit and no federal issue was raised in the case.

Opponents can try and persuade Iowa lawmakers to address the issue, but state Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said it's "exceedingly unlikely" gay marriage legislation will be brought up this session, expected to end within weeks. He also said he's "not inclined to call up a constitutional amendment," during next year's session.

The case had been working its way through Iowa's court system since 2005 when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. Some of their children are also listed as plaintiffs.

The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.

The state Supreme Court's ruling upheld an August 2007 decision by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson, who found that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the state's constitutional rights of equal protection.

The Polk County attorney's office, arguing on behalf of Brien, claimed that Hanson's ruling violates the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.

Lambda Legal planned to comment on the ruling later Friday. A request for comment from the Polk County attorney's office wasn't immediately returned.

Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat, said the decision addresses a complicated and emotional issue.

"The next responsible step is to thoroughly review this decision, which I am doing with my legal counsel and the attorney general, before reacting to what it means for Iowa," Culver said in a statement.

Around the nation, only Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed gay marriage before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows domestic partnerships.

New Jersey, New Hampshire and Vermont also offer civil unions, which provide many of the same rights that come with marriage. New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and legislators there and in New Jersey are weighing whether to offer marriage. A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont has cleared the Legislature but may be vetoed by the governor.

-----------

3 down, 47 to go.

As God sheds another tear, man destroys themselves!

Makes me sick

Then again


With the liberals kicking things into high gear


What you expect


The Republicans are running around like Chicken Little

Afraid to do anything to offend people; so they can try and regain the Congress and the White House after the libs fail

Which won't happen until at least 2016


OR LONGER


We need a third party in this country

One who will protect the taxpayers, create jobs, bring family values and stop this sickening perversion into what the majority of this nation holds sacred

I say Boycott Iowa!

2 reasons why I could care less. 1. I don't live in Iowa. 2. I'm not going to marry someone of the same sex.

Vermont passes legislation to legalize same-sex marriage but their governor has indicated he will veto the legislation. It remains to be seen if they will be able to override his veto once his veto is made.

---------

Don't like same-sex marriage? Don't marry people of your sex. Problem solved.

bobrob2004 wrote:

2 reasons why I could care less. 1. I don't live in Iowa. 2. I'm not going to marry someone of the same sex.

And that is exactly the type of apathy that plays into the hands of the Gay Rights People and other decadent groups hellbent on destroying the moral fabric of this country

catbox_9 wrote:

Vermont passes legislation to legalize same-sex marriage but their governor has indicated he will veto the legislation. It remains to be seen if they will be able to override his veto once his veto is made.

---------

Don't like same-sex marriage? Don't marry people of your sex. Problem solved.

for Vermont's Governor

And people wonder why God is not blessing the USA anymore! Christianity, Muslims, and Jewish religions class it what God calls it, an abomination! No homosexual problems in Muslim nations, they kill them! Jewish law calls for stoning to death (but that is not done anymore), Christianity still loves the homosexual person, but hates the sin, and prays for their repentance.

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

Jewish law calls for stoning to death (but that is not done anymore),

I'm not a Biblical expert but speaking of killing...

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods, do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."(Deuteronomy 13:6-9)

You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13)

--------------------------------------

These two Biblical verses tell us to do the exact opposite thing. Deuteronomy comes later in the Bible so perhaps it supercedes Exodus. How are we to know? Given that Biblical verses are contradictory, there are verses in the Bible that are therefore no longer applicable. Given that we have no way of knowing which verses apply, we should dismiss all verses rather than risk applying verses that should not be applied.



--

If we must use the Bible in this argument, let's turn to Proverbs....

There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are detestable
to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into
evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up
dissension among brothers. Proverbs 6:16-19

Why isn't homosexuality mentioned here if it is such an abomination


There are numerous verses in the Bible that mention people taking slaves. Maybe we should repeal the 13th amendment, too?







I don't know why I keep talking about religion though. Religion doesn't dictate law - of the 10 commandments, you can legally break 8 of them under current American law (it is illegal to murder an steal) and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution says there is no official religion.


Besides, the largest religious group in the world is Roman Catholics with 1.05 billion. There are 1.1 billion irreligious/agnostic/atheists in the world. Only 1/3 of humans are a Christian of some form. When such a small minority of people believe something I find it difficult to say they are without a doubt correct.

Let's hear one non-religious argument against same-sex marriage. If you can give me even one I'll change my opinion. You can't so I won't have to.



