Gay Marriage: Legal in Iowa
- Friday, April 3, 2009, 7:43
- Iowa, National, Top Story
- 3,887 views
- 126 comments
The Iowa Supreme Court just ruled on Varnum vs. Brien this morning. The Court agreed with Judge Robert Hanson’s earlier decision that struck down Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act. You can read the decision here. (Adobe PDF, 306K)
Gay marriage is now legal in Iowa.
What makes Iowa unique is that the state does not require residency to get married. Iowa is now the first state to allow gay marriage that doesn’t have a residency requirement. Iowa law now allows gay people from all around the country to come to Iowa and be legally married, and then return to their own states.
This creates an interesting predicament for their employers and their state governments. Whose law applies? Iowa’s or their own? We have already seen a situation like this play out in Iowa when a lesbian couple sought and was granted a divorce in Iowa, after being legally married elsewhere.
The earliest the Supreme Court’s decision could be overturned is November of 2012. To reverse the court’s decision, Iowans would have to pass a constitutional amendment. In Iowa, that means both the House and Senate have to pass the amendment in two consecutive general assemblies by a simple majority. The amendment then goes on the ballot in the next general election, where it also needs a simple majority to pass.
Republican gubernatorial candidate, Bob Vander Plaats said, “Like hundreds of thousands of Iowans, I respect the rule of law but I am extremely disappointed by the court’s ruling. The Defense of Marriage Act had strong bipartisan support when it was introduced and debated in our legislature. That bipartisan support for traditional marriage between one man and one woman reflected the will of the people then – and reflects the will of the people now. On an issue of this monumental importance to the very foundation of our society, I believe a vote of the people is necessary. I hope the General Assembly will take the required steps to give Iowans a voice is this process on the most basic of issues – and that Governor Culver will take a leadership role to let all Iowans express their opinion.” Vander Plaats made his comments from the Supreme Court building this morning.
State Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley said, “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.”
The Iowa Republican will have more on the Supreme Court’s decision throughout the day.
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 700 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
126 Comments on “Gay Marriage: Legal in Iowa”
Trackbacks
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Good finally triumphs over evil.
I’m SOOOOOOO proud to be an Iowan, and you folks would be too if you had any sense.
Amazing. Awesome. Fantastic.
so now we know steve right is gay
Now, when when they make poligamy legal? Don’t they have rights too? Good luck trying to make churches recognize this.
The ruling class no longer cares about people. Even Iowa’s Republican leaders aren’t willing to fight. “House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen didn’t seem eager Thursday to push lawmakers to take up the issue. Paulsen, of Hiawatha, said lawmakers need to focus on putting Iowans back to work and balancing the budget.” http://www.kcci.com/news/19077529/detail.html
This is awesome!
Who’s proud to be an Iowan!
I know I am.
don’t expect any leadership from kraig paulsen. unless the trial lawyers, crst, or itr tell him to do something he won’t.
The left appears very excited by this. What about the right? Your thoughts?
I was born and raised in Iowa and I am now looking for any way I can move out of this crap hole they call a state.
Not proud. It’s clearly time to purge our courts. But these ISC judges and lower courts had plenty of support. This is all about the money. Love the immigrants, love the gays, love the casinos, love the lottery, love taxes, love tobacco and highway bribes, love farm price supports, love ethanol, love corporate farming, love federal money of all kinds no matter what the price to the country. Iowa has lost its way completely. The state’s governors, legislators and judges have, over the past 20 years, succeeded in creating an ‘every-man-for-himself’ province in which their children and grandchildren will have to live…or will they?
Has Kraig Paulsen or Paul McKinley commented?
i am embarassed to be an iowan. a unanimous decision?
Unanimously awesome decision!
Minnesota is starting to look conservative to me…and isn’t that far North, so what if I get out of this state. What an embarrassment.
Steve is wetting his pants with excitement. Will you be getting married in 3 weeks, Steve?
Steve Wrong: You may be smug today but believe me the day will come when you will not be smug. You will be held accountable to a far higher power than anything you will encounter on this earth.
God will not be mocked. God calls homosexuality an abomination and I assume he means it.
The interesting story that people are not talking about yet is what comes next? The lack of a residency requirement to get married in Iowa will make Iowa a magnet for gays around the country to come and get married. Matt McCoy was right I guess. This will be some real economic development. What a disaster. Seems like McKinley and Paulsen may want to focus like a laser on the residency requirement. Push that change through law now, in this session. That will at least close the borders to gay activists from around the country making Iowa their little bastion of sin.
P: Churches are part of the problem. There are many churches who openly ordain homosexuals and there are probably people reading these blogs who disagree with homosexual marriage who attend these churches.
Isn’t Matt McCoy Catholic? What are they going to do about this?
Is this Heaven?
No… it’s Iowa.
I’m of the mindset that this warped country isn’t worth saving anymore. Making sodomites a protected class. Out of control government spending and power. Inaction or out and out obstruction of the people from our elected representatives. I’m grabbing my lawn chair and sitting up on the hill while this deeply flawed nation destroys itself from within.
I am so sad. This ruling shatters the most sacred of institutions.
Hey all you vander kook weirdos that didn’t support doug gross because he was too moderate and jim nussle because he was divorced — see what happens when you have liberals like tom vilsack and chet culver appoint justices to the courts? nice job.
Nice work, Iowa.
What about the fact that the not only did the court knock down a law they also made one saying Gay Marriage is legal. Isn’t this a job for the legislature or better yet the vote of the people?
This sounds like an illegal ruling to me. If it is then we should demand the impeachment of the judges for breaking the boundaries of their legal jurisdiction.
http://letusvoteiowa.org/
Steve Right…
So.. you guys are all celebrating this… So..why dont you explain how the Iowa Courts have the authority to supersede federal law on this subject? What we have here is a total lack of leadership by our elected leaders. We now have unelected judges creating NEW laws out of wholecloth here. The judiciary is not there to legislate. Iowa’s DOMA act was passed by a large bipartisan margin in 1998 and was SIGNED by a Democratic Party governor, Tom Vilsack.
The Federal DOMA act was also passed by a large bipartisan margin and signed by a DEMOCRATIC party President, Bill Clinton.
When Chet Culver was running for Governor in 06..he stated very clearly that he believed marriage was between one man and one woman..so has our President, Barack Obama.
So, Steve..who’s out of the “mainstream” here? Democratic Party leaders are on the record supporting the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman…
What do you guys fear in letting the PEOPLE decide here, Steve Right? The Iowa Supreme Court today equated this to “slavery and women suffrage”. One big difference here… Slavery and women’s suffrage was outlawed through the amendment process…ie.. through the VOTE of the people.
