 |
|
Daylife/AP Photo
|
| Nancy Robinson and Laura Fefchak, Gay advocates, celebrate |
Iowa has become the first state in the Midwest to approve same-sex marriage after the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously decided that a 1998 law limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional. The decision was the culmination of a four-year legal battle that began in the lower courts. The Supreme Court said same-sex marriages could begin in Iowa in as soon as 21 days.
The case here was being closely followed by advocates on both sides of the issue. While the same-sex marriage debate has played out on both coasts, the Midwest — where no states had permitted same-sex marriage — was seen as entirely different. In the past, at least six states in the Midwest were among those around the country that adopted amendments to their state constitutions banning same-sex marriage.
“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.
And later in the ruling, they said: “Equal protection under the Iowa Constitution is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. Since territorial times, Iowa has given meaning to this constitutional provision, striking blows to slavery and segregation, and recognizing women’s rights. The court found the issue of same-sex marriage comes to it with the same importance as the landmark cases of the past…”
Iowa has no residency requirement for getting a marriage license, which some suggest may mean a flurry of people from other states.
Overdue.
The problem with this “equality” argument is that the union of a man and woman, is by it’s very nature not equal to gay unions. Gay and lesbian couples cannot make babies, ever, they were not born that way.
Be Gay – I suppose we shouldn’t let sterile heteros marry then?
Responsibilities of marriage include responsibility for care of offspring. But its not limited to that.
#116, Greg,
State is already planning to appeal this. I bet this SCOTUS hears it right away to prevent these cases from clogging up federal appeals courts nationally;)
I doubt it. The Supreme Court can only rule if the Iowa Constitution or an interpretation, violates the US Constitution. I don’t think they would have jurisdiction in this case. Even if they did, in my opinion they would pass as it does not effect Federal law.
The Supremes will also want to let the lower Federal Courts mull it over and do most of the heavy decision making before they tackle the question.
BUT, I understand trying to predict what SCOTUS will do is always a losing proposition.
#125, Gay,
Gay and lesbian couples cannot make babies, ever, they were not born that way.
Then you also disapprove of my Aunt’s marriage. Her third. At 60+. Her first two hubbies are still kicking too. Oh ya, and she had her plumbing removed very early on so she never ever had a chance to bear a child even before her first marriage.
Maybe you can show us the State where child bearing and fertility are a requirement to obtain a marriage license.
I love lesbians! Just not the big, ugly, hairy ones.
This whole argument is so gay.
If I had enough money, I would ask four girls I know to marry me. Two of the girls are straight and two are gay. One straight girl would make an excellent mother and a great life companion, the other straight girl would motivate me to provide adequately for all and be a fun friend. One of the gay girls would manage the money, and keep me focused on career and talk my head off, and the other gay girl would help (have/with) children and be a great conversationalist about life.
I wouldn’t mind if the gay girls had girlfriends, but it would seem impossible for them to marry others also.
# 114 GregA said, “That means the next stop is the SCOTUS, and even this SCOTUS will find gay marriage bans unconstitutional.”
No, they will rely on settled law, polygamy. They’ll leave it to states to decide.
#112.“..Marriage is recognized as the union of two people who want to spend their lives together. If anything, I would classify civil unions for those who are in arranged marriage or willingly joins a couple already married (polygamy)…”
Point taken but the classification nor meaning of the term “Civil Union” is not for you nor I make up. The state, in one swift move can define “Civil Union” as THE recognized legal contract in the land for ANY two people in wedlock arrangement – PERIOD. I would add that a religious officiant (Priest) would be no longer authorized to enact a Civil Union and only a secular State authorized officiator (a Judge)would.
IMHO, the term ‘marriage’ could be reserved by those wishing to get a religious ceremony afterward. Everyone’s happy. The religious taliban, the Vatican, etc can still collect billions from the worshiper wishing to get “married” and all is grand.
#133, Dallas,
As usual I highly respect you always wise opinions. I want to merely put aside the semantics and allow the equality that my wife and I currently enjoy to you and everyone else.
#111 – totally different concepts. Of course there are infinite colors. Actually I could grant that there are only 2 normal genders.
Personally I don’t give a crap about gay marriage either way. It doesn’t affect me either way. There are a lot more important things in the world, like releasing more carbon into the environment.
So now we can have a:
Heterosexual man marry a heterosexual woman
Homosexual man marry a homosexual man
Homosexual woman marry a homosexual woman
Heterosexual woman marry a heterosexual woman
Heterosexual man marry a heterosexual man
Homosexual man marry a homosexual woman
because an enlightened society understands this is just a simple matter of individual freedoms and basic human rights.
But if a man wishes to marry two consenting women, well now, that is just plain sick.
Call me old-fashioned but I liked it better when marriage was based on that billion year old tradition known as sexual reproduction evolution.
RBG
#136, RBG,
Call me old-fashioned but I liked it better when marriage was based on that billion year old tradition known as sexual reproduction evolution.
Then show me a State (or country) where fertility is or ever was a requirement for marriage.
Fertility shmertility: “Based…” Seems reasonable enough.
But as King Canute pointed out, one needn’t be much concerned with logic and nature when you are the state.
RBG