Iowa Allows Same Sex Marriages

[Jayman01]

Iowa Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
Questions and Answers
By Tom Head, About.com
See More About:same-sex marriagecivil liberties in iowaApril 3, 2009

This morning, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in Varnum v. Brien that state laws prohibiting marriage on the basis of the partners' gender are unconstitutional.

How decisive was the ruling?
Unanimous (7-0). There were no concurrences or dissents.When does the ruling take effect?

On April 24th, 2009.What is the basis of the ruling?

The Iowa Constitution's equal protection clause (Article I, Section 6), which reads:

All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

Iowa's equal protection clause is among the strongest in the country, and it is difficult to imagine any other intellectually honest interpretation of the clause, vis-a-vís same-sex marriage, than the one handed down by the Iowa
Supreme Court.

Can the ruling be appealed?

No. The Iowa Supreme Court is ultimately responsible for interpreting the Iowa State Constitution; federal courts could intervene only if the ruling contradicted the U.S. Constitution.

Can the ruling be overturned by constitutional amendment?

Yes, but marriage equality advocates have a viable chance of fighting it. Under Iowa state law, a constitutional amendment must pass both chambers of the state legislature for two consecutive sessions before going to the voters as a ballot referendum.

When is the Iowa state legislature likely to take up a constitutional ban?

The 2009 Iowa legislative session is scheduled to end on April 15th, and joint rules do not presently allow the introduction of new constitutional referenda after the deadline (which has already passed). Barring revision of joint rules (which is unlikely according to Iowa legislative leaders), the earliest the referendum could be introduced would be next year. It would then need to pass again in 2011 before going to the voters in November 2012. Based on this timetable, Iowa same-sex marriage will remain legal for at least 3.5 years.

Is the Iowa state legislature likely to pass a constitutional ban?

At this point, nobody really knows--but it is quite possible that the legislature could either vote down or block the ban during one of the two legislative sessions. If the ban is defeated in 2010, then it would need to be reintroduced in 2011, passed again in 2012, and voted on in 2013. If the ban passes in 2010 but is defeated in 2011, then it would need to be reintroduced in 2012, passed again in 2013, and voted on in 2014.

Would voters be likely to approve of a constitutional ban?

That's a really good question. A November 2008 University of Wisconsin poll found that 28 percent of Iowans support same-sex marriage, 30 percent oppose same-sex marriage but support civil unions, 32 percent oppose both civil unions and same-sex marriage, and 10 percent are undecided. But this poll was taken before same-sex couples actually began getting married, and public opinion can change dramatically in 3.5 years, particularly given that it is likely that other states will have legalized same-sex marriage by that point.

Can same-sex couples living outside of Iowa get married there?

Yes. Iowa has no residency requirement.

What is the financial impact of the Iowa same-sex marriage ruling likely to be?

Extremely positive. Iowa is the only non-New England state in which same-sex marriage is currently legal, so the impact on tourism revenue will almost certainly be enormous.

If Iowa bans same-sex marriage in 2012, what will happen to married couples?

Nobody really knows yet. The California Supreme Court is currently assessing this question with respect to its own same-sex married couples following the passage of the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban. While no ruling has been handed down, legal scholars have suggested that the pattern of the judges' questioning suggests that they may be open to the possibility of allowing marriages performed prior to the passage to remain in effect.

How can I help support same-sex marriage in Iowa?

Contribute resources to Iowa's LGBT rights movement, most notably the organizations One Iowa and Equality Iowa.

 

[Kodieboy]

wow im speachless

 

[tampa24]

Iowa Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
Questions and Answers
By Tom Head, About.com
See More About:same-sex marriagecivil liberties in iowaApril 3, 2009

This morning, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in Varnum v. Brien that state laws prohibiting marriage on the basis of the partners' gender are unconstitutional.

How decisive was the ruling?
Unanimous (7-0). There were no concurrences or dissents.When does the ruling take effect?

On April 24th, 2009.What is the basis of the ruling?

The Iowa Constitution's equal protection clause (Article I, Section 6), which reads:

All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

Iowa's equal protection clause is among the strongest in the country, and it is difficult to imagine any other intellectually honest interpretation of the clause, vis-a-vís same-sex marriage, than the one handed down by the Iowa
Supreme Court.