A perfect example of Judges LEGISLATING from the Bench! If Legislative Leadership doesn’t address this matter immediately, they will be indirectly acknowledging the absence of power within their respective Chambers.
It would be much easier to swallow (no pun intended) if the people of Iowa had voted on this !! Where are our leaders? If they are going to allow the Judiciary to run the state, we might as well do away with the General Assembly,, look at the money we could save!!!!!
Question: The Fed requires states to have a drinking age of 21 or they cannot receive federal road funds. Could we not start working on some similar legislation at state level to counter this?
The court ruled the DOMA unconstitutional, can this not be treated like the age limit? Sure, your county can perform gay marriages, you just won’t receive any state funding if you do?
Sandy, could this be done?
Who CANNOT marry? Why not?
AMEN Sandy! Couldn’t agree more.
All the crying about the activist judges, from King on down through each of you on here, has a very hollow self-serving ring to it. Collectively you all are the same group which just a couple/few years ago was screaming for your leaders to find an activist judge willing to side-step the law in the Terry Schiavo matter. And before any one of you jerks accuses me of anything, read this, NOTHING IN THIS POST IS SUGGESTING THAT I FAVOR GAY MARRIAGE.
What law was being “side-stepped” in the Schiavo matter? In the Schiavo matter you had a woman who a court ruled that should be basically starved to death because her “husband” (a man who hadn’t been a husband to this woman in years and wanted to marry another woman) said that supposedly Schiavo stated “she didn’t want to live that way”..but had no legal documents to back it up.
There was no law to “go around”..A judge put it upon to basically order Terri Schiavo’s death sentence. That’s why the legislative branch got involved. What right did the courts have to do that? Schiavo was no criminal sentenced to death..but that’s exactly what the courts did…they sentenced her to DIE, all based on hearsay from her supposed “husband”.
To Elections Matter:
When the Defense of Marriage act was in the legislature who didn’t support it? It was the moderate Stu Iverson. It could have passed under republican leadership but it didn’t . It’s the moderate Stu Iverson’s fault and that is the fact.
Hey Billy Boy– its called a Constitutional Amendment not DOMA. DOMA was the law until 830 this morning. Get is straight billy boy. And yes on the constitutional amendment iverson (and its stew) wouldn’t allow a vote. i am sure you are a speaker rants fan since he advocated for it right? you wackos are nuts.
Something must be done. Before you know it gays will be living in our neighborhoods, belonging to our families, paying taxes to our government, working in our schools and factories, serving in our military. Oh wait a minute….
Steve, will you invite us all to your wedding in three weeks?
http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/IowaFiscalImpact.pdf
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.
OK so they now have the right to marry, I’ll tell you what’s coming down the road. If I remember correctly there is still a witness required to get a marriage license in Iowa, and one question that is asked is if the two parties are first cousins. DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!! That one has to go, and then …….. Well my brother doesn’t have a health plan. Heck bro we’ll just get hitched and I’ll cover you. Then when you’re back on your feet we’ll divorce and no harm done right, “no fault divorce”?????? My dad died and mom needs constant medical attention, but since she has SOME resources that she didn’t give away in time they’re going to sap every DIME she has prior to getting any assistance. Well ma let’s tie the knot, I know we’ll still have to pay this crap for a LITTLE while but as long as you’re of a sound mind, in a few months we’ll just get divorced, and guess what???? My lawyer must have been really good because in the divorce decree I got EVERYTHING and poor old ma is left penniless………………………………………….. I could go on forever, consenting adults, no-one says it has to be for love, or for life,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, so now we’ll get marriages we never even imagined just yesterday. Good luck Iowa, this isn’t the state I have known all my life anymore. Where good old hard work and common sense prevailed. As the Rascall Flatts song says – “I miss Mayberry”
so whats the plan of those in the legislature? did they go home like wimps?
Elections Matter,
Stu Iverson had the chance to have the Senate vote on a Marriage Amendment (not DOMA) when he was senate majority leader, and he refused to do so. So, yes, elections matter. We elected the wrong republicans in the past, and now we are paying for it.
Read Krusty today. He points out the same thing.
Hey idiot anon, please see what i wrote: “Elections Matter wrote on 3 April, 2009, 11:00
Hey Billy Boy– its called a Constitutional Amendment not DOMA. DOMA was the law until 830 this morning. Get is straight billy boy. And yes on the constitutional amendment iverson (and its stew) wouldn’t allow a vote. i am sure you are a speaker rants fan since he advocated for it right? you wackos are nuts.”
The degradation of an individual, a family, a community or a nation does not alter the moral law of God. The moral law is the same in all generations regardless of how it is compromised, denied or rebelled against. Besides the moral law, there is also natural law. Homosexual practice is in clear violation of both moral and natural law. The April 3, 2009 Iowa Supreme Court ruling legalizing homosexual marriage does not make it either right for the individual or good for the state and society. It does reflect the moral and cultural and political decline of our state and our nation. Witness the tyranny of the liberal-left and be certain that they will attempt to force compliance to their degradation upon anyone in government, school or church that opposes or resists their perverted policies. Unless there are still enough people to successfully resist the declivity our nation and state are undergoing from the liberal-left, of which the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual movements are major players, we will experience even newer and more radical departures into debauchery and the destruction of what is good.
Before you get too smug with the “I told you so” rhetoric Elections Matter, keep in mind that 2 of the courts 7 justices were appointed by Governor Branstad .,. 1 was even appointed in 1998 when Republicans like Stu Iverson controlled the Senate. How did that judge vote? … Yeah, he voted with the other 6 to destroy marriage in Iowa. Gross wouldn’t have given us anything better and your lying to yourself and the rest of us if you tell us he would have.
It’s befuddling to me the number of people posting that they are “…embarrassed… ashamed of being Iowan.” Or, “…sad…. shattering the most sacred of institutions….”
First let’s tackle the issue of embarrassment, shame and sadness. If you’re really, truly proud to be Iowan, then you should be proud that the state you call home is one of the few states leading the way towards marriage equality. The fact that you feel embarrassed, ashamed and sad is merely that. Embarrassing, shameful and sad.
As far as “…shattering the most sacred of institutions…” is concerned. Divorce has destroyed more families and negatively impacted more children than gay marriage. This is a fact.
If you do not wish to grant us the same RIGHT to marry, perhaps you won’t mind if we take away your right to divorce. After all, it’s the family that were trying to protect, right? Or maybe we should revoke the right of women to vote and work… or ask our African American brothers and sisters to move to the back of the bus. Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn’t it? So do you!