Taking away right from sexual minorities makes no sense whatsoever as far as I can tell. You can argue that people choose to be gay but this is ridiculous. Who in their right mind would choose to be hated by almost everyone? Who in their right mind would choose to be treated as a second class citizen by federal law? Obviously nobody. For those still not convinced, I urge everyone to decide they are attracted to members of their own sex. As you cannot do this you cannot choose your sexual orientation. Discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation is as ridiculous as discriminating against people based on their gender, race, or any birth defects they may have.

If you want to believe certain people are going to "hell" for whatever reason that's fine. You cannot dictate policy against people just because you feel like it.

It is imperative that the majority not use their plurality to dictate policy against the minority.
-Thomas Jefferson












===============

Face it, legalization of same-sex marriage is inevitable. Judges have repeatedly sided with the liberals here in every state and the mainstream media is pretty tolerant of homosexuality as are young people. Judges will continue to rule in favor of homosexuality despite what the populace says. It is imperative that judges have a say. If not for the government, slavery would have never been repealed - slaves couldn't vote prior to the 13th Amendment and the voting males would have never voted in favor of freeing the slaves.

gs78 wrote:

bobrob2004 wrote:

2 reasons why I could care less. 1. I don't live in Iowa. 2. I'm not going to marry someone of the same sex.

And that is exactly the type of apathy that plays into the hands of the Gay Rights People and other decadent groups hellbent on destroying the moral fabric of this country

Just think how awful the world would be if sexual minorities were not discriminated against. I mean....well....umm.....well....we'd be about out of people to discriminate against. It's bad enough non-whites can't be slaves. Now we're going to let non-heterosexuals be treated as equals, too?

Dammit, where's Hitler when you need him?

Like I said, I don't really care about homosexuals getting married as long as it doesn't effect my life. It does bother me that they are using the word "marriage." Marriage is a sacred ceremony, one of the sacraments and should be between a man and a woman. If they want to legalize a joining of two same-sexed people, at least call it something else. It gives a negative connotation to the word "marriage."

I still think it's unnatural and sick and that anyone practicing homosexuality will end up in hell. That doesn't mean I'll treat them any different than anyone else; I'm taught to love everyone equally. I even know some people who are gay. But I'm not going to go around and try to force people my beliefs. I'd be wasting my time.

I think bobrob's right. On basically everything he has said in this thread.

If they want to be together so be it, but if it starts effecting the way I live negatively then thats a different story.

Also, I wouldnt call it marriage either. But at the same time, what else is there to call it? I mean, I dont see any other way of looking at it, so marriage is the only thing you can call it as of now.

The way my parents taught me, if two people of the same sex would like to involve themselves in each other's lives like that, then it's not my business to try and stop it, that's all on them.

I don't see it as right, but at the same time, I can't say I have every but of evidence to call it wrong. It may disgust me, but that is one thing on its own. Thats not plausible enough for me to believe it should stop completely.

That's just how I was taught though.

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

bobrob2004 wrote:

2 reasons why I could care less. 1. I don't live in Iowa. 2. I'm not going to marry someone of the same sex.

And that is exactly the type of apathy that plays into the hands of the Gay Rights People and other decadent groups hellbent on destroying the moral fabric of this country

Just think how awful the world would be if sexual minorities were not discriminated against. I mean....well....umm.....well....we'd be about out of people to discriminate against. It's bad enough non-whites can't be slaves. Now we're going to let non-heterosexuals be treated as equals, too?

Dammit, where's Hitler when you need him?

Comparing discrimination of African Americans and minorities to Gay Discrimination is bunk




If Gays kept things in the closet

Like Rock Hudson did back in the day

There would be no problems


But you got all these gays marching around in gay rights parades flaunting their queerness


Hey; I am straight

But you don't see me marching and saying how much I like women


Leave sexual activity in the bedrooms


Not having a bunch of guys [ dressed like the Village people] acting like fairies in the street and women; like Ellen and Rosie O'Donnell coming out of the closet; praised by the liberal media for doing so

bobrob2004 wrote:

Like I said, I don't really care about homosexuals getting married as long as it doesn't effect my life. It does bother me that they are using the word "marriage." Marriage is a sacred ceremony, one of the sacraments and should be between a man and a woman. If they want to legalize a joining of two same-sexed people, at least call it something else. It gives a negative connotation to the word "marriage."

I still think it's unnatural and sick and that anyone practicing homosexuality will end up in hell. That doesn't mean I'll treat them any different than anyone else; I'm taught to love everyone equally. I even know some people who are gay. But I'm not going to go around and try to force people my beliefs. I'd be wasting my time.