Can the ruling be appealed?

No. The Iowa Supreme Court is ultimately responsible for interpreting the Iowa State Constitution; federal courts could intervene only if the ruling contradicted the U.S. Constitution.

Can the ruling be overturned by constitutional amendment?

Yes, but marriage equality advocates have a viable chance of fighting it. Under Iowa state law, a constitutional amendment must pass both chambers of the state legislature for two consecutive sessions before going to the voters as a ballot referendum.

When is the Iowa state legislature likely to take up a constitutional ban?

The 2009 Iowa legislative session is scheduled to end on April 15th, and joint rules do not presently allow the introduction of new constitutional referenda after the deadline (which has already passed). Barring revision of joint rules (which is unlikely according to Iowa legislative leaders), the earliest the referendum could be introduced would be next year. It would then need to pass again in 2011 before going to the voters in November 2012. Based on this timetable, Iowa same-sex marriage will remain legal for at least 3.5 years.

Is the Iowa state legislature likely to pass a constitutional ban?

At this point, nobody really knows--but it is quite possible that the legislature could either vote down or block the ban during one of the two legislative sessions. If the ban is defeated in 2010, then it would need to be reintroduced in 2011, passed again in 2012, and voted on in 2013. If the ban passes in 2010 but is defeated in 2011, then it would need to be reintroduced in 2012, passed again in 2013, and voted on in 2014.

Would voters be likely to approve of a constitutional ban?

That's a really good question. A November 2008 University of Wisconsin poll found that 28 percent of Iowans support same-sex marriage, 30 percent oppose same-sex marriage but support civil unions, 32 percent oppose both civil unions and same-sex marriage, and 10 percent are undecided. But this poll was taken before same-sex couples actually began getting married, and public opinion can change dramatically in 3.5 years, particularly given that it is likely that other states will have legalized same-sex marriage by that point.

Can same-sex couples living outside of Iowa get married there?

Yes. Iowa has no residency requirement.

What is the financial impact of the Iowa same-sex marriage ruling likely to be?

Extremely positive. Iowa is the only non-New England state in which same-sex marriage is currently legal, so the impact on tourism revenue will almost certainly be enormous.

If Iowa bans same-sex marriage in 2012, what will happen to married couples?

Nobody really knows yet. The California Supreme Court is currently assessing this question with respect to its own same-sex married couples following the passage of the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban. While no ruling has been handed down, legal scholars have suggested that the pattern of the judges' questioning suggests that they may be open to the possibility of allowing marriages performed prior to the passage to remain in effect.

How can I help support same-sex marriage in Iowa?

Contribute resources to Iowa's LGBT rights movement, most notably the organizations One Iowa and Equality Iowa.

Thanks Jayman for filling us in on all the legal implications of it for the state of Iowa. It amazes me that a landlocked state in the middle of the conservative midwest would be a trailblazer for gay marriage. Ten years ago who woulda thunk it?

The train is pulling away from the station. There's no turning back. All those opposed must see the writing on the wall. Gay marriage in the U.S. WILL happen. They can slow the train down. But they will not be able to stop it. I think I can, I think I can, I think I can... LOL

 

[Kodieboy]

You Can....... you can

 

[Jayman01]

Tampa, you said a mouth full... You are so right. I am just tired of this becoming a Biblical issue in this country. I was watching Larry King last night, one of the ladies from the View subbed in, but what an issue this is for those Christians.

I am actually amazed at how many of them believe that God wrote their Bible and how few of them believe it was written by scribes hand picked by King James and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Also, how many people believe that other testaments were omitted for good reason. So, I guess if they want the Bible to be their only guide we may have a long haul... I guess we can be glad that not everyone goes through life with those kind of blinders on. LOL

 

[Markymark]

Tampa, while I applaud your enthusiasm, I am forced to remind everyone that it was just three years ago the the mayor of SF, our dear Gavin Mewsome, (yes, MEWsome in honor of his pussy stances on other issues) made much the same comment as you. His words were later used in commercials by the pro prop 8 people who said, We'll show him" and they did. Point being, we cannot assume the victory, just because we won a few battles. Carl and I belong to both the Log Cabin Republicans, and the Stonewall Democrats, and I can tell you, the enemy is EVERYWHERE! We will not achieve our ultimate freedom by remaining on the fringe. We must wrest control of the mainstream from the far right of both parties, and if we stop to rest, we die, simple as that.