Whereas “Marriage” is a religious institution, “The right to marry” is a civil right. Each and every American citizen should granted the right to marry.
In addition to my comment above, I’d like to bring to your attention that the gay and lesbian citizens of this country, hard working, tax paying citizens like your selves… Pay equivalent taxes yet receive less than equal rights. That said, perhaps in addition to taking away your right to get a divorce, we (gays & lesbians) being paying less taxes, and raise yours. You do after all have more rights.
We certainly cannot depend on Democrats to allow a legislative vote on an amendment to protect tradiitional marriage.
Good for you. Keep believing candidates like Doug Gross and Jim NUssle are not conservative enough. You loons. We lost. The movement lost. And it is because of ourselves. Stew Iverson and you loons that dont support candidates because they arent conservative enough. Some of you loons (steve deace) even vote for people like chet culver. Good for you. Now look what you have.
statement just out from mckinley: Will Governor Culver Keep His Promise
to Protect Traditional Marriage?
Governor Culver promised to protect traditional marriage just last year during a statewide television broadcast but now that court has decided, will he keep his promise to Iowans?
DES MOINES, IA – Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley (R-Chariton) today called on Governor Culver to keep the promise he made during the taping Iowa Public Television’s Iowa Press on January 18, 2008 to “do whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman”:
“Governor Culver told a statewide television audience just last year that ‘we’ll do whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman,’ so I hope the governor is ready to join with the Republicans in the Iowa Legislature by endorsing a Constitutional Amendment that protects traditional marriage and gives the people of Iowa a chance to have their say. Republicans know that protecting traditional marriage is important to Iowans and it is time for Governor Culver to show some leadership and make good on his word.”
-30-
look at the mckinley statement. at least mckinley has guts. paulsen? hello?
Nice, its great that you were unable to come up with any valid argument other than to call everyone who doesn’t agree with you (and presents facts to back up their argument) “loons” .. Tell me, in the 6th grade do they still give you guys recess time? However, I should thank you for driving my point home with your comment: “We lost. The movement lost. And it is because of ourselves” I couldn’t agree with you more. Enjoy nap time and drink and extra chocolate milk for me.
Hey Chris,
You state that marriage is a “right” please show me in the constitution where it says that? Marriage is an “institution” I know it says we are all endowed with certain rights (from God), but I don’t think the right to marry was one of them the last time I checked. Why do they not allow first cousins to legally marry????? What’s the deal with that? Or siblings for that matter, or parents to children; as long as they’re over 18? What other “rights” have we been missing out on then? Shouldn’t we all have the right to free food since without it life itself is imposible? Why does one certain class of people get this right via foodstamps and free school lunches etc….. but many more of us don’t???? You have the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we all do; beyond that it’s up to the individual to go out and MAKE that happy life. You can get all the benefits coming to you via civil unions, but it’s never enough. Since this is also a religious symbol it just can’t be left to stand by the left – no matter what nature and tens of thousands of years of human civilization have proven, the traditional family by and large WORKS. Biology didn’t screw up, God didn’t screw up. He really did create us all equal, as our constitution states. Equal individuals and equality of opportunities isn’t inconsitent with protected “institutions”.
Is this Hell? No its IOWA
Throwing out judges for doing what your elected leaders allow them to do is not the answer. Republicans resisted the move to get a marriage amendment because they wanted to wait and see what the court would do.
Essentially they seem to believe the court has a right to change the law in this state and not the elected officials. That is not the fault of the court folks it is your leadership.
They are the ones you need to hold accountable and if this is what the Iowa Republican Party wants to serve up we can always say no thank you. This is the party after all who would not support Christopher Reed or Bill Salier. Given a chance to stand behind social conservatives they seem very comfortable taking a pass so maybe it is time more people start to pass on them when they want your treasure.
dean!!! wake up! christopher reed was a horrrrrrrrible candidate. and i am pretty sure greg ganske voted for a federal constitution amendment protecting marriage. check.
Two quick responses stemming from logic and observation.
1. Marriage is a religious thing. If you don’t like the views of your church, go to a different church.
2. Government shouldn’t be in the marriage business. (see point 1). Civil unions-yes. Marriage-no.
3. There are plenty (if not a majority) of screwed up “traditional families”. I work with them everyday. It is not a gender thing; it involves many complicated issues.
4. I am pretty sure that a marriage between a man and a woman is still protected. You don’t have to marry someone of the same sex.
5. It is ok to oppose gay marriage and also respect the rights of someone to marry someone of the same sex. Kind of like excepting someone for being Jewish but disagreeing with the fundamentals of the religion.
oh, by the way, you can be progressive and conservative at the same time. give it a chance.
Um… The Republican Party chose not to support Reed or Salier, Did you ever wonder if maybe Reed could have done better if he actually had any support? Harkin won by 62% against a candidate with no support and only 54% but we really don’t know do we because they didn’t back him. Did they back anyone?? Anyone at all???
The point I am making doesn’t change just because Ganske voted for a Federal amendment that didn’t pass and in all honesty had little chance of passing. Yes he did vote for it and yes he deserves credit for that but it has nothing to do with the party not supporting a candidate to run against Harkin this time around or if Bill Salier may have been a better candidate and it certainly has nothing to do with the Republican leadership not support a movement to have the Marriage Amendment up for a vote before we got to this point.
My point is why wait? Why allow the court a chance to change the law when it is not their place and not in their authority to do so? Why not let us vote when we had the votes to do it and then why lie about it later?
You can nit pick my minor points all day long but if you think I am wrong on the major ones you are the one who needs to wake up to what has been going on in this state and how ineffective the Republicans have become. Why do you think Democrats run everything if Republicans were doing a good job? We lost on gambling and we lost again today and where is our leadership? Were any of them at the courthouse today? Where were they?
Think Critically – the truth has no party lines.
I’m incredibly excited about the decision. It means so much for the families and the future of Iowa, and just imagine the increased revenue and exposure from families coming here to host their weddings or to make the permanent move to this great state. We should all be proud Iowans today!
The “down the road” observance that I would like to make is this: if I have a 1st Amendment right to religion, and my Triune God condemns homosexuality (as well as all sin He declares as such in the 10 Commandments), but man’s law says I will not be allowed to discriminate, which “right” supercedes the other? Will I be able to declare, without breaking man’s law, same-sex marriage as an obomination? Will my church be allowed to declare the same from the pulpit? Or is “Kristilnacht” just around the corner for God-fearing Christians?