Living in sin is one thing

But the government legalizing it is another


If it were up to me; I would ban gay marriage and also ban people from marrying their relatives [ like they do in the South]

That seems like a crude way of looking at it but ok...

My parents alwas just wanted me not to stick my nose into business that wasnt mine. This isny my business so Im not to say whether they should or shouldnt be allowed to be like that.

That is why many states call it a civil union, since "marriage" is a legal term taken from the scriptures, and ordained (created) by God. Bobrob is correct in what he said, it is a holy sacred ceremony.

If they want a civil union, fine, but calling it "marriage" is not what the founding fathers had in mind.

We do not put down people for their sexual orientation, but I also have the right not to have it forced on me, just the same as I will not force Christianity on them.

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

That is why many states call it a civil union, since "marriage" is a legal term taken from the scriptures, and ordained (created) by God. Bobrob is correct in what he said, it is a holy sacred ceremony.

If they want a civil union, fine, but calling it "marriage" is not what the founding fathers had in mind.

We do not put down people for their sexual orientation, but I also have the right not to have it forced on me, just the same as I will not force Christianity on them.

Here!


Here!

Speaking of the South



If Southerners back in the 1700s and 1800s weren't so lazy and greedy

There would have never been a need for Negro Slaves in the first place


And we would not have racial problems today

That doesn't have to do with gay marriage either

but just a random thought

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

That is why many states call it a civil union, since "marriage" is a legal term taken from the scriptures, and ordained (created) by God.

Sorry, Christians did not invent marriage - marriage predates Christianity. If Christians want to come up with their own thing and not call it marriage, that's fine.

Also, what about marriages that don't involve Christians? I mean those evil Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. are all a bunch of evil sinners - shouldn't their marriages be outlawed, too, especially with the Eastern religions? Believing in reincarnation like the eastern world does seems pretty incompatible with the Bible.

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

If they want a civil union, fine, but calling it "marriage" is not what the founding fathers had in mind.

Who the fuck cares what the founding fathers said? That's a bad argument. If we go by what they said you need to quit your job and you sure as hell shouldn't even think about voting. As a female, you are therefore worthless and your brain is unable to comprehend politics so you should get sewing, cooking, and go have 45 kids. For those that aren't white, you sure as hell don't deserve any rights and in many states should be my slave.

If only we could go back to that

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

We do not put down people for their sexual orientation, but I also have the right not to have it forced on me, just the same as I will not force Christianity on them.

But you are forcing it on them. You have yet to give a single non-Christian reason why you are opposed to same-sex marriage. The founding fathers argument is close, but doesn't work given that much of what they went with has been thrown out.

"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
-United States Constitution

Also, how is the legalization of same-sex marriage forcing anything on you. They aren't fighting to criminalize heterosexual marriage. If same-sex marriage is legalized, you are not forced to participate - you don't have to marry a woman and you don't have to go to a wedding.

gdennis59 wrote:

It is, but I was just making a mega random moment, and I think I succeeded. LoL

But yeah, Stuff.

gs78 wrote:

bobrob2004 wrote:

2 reasons why I could care less. 1. I don't live in Iowa. 2. I'm not going to marry someone of the same sex.

And that is exactly the type of apathy that plays into the hands of the Gay Rights People and other decadent groups hellbent on destroying the moral fabric of this country

Well yay for me cause I could give 2 shits less too

bobrob2004 wrote:

2 reasons why I could care less. 1. I don't live in Iowa. 2. I'm not going to marry someone of the same sex.

catbox_9 wrote:

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

That is why many states call it a civil union, since "marriage" is a legal term taken from the scriptures, and ordained (created) by God.

Sorry, Christians did not invent marriage - marriage predates Christianity. If Christians want to come up with their own thing and not call it marriage, that's fine.

Well yeah, they call it "Holy Matrimony." But the term "marriage" is between a man and a woman whether you are talking about religion or government. You can't just change the meaning of a word.

catbox_9 wrote:

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

That is why many states call it a civil union, since "marriage" is a legal term taken from the scriptures, and ordained (created) by God.

Sorry, Christians did not invent marriage - marriage predates Christianity. If Christians want to come up with their own thing and not call it marriage, that's fine.

Also, what about marriages that don't involve Christians? I mean those evil Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. are all a bunch of evil sinners - shouldn't their marriages be outlawed, too, especially with the Eastern religions? Believing in reincarnation like the eastern world does seems pretty incompatible with the Bible.