Even if the California Supreme Court allows the current same sex marriages to remain valid, there will still be a fight to allow new ones, on the basis of establishment of prior rights. "You cannot deprive one group of the same thing another already has", or justify such punitive action.

I realize the economic hard times we are in, but the call to support local/national groups in this fight cannot be over stated. Please do everything you can. Our lives as gay/lesbian/trans/bi persons truly depends on it.

Peace

 

[tucsonjayce]

Tampa, while I applaud your enthusiasm, I am forced to remind everyone that it was just three years ago the the mayor of SF, our dear Gavin Mewsome, (yes, MEWsome in honor of his pussy stances on other issues) made much the same comment as you. His words were later used in commercials by the pro prop 8 people who said, We'll show him" and they did. Point being, we cannot assume the victory, just because we won a few battles. Carl and I belong to both the Log Cabin Republicans, and the Stonewall Democrats, and I can tell you, the enemy is EVERYWHERE! We will not achieve our ultimate freedom by remaining on the fringe. We must wrest control of the mainstream from the far right of both parties, and if we stop to rest, we die, simple as that.

Even if the California Supreme Court allows the current same sex marriages to remain valid, there will still be a fight to allow new ones, on the basis of establishment of prior rights. "You cannot deprive one group of the same thing another already has", or justify such punitive action.

I realize the economic hard times we are in, but the call to support local/national groups in this fight cannot be over stated. Please do everything you can. Our lives as gay/lesbian/trans/bi persons truly depends on it.

Peace

Markymark has it right. As does Jayman. However, the ultimate battle will be with the federal government (remember DOMA?). Until we get federal recognition, it is just a patchwork of justice and injustice and NOT freedom for all.

DOMA is as I understand it, unconstitutional as 1) Marriage is not in the domain of the federal government and 2) It invalidates the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.

The interesting part of the Iowa decision was that neither the side in the case raised the religious side of the debate but the Iowa court addressed it anyway. Simply put the Iowa SC stated that marriage as recognized by the state is a civil contract or union. There is no room for any religious argument as that would violate the separation of church and state clauses of both state and federal Constitutions. I have always wondered what is "sacred" about a "sacrament" that is performed by an official of the state outside of any church, temple, mosque or synagogue.

Read the ruling. While there are quite a few legal beagle parts, and it's not as flowery as the CA decision, it is well written and easily understandable. The justices took time to explain in detail how they came about their decision. Their reasoned approach made me smile.

Be well brothers,

Jayce

 

[Jayman01]

Markymark has it right. As does Jayman. However, the ultimate battle will be with the federal government (remember DOMA?). Until we get federal recognition, it is just a patchwork of justice and injustice and NOT freedom for all.

DOMA is as I understand it, unconstitutional as 1) Marriage is not in the domain of the federal government and 2) It invalidates the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.

The interesting part of the Iowa decision was that neither the side in the case raised the religious side of the debate but the Iowa court addressed it anyway. Simply put the Iowa SC stated that marriage as recognized by the state is a civil contract or union. There is no room for any religious argument as that would violate the separation of church and state clauses of both state and federal Constitutions. I have always wondered what is "sacred" about a "sacrament" that is performed by an official of the state outside of any church, temple, mosque or synagogue.

Read the ruling. While there are quite a few legal beagle parts, and it's not as flowery as the CA decision, it is well written and easily understandable. The justices took time to explain in detail how they came about their decision. Their reasoned approach made me smile.

Be well brothers,

Jayce

I totally agree it is not a clear victory until it is a constitutional right.

 

[tampa24]

Markymark has it right. As does Jayman. However, the ultimate battle will be with the federal government (remember DOMA?). Until we get federal recognition, it is just a patchwork of justice and injustice and NOT freedom for all.