‘unc tj’–you can go to whatever church you want to go to. Nobody is taking that right away.
Remember, the KKK is not illegal; you can attend this group if it conforms to your beliefs. Any actions that results from your beliefs that conflicts with “man’s law” is what will be illegal.
However, I hope that you take time to critically examine your beliefs. It is possible to be against gay marriage religiously, but except a couple’s right to marriage at the same time.
Umm, P – try reading the ruling. It’s clear that this doesn’t impact churches at all. The Court actually took the time to explain that – the “marriage” that is at issue is only CIVIL marriage. This has nothing to do with sacramental marriage. Religious groups can still define sacramental marriage however they want, and the Court pointed out that they are protected by the separation of church and state.
I think the reason so many people support civil unions is that they don’t understand that civil marriage and sacramental marriage are two different things that we happen to usually combine into one ceremony or event.
Dean said:
\\ Why allow the court a chance to change the law when it is not their place and not in their authority to do so?//
Dean, did you pass 8th grade civics? The Supreme Court’s primary purpose is to determine the constitutionality of laws. That’s what they did here. The said that the DOMA violated the equal protection clause, which it did. So they struck it down. Very simple. Something they have complete authority to do.
Now you can try to get the state constitution amended if you like, but they couldn’t do it when the Republicans ran Des Moines, so I seriously doubt they can do it with Democrats running the show.
Does this ruling say that marriage is to be between TWO people? Why only two?
Can cousins marry?
What about age limits?
It’s been snowing ALL DAY…on April 5th…in Iowa. No, this has nothing to do with our state’s notoriously crazy weather changes, this is RETRIBUTION for promoting Sodomite Marriage. GOD’S WRATH IS UPON US.
Tom,
I agree with you on some of what you say. But Canada, Great Britain and others have legislated against preaching against homosexuality, Islam and other extremes from the pulpit. Check out Mark Steyn and his pending court trial in Canada for writing against Islam. We will be there, Tom.
BTW, I do agree on a couple’s right to marriage. They just have to be of the opposite sex ;=)
First, marriage is a legal contract, which means only adults. That’s just how how our legal system works, and you know that, Deace Guy, cause I think you’re stupid, but you’re not an idiot.
There may be compelling reasons to ban incestuous and polygamous marriages, including genetic concerns about the children of incestuous marriages, the importance of preventing coercion and abuse within families, and concerns about how young girls and women have fared under polygamy. By contrast, there is no compelling reason to bar same-sex couples from marriage. Permitting marriages of same-sex couples strengthens families and harms no one.
If incestuous people or polygomists want to make an argument, I’ll listen. I’m of the mind that what adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is their own business, and the government shouldn’t be in the business of discrimination (I know you conservatives love some discrimination, so let’s just agree to disagree).
But any arguments against incest or polygamy have no bearing on same-sex marriage, as it poses no harm or threat in any way.
And you cannot refute that Peggy, Todd or Deace Guy.
Oh, yea, Steve Wrong, what makes you think YOU have the right to define marriage?
You want to do whatever you want but you don’t want to extend the same right to others.
We’ve had people marrying multiple partners long before gays were getting married.
You’re an intolerant bigot. If a pedophile wants to molest a child, who cares as long as the child consents.
Ever heard of NAMBLA?
Right on, Deace! Take that, Steve WRONG (that’s SO clever–it’s like Steve Right–only the opposite, because you’re wrong and stuff).
Yep, before you know it, NAMBLA will have its own division in the capitol building in Des Moines. And so what if children don’t technically have the legal capacity to consent, we’ll soon have PEDOPHILIA on demand with this slippery slope we’re on. Steve, may god have mercy on your soul. I will pray for you, brother.
steve right will need all our prayers. seriously brother, go to church. think about more than right now.
These NAMBLA pedophiles claim they’re helping children. Isn’t their mantra, “Sex before eight, or it’s too late”?
Notice they’re called the North American MAN/Boy Love Association. They aren’t heterosexuals.
You people are sick. Seriously. Get help.
And maybe, just maybe one you could read one of my post before bashing it.
What am I saying? That’s crazy!
And God has never solved anything, for the record. Always causes more hurt and more sadness. It’s a tool for the simple minded, which explains most of his followers.
For literally the first time in my life, I am ashamed of being a (transplanted) Iowan. All this wretched decision is confirm either the immorality of the Iowa Supreme Court or the essential immorality of the people of Iowa. I hope and pray it isn’t the latter.
Comparing pedophilia to being gay is about as sensible as comparing hunting deer to hunting man. I can just hear the PETA people now, “If it’s ok to shoot a deer, why isn’t it ok to shoot a human!”
Pedophilia is non-consensual rape of a minor. Comparing that to two adults choosing to unite in the bond of marriage only shows how little you are actually using your brain when discussing this issue.
amory: I cannot believe you do not know NAMBLA is a group of radical homosexual activists who are so perverted they claim they’re doing young boys a favor by having sex with them.
Don’t talk to others about using their brains when you refuse to condemn the radical NAMBLA. The radical ACLU has defended NAMBLA. In addition to being perverted, you are a liar by trying to minimize the risk. This is a huge risk to our young boys. Anyone with an ounce of morality should denounce their very existence.
There is a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Don’t deny it. It is there.
Kurt,
The Supreme Court is NOT the only body with authority to determine constitutionality. I did pass 8th grade sir but after I passed public school I had to take it upon myself to learn how the government really is supposed to work as opposed to how it does work or how we were told it was supposed to work in government class because they are not the same things.
If a ruling by the court is itself unconstitutional such as Roe Vs. Wade as an example then what? What did your education tell you was the next step then? Do we need to amend the constitution to protect it from courts that invent minority status and rights that are not in the constitution?
Sir you may be happy with that idea but I prefer to think maybe we have a shot at reclaiming our state and our nation and once again being a society governed by the law not by lawlessness and ruled by unelected officials in black robes and power hungry politicians engaging in legal plunder at all our expense.
Just how did homosexuality become a protected class and what is the basis for that? Think that on over for awhile. How does a person know they are gay as opposed to bisexual or just moderately flexible? What is the basis of claiming homosexual orientation? Is marriage a right? These are relatively important questions if we are going to accept that this is an equal protection issue.
Gays voted for Obama (side note: gays voted for McCain as well)-
You must not have understood my post. I resoundly condemn pedophilia as a harmful act that is the equivalent of rape.
But your ridiculous claim that there is a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia is just stupid. There is an entire network TV show devoted to men who prey on young girls. (To Catch a Predator, seen it?).
