Iowa District Court Rules Gay Marriage Legal

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/31/iow....ap/index.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- Two men sealed the state's first legal same-sex marriage with a kiss Friday morning, less than 24 hours after a judge threw out Iowa's ban on gay marriage and about two hours before he put the ruling on hold.

It was a narrow window of opportunity.

Thursday afternoon, Polk County Judge Robert Hanson temporarily cleared the way for same-sex couples across the state to apply for marriage licenses in Polk County.

He ruled that Iowa's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which allowed marriage only between a man and a woman, violated the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of six gay couples who had sued.

County attorney John Sarcone promised a quick appeal, and he asked Hanson to stay his ruling until the appeal was resolved.

A dozen gay and lesbian couples were waiting at the county recorder's office when it opened Friday morning.

By late morning, 20 had applied for marriage licenses when Recorder Julie Haggerty announced that she had been instructed to stop accepting the applications. Hanson later said the judge that he had formally stayed his ruling.

The judge's stay means the recorder's office is not permitted to accept any more marriage applications from gay couples until the Iowa Supreme Court rules on the county's appeal.

Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan were among the lucky few to get their application through.

The marriage license approval process normally takes three business days, but Fritz and McQuillan took advantage of a loophole that allows couples to skip the waiting period if they pay a $5 fee and get a judge to sign a waiver.

Friday morning, the Rev. Mark Stringer declared the two Iowa State University students legally married in a wedding on Unitarian minister's front lawn in Des Moines.

"This is it. We're married. I love you," Fritz told McQuillan after the ceremony.

Fritz explained their hurry: "We're both in our undergrad programs and we thought maybe we'd put it off until applying at graduate school, but when this opportunity came up, we thought maybe we wouldn't get the opportunity again."

Republican House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, said the ruling illustrates the need for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

"I can't believe this is happening in Iowa," Rants said. "I guarantee you there will be a vote on this issue come January," when the Legislature convenes.

Gov. Chet Culver left open the possibility of state action.

"While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman," the governor said.

Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, and nine other states have approved spousal rights in some form for same-sex couples. Nearly all states have defined marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, and 27 states have such wording in their constitutions, according the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Dennis Johnson, a lawyer for the six gay couples who sued after being denied marriage licenses in 2005, said Iowa has a long history of aggressively protecting civil rights in cases of race and gender. The Defense of Marriage Act contradicts previous rulings regarding civil rights and is simply "mean spirited," he said.

Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant Polk County attorney, argued that the issue was not for a judge to decide.

Hanson ruled that the state law banning same-sex marriage must be nullified, severed and stricken from the books, and the marriage laws "must be read and applied in a gender neutral manner so as to permit same-sex couples to enter into a civil marriage ..."

"This is kind of the American Dream," said plaintiff Jen BarbouRoske, of Iowa City. "I'm still feeling kind of shaky. It's pure elation. I just cannot believe it."

Kate Varnum of Cedar Rapids, another plaintiff, said she was elated but expected more legal battles: "I don't expect this to be the last one."

That was fast.



http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/30...age/index.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

An Iowa district court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples can marry based on the state constitution's guarantee of equal treatment, court documents show.


An Iowa district judge ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.

The ruling was in response to a December 2005 lawsuit brought by six same-sex couples seeking to wed. They were denied marriage licenses and claimed such treatment violates equal-protection and due-process clauses in the Iowa constitution.

The court also struck down a state law declaring valid marriages are only between a man and woman.

The Iowa District Court for Polk County advances the case to the Iowa Supreme Court which will make a final decision on same-sex marriage, according to Lambda Legal, a gay and lesbian legal organization representing the couples.

The 63-page ruling, written by Judge Robert Hanson states: "Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex."

The law describing marriage as between a man and a woman, "constitutes the most intrusive means by the state to regulate marriage. This statute is an absolute prohibition on the ability of gay and lesbian individuals to marry a person of their choosing," Hanson wrote.

Lambda says the six couples are all in long-term relationship - one couple has been together for six years, another couple has been together for 17 years.


"Three of the couples are raising children, others are planning families, and all want the responsibilities of marriage and the protections only marriage can provide," according to the organization.

"We respectfully disagree with the court's decision, and we're going to ask for a stay," said Polk County Attorney John Sarcone.

He said his office will examine whether it's best to file a motion to reconsider. But barring a change in the court's opinion, Sarcone will appeal the ruling.