I did not say Christianity! By scriptures I mean all the "religious texts" used by all those groups, that includes the Torah too! Name me any of those you listed that include "marriage" other than of a man and a woman.

And since when are those groups evil? That is what YOU called them.

Islam's view:

Quote :

We believe that the Qur’an (Koran) is the Word of God, is true, literally and completely. We believe that the Sunna (collected sayings of the Prophet Muhammed, PBUH) and the Hadith (teachings of the great thinkers of Islam) are guides which must be respected and followed. We believe that the teachings of the prophets before Muhammed, particularly Jesus (Isa) and Moses (Musa), are from God and the Bible is our main source for these teachings.

Since we believe in these Scriptures, we are constrained to follow what we find there in discussing questions like same sex marriage. We must say that homosexuality is a sin in Islam. We can never accept the argument that it is natural, an equally valid way of life compared to heterosexuality. The Qur’an is clear on this point, it is not acceptable.

Homosexuality and Buddhism

Some factions against, others not sure, overall, un-natural.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I personally don't care if two people of the same sex want to have a civil union, that is up to them, but it is fact that the term "marriage" is a historically recognized, God/Allah created union between a male and a female, leading to procreation of children.

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

That is why many states call it a civil union, since "marriage" is a legal term taken from the scriptures, and ordained (created) by God.

Sorry, Christians did not invent marriage - marriage predates Christianity. If Christians want to come up with their own thing and not call it marriage, that's fine.

Also, what about marriages that don't involve Christians? I mean those evil Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. are all a bunch of evil sinners - shouldn't their marriages be outlawed, too, especially with the Eastern religions? Believing in reincarnation like the eastern world does seems pretty incompatible with the Bible.

I did not say Christianity! By scriptures I mean all the "religious texts" used by all those groups, that includes the Torah too! Name me any of those you listed that include "marriage" other than of a man and a woman.

And since when are those groups evil? That is what YOU called them.

Islam's view:

Quote :

We believe that the Qur’an (Koran) is the Word of God, is true, literally and completely. We believe that the Sunna (collected sayings of the Prophet Muhammed, PBUH) and the Hadith (teachings of the great thinkers of Islam) are guides which must be respected and followed. We believe that the teachings of the prophets before Muhammed, particularly Jesus (Isa) and Moses (Musa), are from God and the Bible is our main source for these teachings.

Since we believe in these Scriptures, we are constrained to follow what we find there in discussing questions like same sex marriage. We must say that homosexuality is a sin in Islam. We can never accept the argument that it is natural, an equally valid way of life compared to heterosexuality. The Qur’an is clear on this point, it is not acceptable.

Homosexuality and Buddhism

Some factions against, others not sure, overall, un-natural.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I personally don't care if two people of the same sex want to have a civil union, that is up to them, but it is fact that the term "marriage" is a historically recognized, God/Allah created union between a male and a female, leading to procreation of children.

According to wikipedia (not the most reliable source I know but they're probably close here) the world has 1.1 billion irreligious/agnotstic/atheists. These people have absolutely nothing religious about them. Should they be allowed to marry since it certainly won't be a religious thing?

A civil union is supposed to be a separate, but equal union. While it's better than nothing (which is what almost every state has), it's not good enough. The United State Supreme Court is very clear, separate is never equal.


---------

The ancient Greeks and Romans had marriage, too. Homosexuality wasn't particularly frowned upon by the Greeks - it was the norm for young men to be with older men.

SoulRat wrote:

gs78 wrote:

bobrob2004 wrote:

2 reasons why I could care less. 1. I don't live in Iowa. 2. I'm not going to marry someone of the same sex.

And that is exactly the type of apathy that plays into the hands of the Gay Rights People and other decadent groups hellbent on destroying the moral fabric of this country

Well yay for me cause I could give 2 shits less too

Sad

And people wonder why this country is so fucked up


And I ain't just talking about gay marriage

The same attitudes are why China and India and Japan are leaving us in the dust both education and economy wise


Just to name a few

prod wrote:

bobrob2004 wrote:

2 reasons why I could care less. 1. I don't live in Iowa. 2. I'm not going to marry someone of the same sex.

Amazing how so many people share that attitude

And like I stated earlier


It applies to so many things in society today

Which is a rotten shame


If it were just about the gays; it could be dismissed


But this type of apathy dominates American Society today among many issues; social, economic, religious and so on

Sticking our heads in the sand and hoping our problems will go away is not gonna cut it

When this nation collapses


Don't say I didn't warn you

I am done with this subject!