Pedophilia is a mental disorder. Whether it is adult men preying on young girls or boys it is non-consensual, harmful, and a blight on society. The mental damage done to the victims is boundless.
Comparing that to a consensual, loving bond between two people of the same sex shows you misunderstand the point entirely. And I would ask, since you are so quick to condemn gays as having a relationship with pedophilia, why is it that you don’t condemn straight sex as well. Seeing as many adult men prey on young girls, shouldn’t you see a connection there?
It is good to see you condemn pedophilia but you are being naive if you do not believe there is a direct connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. The connection is overwhelming.
Gays voted for Obama,
I’m amazed you can dress yourself in the morning, let alone read well enough to post on a blog.
Promise me you’ll do one thing before the day is out — go back to the high school you graduated from and demand either your money back or that they actually educate you. You were failed by society somewhere along the way, and for that, I think we all agree, we’re so sorry.
Steve Wrong: You are so insulting about other people’s intelligence and yet you so stupidly claim that our side is dying when it is your side that is killing your young and having sex with the same sex.
Explain that one to me. How is it that your side is growing.
This brings us to a larger point. Your side with your filthy deviancy is bringing judgement on yourselves by a living a dangerous lifestyle that brings an early death. You’re going to be running out of sexual partners. Is this why you have to prey on young boys?
I love it. Keep the crazy coming, big guy. You’re like a double scoop crazy sundae with a cherry on top (and by cherry, I mean crazy).
Steve Wrong: You have NO substantive arguments and spill kooky rhetoric. Has AIDS damaged your brain?
Steve: It is this way. These are facts: You are engaged in an immoral, deviant, perverse lifestyle which is likely for you to die an early death.
You despise God and God’s word. God offers you eternal life the same way he offers it to everyone. You must repent of your immoral lifestyle, turn your back on it and you will be granted eternal life in paradise with Jesus and the rest of us.
I wish you no ill. If you would turn your back on your immorality, all our lives would be better for it.
I pray for you, especially this week when we celebrate Jesus’ death on the cross for all our sins and his blessed resurrection on Easter morning.
The wonderful thing about what Jesus did is that the only thing that is required of us is to repent for our sins and believe on him and that’s it. He forgets all our past sins. They are gone. He did this for me and he did it for you, too. Take the gift.
FYI, just because you start a sentence with “these are the facts” doesn’t mean what follows is true. Usually, it isn’t.
And I love how just because I’m not a bigot, all the sudden I’m gay. And because I’m gay, obviously I have AIDS.
You folks represent the lowest common denominator of your political ideology. You are an embarrassment to the GOP, which is why you’ve been marginalized in your own party. I understand why you’re upset — sometimes the truth hurts. But consider it a favor I’m doing for you to deliver you truth.
Your welcome.
Steve, you now see the need for an impartial, non partisan court system. One that can intrepret the laws and protect the rights of all, in an equal and fair manner. I would also like to thank the many bigots on this message board that prove that the Iowa Supreme Court was correct in determining that homosexuals should be deemed a suspect class giving rise to heightened scrutiny in this case. It is this exact type or prejudice, stereotypes and bigotry that the court was referring too in making the correct determination.
Silence
Dean,
I did not say sole authority, I said primary purpose. And yes of course you may try to amend the constitution, I just believe you’ll fail. You think you are in the majority, and I do not. Give it a shot. We’ll see how it goes.
And homosexuality is not a protected class, and all they ask for is the exact same rights you have. No more, no less. The equal protection clause says they must receive that, and that’s all the court said.
Kurt,
The court has the authority to offer OPINION on constitutionally and that is it and that is all in this case. They have no jurisdiction to offer remedy as they have attempted to do or make demands on what the legislature must do as this ruling also suggests. The Governor if he lives up to his oath should look at this ruling and say thank you very much for your opinion but as for me I think I will just follow the law.
The court has NO POWER to create new classifications and laws where none previously existed or mandate remedy and if this ruling is allowed to carry the weight of law and MANDATE “gay” marriage that is exactly what they will have done and that is lawlessness. At best this ruling says the law in Polk County is unconstitutional and therefore the worst that ought to result is that no marriage licenses may be granted in that county until the elected officials of that county offer legal remedy that passes constitutional muster. That is the extent that this chase should be limited to under the rule of law. Anything more than that is lawlessness.
I guess Kurt if it does not bother you that unelected official step all over the constitution and grab power not granted to them by our system of government then that is nice for you but as for me I would very much appreciate the courts and our elected officials staying within the bound of their authority.
The title of this article should be edited, Craig. Gay Marriage is NOT legal in Iowa. The Iowa Code has not changed since Friday. It can only be changed by the legislature and the governor, i.e. the people who we elected.
Even after the period of appeals is exhausted, the Iowa Code, unless amended by the elected officials of Iowa. will still say marriage in Iowa is between one man and one woman.
Petition your legislators and Culver to keep marriage in Iowa between one man and one woman. Do not give over your power to a group of unelected judges who cannot enforce their opinions!
Heave Right is on the money. Gay marriage is still against the law.
Steve Right is tired of the Adam and Steve jokes…is hear the bitterness in his tone.
The Court’s action struck down the law that said marriage was solely between one man and one woman, just as the USSC struck down laws that were called “separate but equal” in Brown v. BoE. This is how checks and balances work. The legislature has the power to call for an amendment, just as the US Congress could have called for an amendment to enforce separate but equal. They didn’t though, because that would have been wrong on several levels, not the least of which would be putting the rights of the minority up to a popular vote and subjecting them to the tyranny of the majority.
The Iowa Legislature is already being asked to amend the Constitution here, but I doubt they will succeed. Iowa has far greater priorities to be concerned with. Meanwhile, gays and lesbians will get married and have absolutely zero effect on you, your lives, your children or your church. None.
Marriage is not redefined here any more than it was in the past. When the Bible was written, polygamy was commonplace, and the bible even endorsed it. Laws in this country stopping mixed race marriages lasted until nearly the end of the 20th century. People eventually saw that blacks and whites marrying was only fair and posed no treat to them, so the laws changed. Same thing here.
If you don’t like it, then don’t marry someone of the same sex. But telling others they can’t, especially when it has no effect on anyone outside that consenting relationship, is tyranny plain and simple.
AAAHHHH Dean and heave, that is exactly what the courts are supposed to do. Intrepet the laws and constitution of the state. It is perfectly within their right to create a new class and strike down a law that they find to be against the constitution of Iowa or the US. Take a civics class before posting again. OH and one more thing, the courts can enforce their “opinions”, they can issue contempt of court orders and lock people up. This is what is called checks and balances, and courts are fulfilling their duty in this system. If courts are to be ignored, then open up the jails and let all the criminals out, contracts are meaningless, and lets move to anarchy.
