Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Iowa Supreme Court this morning upheld a Polk County judge’s 2007 ruling that marriage should not be limited to one man and one woman.

The ruling, viewed nationally and at home as a victory for the gay rights movement and a setback for social conservatives, means gay couples can legally marry in Iowa beginning March 24.

Shelly Wolfe and Melisa Keeton, who waited for word of the ruling outside the Polk County Recorder’s Office, immediately called their pastor anyway to make plans.

“We’re going to make it legal,” Keeton, 31, of Des Moines said.

Wolfe, 38, and Keeton, who is 21 weeks pregnant, went through a commitment ceremony two years ago. Their marriage certificate was among the 26 that were put on hold when Polk County Judge Robert Hanson’s decision to open the door for gay marriage was delayed until the high court could weigh in.

Today’s decision makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the third in the country, to allow same-sex marriages. Lambda Legal, a gay rights group, financed the court battle and represented six couples who challenged Iowa’s 10-year-old ban on gay marriage.

Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady, who wrote the unanimous decision, at one point invoked the court’s first-ever decision, in 1839, which struck down slavery laws 17 years before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of a slave owner to treat a person as property.

Iowa’s gay marriage ban “is unconstitutional, because the county has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage,” Cady wrote in the 69-page opinion that seemed to dismiss the concept of civil unions as an option for gay couples.

“A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution,” Cady wrote.

The ruling, however, also addressed what it called the “religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate,” and said judges must remain outside the fray.

Some Iowa religions are strongly opposed to same-sex marriages, the justices noted, while some support the notion.

“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them,” the opinion says.

The ruling explicitly does not affect “the freedom of a religious organization to define marriage it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman,” the justices stressed.

(more)

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/2...3/NEWS/90403010

Edited April 3, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Niels Bohr 72]

Good luck at recruiting followers! Not you Mister Bill, but the churches.

[PlatyPius 5]

Would be nice if all states would think the same way.

[almaty 19]

agreed..where is sister cindi at? she have the news from the cornbelt on this

[Peikko 1,575]

A very well thought out decision. I particularly like the way the judge doesn't wander into the religious side of things. What each religion deems appropriate is up to them to decide. Hopefully this is a good sign for other states.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

A very well thought out decision. I particularly like the way the judge doesn't wander into the religious side of things. What each religion deems appropriate is up to them to decide. Hopefully this is a good sign for other states.

Agreed sister. Equality is equality. khtxbai

[NickD 203]

Will keep that in mind since I am not that far from Iowa, if I ever decide to trade my wife off for a guy. But women come equipped with some pretty nice parts that guys don't have so not very likely.

[almaty 19]

????????????.....ok

[Peikko 1,575]

Just because it's available, does not mean you have to avail yourself of it

[Danno 1,228]

Here we go again.

I am surprised so many people rejoice when the "will of the people" is disregarded in favor of the will of a few unelected Judges.

Wouldn't you feel much better if the laws were made by "law makers" who represent "The People"?

But we know what happens in almost every case where people get a "say" or vote on this issue.

Well we can see right here the trend.

Of course these types of legal actions such as today (and roe v wade) only add to the hostility and fracturing of our already divided country.

One has to admit the **'s are clever and determined; locate some small town with a small budget, with limited legal resources and run these cases (as they are doing in every state) through, with their largely free legal team.

And this is how you change the landscape of America.

-when we are convinced we are right in our cause, any means ....will justify the end.

[Peikko 1,575]

Danno, your mind must be a tortuous place to inhabit. I don't expect you change your mind regarding human rights, because I really feel you fail to understand the concept, and even more so how they are applied within your own country.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, your mind must be a tortuous place to inhabit. I don't expect you change your mind regarding human rights, because I really feel you fail to understand the concept, and even more so how they are applied within your own country.

Don't keep kiddin yourself MC, the only difference between me and you is...

-where we draw the line.

[justashooter 430]

One has to admit the **'s are clever and determined; locate some small town with a small budget, with limited legal resources and run these cases (as they are doing in every state) through, with their largely free legal team.

And this is how you change the landscape of America.

it ain't just the homos that are using that tactic. it's everybody that hates America (and, usually, themselves).

[DairyFarmer 1]

What do the colours represent?

[justashooter 430]

What do the colours represent?

looks like the graphic shows which state's voters were polled on the issue, with black states allowing, and red states not allowing, with some difference in degree by shade of red.