DOMA is as I understand it, unconstitutional as 1) Marriage is not in the domain of the federal government and 2) It invalidates the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.

The interesting part of the Iowa decision was that neither the side in the case raised the religious side of the debate but the Iowa court addressed it anyway. Simply put the Iowa SC stated that marriage as recognized by the state is a civil contract or union. There is no room for any religious argument as that would violate the separation of church and state clauses of both state and federal Constitutions. I have always wondered what is "sacred" about a "sacrament" that is performed by an official of the state outside of any church, temple, mosque or synagogue.

Read the ruling. While there are quite a few legal beagle parts, and it's not as flowery as the CA decision, it is well written and easily understandable. The justices took time to explain in detail how they came about their decision. Their reasoned approach made me smile.

Be well brothers,

Jayce

You and MarkyMark are quite right in pointing out that we cannot declare victory in the war based on a few battlefield wins. Until we get federal recognition we can never be assured that our rights won't be taken away. In the meantime though I think we will have to do it the hard way, going state by state, until gay marriage has become such a mainstream issue as to be a feit accompli.

 

[Kodieboy]

 

[baal]

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/for_gay_couple_fulfilling?utm_source=a-section

 

[tightywhitieboy]

I seriously doubt the federal government will ever directly weigh in on gay marriage. To do so would take the matter out of the states' hands, and this counrty is based on the individual states having certain rights. With marriage never really being thought of as a basic human right until the issue of same sex marriage came along, the federal government will probably leave it to the states.

Eventually, however, homosexuality in general will be seen as such a non-issue that same sex marriage will be allowed in most states. Maybe even all of them.....I mean, it's allowed Iowa now of all places. I didn't even know there were gay people in Iowa......?

Amazing that Californians shot it down and then it becomes legal in Iowa. These must be the end times.

 

[tucsonjayce]

I seriously doubt the federal government will ever directly weigh in on gay marriage. To do so would take the matter out of the states' hands, and this counrty is based on the individual states having certain rights. With marriage never really being thought of as a basic human right until the issue of same sex marriage came along, the federal government will probably leave it to the states.

Eventually, however, homosexuality in general will be seen as such a non-issue that same sex marriage will be allowed in most states. Maybe even all of them.....I mean, it's allowed Iowa now of all places. I didn't even know there were gay people in Iowa......?

Amazing that Californians shot it down and then it becomes legal in Iowa. These must be the end times.

Hey Tightywhitie! While you are completely correct about states' rights, that belies the fact that Uncle Sam has already weighed in with DOMA.

That being said, Congress will have to weigh in as the DC City Council has passed a bill that would recognize Gay marriages performed in other states. Of course this law requires the approval of Congress (as does anything the council does). So it will be interesting to see what happens.

BTW any chance of a pic of tightywhitieboy in tightywhities on your profile page. THat would make plenty of people very happy! You'd beome extremely popular and would gain many many friends!!!!

Be well,

Jayce

 

[tightywhitieboy]

BTW any chance of a pic of tightywhitieboy in tightywhities on your profile page. THat would make plenty of people very happy! You'd beome extremely popular and would gain many many friends!!!!

Be well,

Jayce

We'll see.......

 

[baal]

The feds can get around it with some variation of what they did with the national speed limit. They can't tell a state what to do but they can make funds directed to a state covertly or overtly tied to the issue.

 

[i2ina69]

Soon I hope all states allow same sex marriages.

 

[Kodieboy]

Soon I hope all states allow same sex marriages.

It will happen ....... just the amount of straight guys on this site alone shows its more accepting to the world ... which means times are a changing

isnt that an old beatles song....... its a bit befor my time.

but im sure it is

 

[raysvq]

It will happen ....... just the amount of straight guys on this site alone shows its more accepting to the world ... which means times are a changing

isnt that an old beatles song....... its a bit befor my time.

but im sure it is

Don't say it Ray

 

[Kodieboy]

Don't say it Ray

Are you stalking me i just left here?

And dont say what?............

 

[raysvq]

Are you stalking me i just left here?

And dont say what?............

Funny I was about to say the same thing

A bit before your time ..... PLEASE