Silence
what all of you religious and homophobic “people” fail to realize, is that no citizen should be granted different treatment than another citizen. suppose, i’m not christian…then, why should the bible/church dictate my rights? if our country was predominantly hindu, or muslim, or jewish, or pagan…you as christians would be the minority. would you want them to dictate your rights? you’re still a citizen…correct? the majority should never, ever, have the right to vote on an issue affecting minorities. let us not forget that many sub-groups in our society have been discriminated against by the same “loving people” of god. in fact, quite recently… i know i won’t change any of your opinions with this post…but think about this, jesus never said anything about hating gays, this “holy book” of yours (which you decide to pick and choose verses for your own agenda) also says unmarried women can’t leave the home of their father and married women can’t leave the home of their husband (to the woman calling it “so sacred”), you can have slaves, shellfish is an abomination, men’s haircuts are forbidden, you can sell your daughter into slavery, moses could rape and take hostages (!?!?!?!), you can kill anyone who works on sabbath, you could kill disobedient children, stone a bride who cannot prove her virginity when her husband decides he isn’t happy, etc, etc, etc… “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”
Republicans should be elated instead of discouraged. Republicans are the party of freedom and individual liberties. Regardless of your personal views, it is great to know that all people will be treated equally in regards to who they choose to legally marry. If Republicans do not want to fall further down the path of irrelevance and obscurity they will embrace this Iowa Supreme Court Decision!
Silence DoGood – Show us where the Iowa Code has changed after this OPINION. Please show this. Hmm? Didn’t think so. The law is still the same.
Tyranny, plain and simple? Tyranny is having 7 men in black attempting to usurp the will of the people! They have issued an illegal statement to attempt to force the Legislature to make this change. Courts cannot make laws!
Check your civics books before posting.
If you are against gay marriage, then don’t have one. You are free to have your religious views, but this is not a theocracy.
It is NOT in their right to change the law and they did not strike down anything they rendered opinion.
I cannot help you understand this if you wish to believe there are three equal branches but that was never the intent and not what is stated in our constitution. Some of you are frighteningly willing to accept this notion when it suits you but I wonder how fast you would reject this in a case that did not make you feel so good.
For me this is not about whether people should or should not have legally recognized same sex partnerships it is about the law, it is about what little is left of our republic and reclaiming the rule of law.
Just as my distaste for what our Federal Government has done in response to the financial crisis is not about party and not about the past or current President it is about the rule of law and branches of government grabbing power and eliminating our freedom while some who believe this benefits them sit by and either say nothing or actually cheer the loss of their freedom and the disintegration of our way of life.
It is very frustrating to read some of the comments the petty bickering along with the sheer ignorance of the law and our constitution. Republicans want to argue when I call their leadership what it is which is AWOL on this issue. When they had a chance they took a pass and that is why we are here. When they had a chance to lead on this issue where were they? And now they want to complain and petition us for money because all manner of badness is coming but I would tell them it has been here for some time.
Others want to keep suggesting we try to pass an amendment when we have one man blocking a vote on that right now in the Senate. One man based on how he feels on this issue is stopping we the people from having a chance to vote. One man, one piece of garbage thinks his feelings are superior to we the people and some seem to think that is fine.
Our Governor promised to stand up for this issue but today he has announce he will be laying down. The Democrats are not interested in what the people want either way. If we could vote an amendment is not a sure thing but right now they are unwilling to even allow the vote. They just don’t care what you think.
How any of you can look at our state government right now and not be alarmed at how they are shutting the people out of the process is way beyond me. Regardless of how you feel about this issue, regardless of if you have a religious or evolutionary view on this issue there is more at stake here than just homosexual marriage. If we were allowed to have the rule of law homosexual marriage may still prevail but we are not even being allowed that much.
That is what I am concerned about.
In Vermont at least their elected officials had the guts to do their job and actually legislate homosexual marriage into existence instead of being gutless cowards and engage in despicable dictator like behavior to halt the legislative process based on personal feelings. At least they did their jobs instead of standing by and allowing a lawless court do to it for them. We have cowards in our legislature and a lazy lying bum on Terrace Hill. That is what concerns me.
Iowa is a disaster, our government is not of or for the people right now.
Does that work for you?
Dean, you are, of course, correct. Now, I assume you are also against the unconstitutional smoking ban. I didn’t get to vote on that, either. Or the cigarette tax. It seems like these flaming liberals have basically ruined Iowa. They suck.
The smoking tax is very much like Gambling it is a regressive tax on the poor and very likely not constitutional but that is a bit off topic for this discussion and maybe a subject for another day.
Term limits and a return to voting on our justices might be good moves to remedy a lot of these problems. Failures of leadership happen under Democrat and Republican control. I control blame liberals alone for where we are. It was not that long ago Republicans had control and what did they do with it? We need never have had Mike Gronstal as the leader of the Senate, he is there for a reason.
We are in the spot we are in for a reason and much of it can be blamed on Republicans who failed to lead when given a chance.
Heave, in the near future you will find that when you pull up the Iowa Code, the Code will correctly reflect that the section requiring one man and one woman to marry has been abrogated pursuant to the “ruling” of the Iowa Supreme Court. If the county clerks do not following the ruling, the courts can issue contempt orders, have them arrested and jailed. Again, please take a civics class before posting and embarrassing yourself with your complete ignorance on how our government operates.
Silence
Change your last name Steve. It’s obvious that it does not suite you.
Silence DoGood, if that is your real name,
The court ruling strikes nothing and it does not state that it does. Read the ruling, not the summary but the entire ruling and when you reach the remedy note that it states the language must be stricken not that it is stricken. It in fact does not say the entire section or the law itself must be stricken only the language limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman and again it does not say this language is stricken it says it is unconstitutional and must be stricken.
The remedy goes on to suggest the remaining language must be interpreted to allow same sex civil marriages it does not say it now says same sex marriages are now legal. It did not replace the language in the law it says it must be stricken and must be interpreted a different way. Once again nowhere does any part of the opinion or any portion of the law as it still exists say same sex marriage is now legal nor has the language in question yet been removed.
This is what some of us have been telling you. We understand how this is being interpreted by the media and many willing people in our government which very likely includes the judges who rendered this opinion as none of them have spoken up to clarify this. Allowing this to be treated as law is tyrannical on the part of the court and the government. This is an opinion it is not law and the specificity of the language is very clear on that subject but the application so far has not been.
