BREAKING: Iowa Supreme Court Backs Same Sex Couples

[UNHWildCats]

Same-sex couples across the state of Iowa can now get a marriage license. The Iowa Supreme Court handed down its decision on legalizing same-sex marriages Friday morning, upholding a lower court's decision that prohibiting same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.

The Department of Public Safety has brought in extra security, as people on both sides of the issue are on hand awaiting the decision.

The case began in December of 2005, with a lawsuit filed by six same-sex Iowa couples challenging the state's marriage laws. On August 30th of 2007, Judge Robert Hansen issued a ruling that Polk County couldn't deny a same-sex couple a marriage license, essentially making gay marriage legal.

The next morning, dozens of couples rushed into courthouses to apply for marriage licenses, but hours later, Judge Hansen issued a stay stopping gay and lesbian couples from getting married.

http://www.whotv.com/news/who-story-gay ... 0074.story

[HI54UNI]

Another article from the DM Register

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/articl ... S/90403010

Iowa gave Obama his start and now this. I like this quote from the article.

“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.’”

[dgreco]

kudos iowa

[AshevilleApp]

Congratulations Iowa. I think danefan expressed it best yesterday. This is simply an equity issue.

[dbackjon]

HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY!!!!


WOW!!!



And unanimously!!

[clenz]

Jon you and alex should move to Iowa become uni fans and drink beers and mixed drinks with me rob and other awesome uni people

[Purple For Life]

Clipped from the ruling, clipped from here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/03/iow ... -marriage/

The ruling “makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages.” In the opinion, the judges compared protecting the right to same-sex marriage to past rulings by the Iowa Supreme Court that protected women’s rights and struck down slavery and segregation laws:

So, today, this court again faces an important issue that hinges on our definition of equal protection. This issue comes to us with the same importance as our landmark cases of the past. The same-sex-marriage debate waged in this case is part of a strong national dialogue centered on a fundamental, deep-seated, traditional institution that has excluded, by state action, a particular class of Iowans. This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage?

In its opinion, the court addressed concerns that today’s decision would trample on religious views of marriage, writing that “religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected. “A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.”

[wideright82]

Congrats. Now those teabaggins sons of bitches in Iowa can take advantage of some sweet estate tax rules. TAKE THAT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND YOUR ABSURD TAXES!!!

[HI54UNI]

HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY!!!!


WOW!!!



And unanimously!!

I think this is huge. No split decision winning by one vote. I'm proud to be an Iowan today!

Do you suppose I could make money off this somehow by starting a wedding chapel?

[HI54UNI]

Another plus - our legislature is controlled by the D's so I'm sure that even though bills will be filed to try and do something they won't go anywhere.

[bobbythekidd]

'As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.’”

Sooner rather than later I hope.

[danefan]

Clipped from the ruling, clipped from here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/03/iow ... -marriage/

The ruling “makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages.” In the opinion, the judges compared protecting the right to same-sex marriage to past rulings by the Iowa Supreme Court that protected women’s rights and struck down slavery and segregation laws:

So, today, this court again faces an important issue that hinges on our definition of equal protection. This issue comes to us with the same importance as our landmark cases of the past. The same-sex-marriage debate waged in this case is part of a strong national dialogue centered on a fundamental, deep-seated, traditional institution that has excluded, by state action, a particular class of Iowans. This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage?

In its opinion, the court addressed concerns that today’s decision would trample on religious views of marriage, writing that “religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected. “A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.”

I have yet to see a rational and logical argument by anyone against the reasoning that court has used. If you take religious beliefs out of the equation you cannot come to any other conclusion.

And if you're argument relies on religious law you are in the wrong venue.

[bobbythekidd]

Do you suppose I could make money off this somehow by starting a wedding chapel?

You should start a line of His and His Towels.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

the groups opposed to this should get a national civil unions movement going soon... because the supreme court is going to put an end to this soon enough...

[danefan]

the groups opposed to this should get a national civil unions movement going soon... because the supreme court is going to put an end to this soon enough...

The only thing SOTUS can do is overturn the DOMA, which I hope they do. Other than that there isn't any federal law to interpret. Even Prop 8 in CA can't get to SCOTUS. No jurisdiction over state constitutional questions.

[dbackjon]

They can overturn DOMA, and issue a Loving type ruling...

[HI54UNI]

The local right wing radio people and bloggers are going nuts today.

I thought this response to a blog was pretty funny.

On Laura Schlesinger’s radio show recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr.Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. **************************************************** Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them. 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

[dgreco]

a congratulatory cake

[dbackjon]

Very nice, dgreco!

[danefan]

The local right wing radio people and bloggers are going nuts today.

I thought this response to a blog was pretty funny.

On Laura Schlesinger’s radio show recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr.Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. **************************************************** Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them. 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

That is absolutely priceless.

[dbackjon]

Gronstal: No same-sex marriage debate

There will be no debate in the Iowa Senate this session on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said Monday.

Gronstal, who lauded the Supreme Court decision handed down Friday overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, was asked by Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley, R-Chariton, if he would join with Republicans in crafting a bill to move an amendment forward.

“Eleven years ago, you voted in favor of protecting marriage as between one man and one woman,” McKinley said. “Will you pledge to work with me and craft a leadership bill on this important issue and bring it to the floor a vote by this body?”

In response, Gronstal shared a story about his daughter, Kate, telling a group of conservative men that opponents of same-sex marriage “have already lost” and that the younger generation doesn’t care.

“I learned something from my daughter that day. That’s what I see, Sen. McKinley,” Gronstal said. “I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other and want state law to recognize that. Is that so wrong? I don’t think that’s so wrong.”

He has learned a lot since he voted in favor of Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act in 1998, Gronstal said, and he will not join in the crafting of a marriage amendment.

“Friday I hugged my wife. I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night, because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other,” he said.

http://iowaindependent.com/13660/gronst ... age-debate

[UNHWildCats]

The local right wing radio people and bloggers are going nuts today.

I thought this response to a blog was pretty funny.

On Laura Schlesinger’s radio show recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr.Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. **************************************************** Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them. 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

reminds me of the West Wing episode where there was a Dr Laura like character who Josiah Bartlet used some of theose lines on....

[dbackjon]

Same-sex couples began applying for marriage licenses at government offices across Iowa on Monday, and at least one lesbian couple tied the knot in a ceremony in Des Moines.

Melisa Keeton and Shelley Wolfe were declared "legally married" by pastor Pat Esperanaza during a ceremony in front of Polk County administrative offices in Des Moines. It didn't take long before they were referring to one another as "wife."

"It's not very romantic is it?" Melisa Keeton joked about the location and media attention at the ceremony.

They will share the last name Keeton.

The couple believes they were the first same-sex couple married in Polk County, and possibly the state, since an April 3 Iowa Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage.

"I didn't think it would be us," said Shelley Keeton, whose twin brother was served as one of the witnesses to the ceremony.

Earlier, the couple was able to get a judge to waive the state's three-day waiting period before marriages are considered final.

Grant Lan, 35, and his partner Andrew Mahoney-Lan, 32, were first in line at the Polk County office. The Windsor Heights couple planned to seek a waiver that would let them marry Monday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090427/ap_ ... y_marriage

[Ibanez]

Great! Now my marriage means nothing. Thanks alot gays! Is it not enough that we let you fornicate, no you have to go have your "rights" just like the rest of us. I am so PEEVED right now..



UGH!

[HI54UNI]

Gay couples got married today and the world didn't end?!?!?! WTF?!?