If it must be stricken and it is to be stricken it is the role of the legislature to make any changes through the proper legislative process. That is where this issue belonged in the first place. I think most of us also understand we are not likely to get the appropriate action out of our current legislature which is why it is disappointing that this issue was not taken up when the Republicans had the chance. We are in this spot because both sides were willing to let the court rule. Now the court has ruled but we have a legislature that is not willing to defend its constitutional authority as the body responsible for passing law. Instead the legislature and Governor are willing to allow this ruling to be treated as law rather than risk acting on it in an appropriate fashion.
Dean, I did read the entire ruling and the effect of the ruling is that the portion limiting marriage to a man and a woman is unconstitution, the effect is striking that language. Without the language, same sex couples are allowed to marry and the courts will enforce the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples. Sorry, but you are grasping at straws that aren’t there. I have been an attorney for over 10 years now. I am very aware how this process works.
Silence
PS Dean, the legislature has nothing to do with this now unless they want to pass a constitutional amendment, the language is stricken, the legislature doesn’t have to act again to strike it.
Silence
Well this is good, ss an attorney perhaps you can explain to all of us the original intent of the equal protection clause in the Iowa Constitution.
I note you did not say what kind of attorney so we could be dealing with a tax attorney or a personal injury attorney here but that’s not really important is it? You put yourself out as an expert and therefore have at it, tell us what the original intent of the original framers was with this clause and if you believe that should be applied differently than the original intent explain why if you would be so kind. Lastly explain why an onion that states something must be done is in fact a law that essentially has already done it.
Thanks much in advance as a full understanding of this may go a long ways toward settling this and explaining where I am going wrong in my view that this ruling itself is flawed and unconstitutional. I would admit I may be wrong on the process and next steps and would differ to your experience on that.
Did I miss it in the ruling? Did the court provide the exact text that “must be stricken”? Did the ruling provide what the text of how the new statute must read?
The court didn’t re-write the law. Only the legislature can do that. After all, without an exact text to interpret if another case came up, what would the court do?
Alright, morons, here it is — The court ruled DOMA unconstitutional. DOMA said same-sex couples could not get married.
So, there is no more DOMA, therefore, same-sex couples can get married. They didn’t create law, they struck an illegal one down.
Is that clear enough? Probably not, since it doesn’t support your crazy conspiracy theories that could easily be torn to pieces with a third grade civics class.
The intent of equal protection clauses is to ensure that the citizens of a state or this country are treated equaly and fairly under law, and to avoid either irrational lawmaking, or discrimination against classes of individuals. The purpose of the clause hasn’t change, however, as with many areas of the law, equal protection law has evolved over the years as it has to be applied to new situations that couldn’t be envisioned by the original writers.
I am a personal injury and criminal attorney. I admit, I am not a constitutional expert. However, the effect of this ruling is the same as many attorneys deal with every day in many different fields of law. Once the supreme court has ruled, that ruling abrogates the portion of the section of the Iowa Code that was found unconstitutional. Essentially , the portion requiring that marriage can only be between a man and a woman is now null and void and will not be enforced by the courts. County clerks would be obligated to issue licenses to any couple that met the rest of the criteria for marriage and thus same sex couples could not be denied. Another example was roe v. wade. (not trying to get into abortion but it is a good example) Once that case was ruled on, any state law that outlawed abortion or wasn’t in compliance with the ruling was unconstitutional and not enforceable.
You have to remember in the eyes of the law, marriage is essentially a civil contract between two adults that confer certain rights and privileges to those two adults. All the court did was allow more people the ability to enter into that civil contract and enjoy the rights and privileges derived from it. It does not force the churches to recognize or force churches to perform the marriages.. Additionally, the state still recognizes marriages performed by churches that conform with the law. This ruling really effects only homosexuals desiring to enter into the civil contract of marriage. No one else in Iowa is effected. As pointed out in the newer article, most churches still don’t believe in gay marriage and still are not going to recognize them, and that is their right, this ruling doesn’t effect churches at all. Hope this helps
Silence
Steve, you are only partially correct, the ruling doesn’t strike the entire section, only the first portion requiring that a marriage be between a man and a woman. I didn’t read anything in the opinion to indicate it was striking the entire section.
Silence
Judges cannot make law; that’s why the legislative branch is called such. Legislating is making law. In 2002, Iowa Dept of Transportation v. Soured, the judges said “we are bound to follow the legislature’s definition and may not add words and change terms under the guise of judicial construction. What are they doing now? They’ve struck themselves down. In O’hara v. the State in 2002, “To solve the dilemma posed by the amendments, we must read into Chapter 20 as amended, language that is simply not there. This, of course, is not within our province. We are bound by what the legislature said, not by what it should or might have said.” These are the judges admitting they cannot do what everybody thinks they just did. When they want to act like dictators, they finesse the language to claim rights they’ve said they don’t have. It is so deeply rooted in English and American law that it was understood until recent generations.
Silence,
It helps but doesn’t surprise. You got it right that it evolves from what words meant at the time of the writing to today but what must occur for that to happen? If we know what class meant at the time and we know that the intent of the framers of the Iowa constitution was which was to prevent the legislature from granting exclusive or privilege to a class of citizen with class being understood at the time to refer to land owners or professions. It was at the time more about social standing and wealth than anything such as race or the new idea of sexual orientation.
Class was not intended to mean what we call race or sexual orientation today. If you look at the history of sexual orientation you may be surprised to find its origin and how long the idea that it is a legitimate was to separate the population has been around. This simply could not have been part of the original intent of equal protection so suggesting it is now does require a new interpretation of the meaning that cannot be supported by historical record. That in effect changes the constitution if allowed to stand.
You are right to say the meaning has evolved and that is precisely the problem for many Iowans’. Courts seem to think they have a right to change the meaning of our constitution as they see fit without cause or reason and certainly without our voice. If the people on the side of traditional marriage want to change the constitution we are being told we must amend it, but it seems it has already changed in this case and I certainly did not get to vote on it.
I may be wrong on what if anything the legislature can do, I am not an expert on the rules but let me just ask you one last thing. You seem to believe the three branches are equal, if that is true and if a court under that scenario were to render an unconstitutional opinion that in effect struck down a law as you have said it does, why is our only remedy for that to change the constitution? If the ruling was unconstitutional why do we have to change the constitution to fix the mistake?
Think about that for awhile.
anonymous, the cases you refer to, don’t deal with a constitutionality question, they are simply interpreting a statute and applying a plain meaning of the language standard, your examples are irrelevant to this conversation.
Silence
Dean, let touch on your last question first. There is a hierarchy in the law, in other words, much like ranks in the military, there is a ranking system in the law. The supreme law of the land is the US Constitution, followed by federal laws, statutes and treaties. The next level in Iowa would be the Iowa Constitution, followed by state laws and statutes, then county and municipal ordinances. The effect of this is, a lower level law or ordinance can’t contradict a higher level law or constitution. In this case, state laws can’t contradict or violate the Iowa Constitution and they can’t voilate federal law or the US constitution. The Iowa supreme court ruled that the Iowa state law that requires marriage to be between a man and a woman violated the Iowa Constitution. The Iowa Constitution trumps state laws, therefore the only way around this ruling is to amend the constitution itself. However, I would suggest from reading the ruling, the court would probably hold that it also violated the US constitution.
I take issue with your original meaning of class. The Iowa equal protection clause was based on the US equal protection clause which was one of three post civil war amendments which was meant to protect the rights of ex-slaves. The reasons given at the time was because they were a historically persecuted class with little political power. Expanding this protection to other classes who are persecuted and have limited political power is certainly within the of the original intent of the equal protection clause. How do rationally protect one class of people but not another. Additonally, you talk about protecting people who did not have class or standing but not meant to protect racial minorities or gays. Respectfully, who would that have been??? minorities, women, gays all seem to me to fit that description of people who didn’t have class or standing. Minorites didn’t own lots of land, women couldn’t vote or own land and certainly gays were not accepted in higher social classes.
Applying equal protection rights to sexual orientation is not a new interpretation, but is simply using the same intrepretations and analysis used to apply to minorites, women and other suspect classes to homosexuals. I see you are a big scalia fan. However, if you read a lot of scalia, he only selectively uses his historical analysis when it suits him. Quite frankly, if you don’t let the constitution evolve with times, while maintaining the original spirit and intent, it will become a useless document.
To me the great thing about the US constitution, is that it has lasted as long as it has and still stands strong. It has stood the test of time, and is just as relevant today as it was when it was written, it is just the issues have changed and evolved, but it is such a great document that is can still be applied just effectively.
Silence
Anonymous, what the Iowa Supreme court did, in declaring a statute or portion thereof unconstitutional, dates back to the beginning of our country and judicial system you need to read up a bit on history, but here is a start for you.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.
This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury’s petition, holding that the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional.
Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something “unconstitutional,” and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the “checks and balances” of the American form of government.
Silence,
The Iowa Constitution was penned at the Constitutional Convention in 1844. South Carolina did not succeed from the Union until 1860 and the first shots of the war were not fired until April 12, 1861which was 2048 years ago yesterday.
Silence,
Are you asserting therefore that our equal protection clause was a result of an amendment to the Iowa Constitution? If so please site the amendment and date it was ratified.
If it was not the result of an amendment then the basis of your original intent argument is fallacious. I believe section 6 was part of the original Iowa Constitution as drafted in 1844 and was in force 1846 when Iowa officially became the 19th State of the United States of America a full 15 years before Fort Sumter.
I may be wrong, I would accept that if the amendment can be cited but I don’t have any such citation on the copy I am reading from that indicates that Section 6 has ever been changed by the amendment process. If I am not wrong then there is no way it was based on post war amendments to the US constitution and you therefore need to do a bit more research as to just what it was based on and the available historical record of what was intended. I agree that your statement of what you believe it means is probably a close interpretation to how our current court is applying it but my assertion is that this is not what it means and it never was what it means therefore their reading is wrong and their ruling unconstitutional.
I do appreciate your respectful debate.
Errors errors…
It was not 2048 years ago yesterday that the War Between the States started it was 248; Iowa was not the 19th state it was the 29th state. South Carolina seceded from the Union not succeeded.
If you truely want to know whether the judiciary is an equal branch of government and has the authroity to write law, follow this link. You will find they aren’t equal. You will find they don’t have the power to write law. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm
I think that Gay marriage is alright. I don’t think that it should be hated on, i believe it is their choice weather they would like to like the same sex or not. that’s my opinion on it.
What does the Bible say about same sex marriages?
“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (Lev 18:22)
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Matt 19:4-6)
Jesus taught that marriage is between male and female.
Krysta i dosnt matter what we think, what matters is what God thinks.
This is why I we have a separation of church and state folks. It doesn’t matter what your god thinks, it matters what WE think.
Hi Nick
separation of church and state in not separation from church. What is your veiw of Jesus?
/separation of church and state in not separation from church. What is your veiw of Jesus?/
…what?
Nick, you’re so lwell thought out. I’m sure time will prove all your views to be true!
Krysta,
Your response is a great example of something that really bothers me about how people respond to issues today. You say gay marriage should not be “hated on” but many of us have done no such thing. Rather there are simply fundamental differences on this issue based on religious beliefs or understanding of the rule of law and the intent of the founders of this state and this nation.
Those who would call this hate are sadly misguided or willful false propagandists, either way it has little effect on me as I know I am not motivated by hate in any way other than hatred for tyrannical courts and cowardly elected officials who lie to get elected and quickly break promises when they become inconvenient or uncomfortable. Calling differences in opinion or disagreements on facts hate is a lazy tactic and ineffective on anyone well versed in rhetoric and logic.
I would hope you show a little more respect in the future.
Nick,
I find it frustrating that so many say so much about a great number of things they know so little about. But that is modern America.
The reason we have 2nd amendment protection against state sanctioned religion as stated by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists is to protect our right to freedom of worship. Another of our founders James Madison agreed that keeping the state out to Religion is essential to the preservation of both.
It is therefore very clear that the intent here was to protect religion from the state, as is the case with much of our constitution it protects our rights from government not government from religious ideas and principals.
If you can show that the original intent was to suggest that it doesn’t matter what God says feel free, knock yourself out. I think if you study the original intent of the constitution and the background of the founding fathers you will find they distrusted man and man’s institutions more than anything and that is why our constitution is a check against tyrannical government. What is very frightening is the ever-growing number of people who think it is the other way around and that government is a check against freedom and liberty.
Without even knowing it you sir have been so worked over by lies that you come here and advocate for the loss of liberty by an ever increasing and overbearing government that in many ways chooses to operate outside it’s legal boundaries.
Think critically and start checking out whether what you were told about history and our government is in fact true.
DeanFox you ar brilliant! Thank you for pointing out our founding fathers understood human nature and took steps to keep things in check. You’re a critical thinker. How refreshing!