Co-counsel for the plaintiffs along with Lambda Legal, Dennis Johnson called the ruling "a significant step forward in recognizing the constitutional rights of all Iowans, and it's an amazing day for same-sex couples and their families all across Iowa

I'm interested to see what the Iowa Supreme Court says. If upheld, Iowa will become one of the only states in the USA to allow marriage between two men or two women.

And that, friends, is why states are passing constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Not only was gay marriage not outlined in the state law, there was a law specifically to prohibit it passed by the legislature and all it takes it one judge to toss that all away. It's called judicial activism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

And that, friends, is why states are passing constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Not only was gay marriage not outlined in the state law, there was a law specifically to prohibit it passed by the legislature and all it takes it one judge to toss that all away. It's called judicial activism.

---

I live in MA and let me say right off the bat that the sky hasnt fallen and gays are marrying.

Now Xiahou we have a bit of a disagreement here. A judge is supposed to interpret the constitution and rule if laws are applicable based on that intrpretation.

Might not be the outcome you wanted, but "judicial activism" to one might be "proper job execution" to another. Lets face it, none of these states has a provision for gay marriage in thier constitutions, this issue is up for grabs.

I don't think X-man is arguing that point, Odin. In fact, he's saying that that is why people are pro-actively modifying their constitutions. Whenever there's an effort to ammend a state constitution to provide for an ammendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, people get all up in arms saying its extremist and completely unnecessary. Even according to you, who appears to have a sympathetic view to the 'judicial interpretations' that have happened over the past 5 years, a state constitutional ammendment is the only way to address the issue, so the aforementioned criticism rings a little hollow.

Oh, and before the rocks start flying, remember, I live in NH and I'm actually quite happy with the intelligent compromise we enacted with legalized civil unions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I don't think X-man is arguing that point, Odin. In fact, he's saying that that is why people are pro-actively modifying their constitutions. Whenever there's an effort to ammend a state constitution to provide for an ammendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, people get all up in arms saying its extremist and completely unnecessary. Even according to you, who appears to have a sympathetic view to the 'judicial interpretations' that have happened over the past 5 years, a state constitutional ammendment is the only way to address the issue, so the aforementioned criticism rings a little hollow.

---

I just happen to believe that gays should have the right to marry, and prohibiting that right is tantamount to discrimination. The constitution of states and the U.S. didnt make a provision for it and the assumption that marriage is the sole property of a male and female reeks of some psuedo christian ideology that has past its time.

He is also stating that a judge employing "judicial activism" can overturn a law prohibiting same sex marriage. My argument is, not only should they but it isnt activism at all, its thier mandate to interpert law based on state and federal constitutional precident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

I just happen to believe that gays should have the right to marry, and prohibiting that right is tantamount to discrimination. The constitution of states and the U.S. didnt make a provision for it and the assumption that marriage is the sole property of a male and female reeks of some psuedo christian ideology that has past its time.

---

Please explain to me how it's discrimination. And if you think heterosexual marriage is a uniquely Christian invention, you're sadly mistaken.

Quote:

---

He is also stating that a judge employing "judicial activism" can overturn a law prohibiting same sex marriage. My argument is, not only should they but it isnt activism at all, its thier mandate to interpert law based on state and federal constitutional precident.

---

It's judicial activism because there is no "right" to marriage and decisions like these are simply judges enacting their own social/moral views while short-circuiting our democratic processes. If gay marriage can get passed democratically, that's one thing- but it can't because in most places a solid majority still opposes the idea. So instead of trying to win the political debate, activists turn to sympathetic judges to rewrite marriage laws to their liking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

I just happen to believe that gays should have the right to marry, and prohibiting that right is tantamount to discrimination. The constitution of states and the U.S. didnt make a provision for it and the assumption that marriage is the sole property of a male and female reeks of some psuedo christian ideology that has past its time.

He is also stating that a judge employing "judicial activism" can overturn a law prohibiting same sex marriage. My argument is, not only should they but it isnt activism at all, its thier mandate to interpert law based on state and federal constitutional precident.

---

Okay, let's take an example of judicial activism that stands outside the whole question of gay marriage. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court admitted they were defining a whole new 'right' which had never been mentioned in the Constitution, that they thought it should have been and that other statements sort of implied it, the right to privacy.

Say what you will about abortion. There's plenty of people that believe abortion should be legal that agree Roe is bad law and has caused misery and heartache as it enshrined the overriding principle that the U.S. Constitution is a meaningless document, as it only says what the Supreme Court says it does.

So, to be fair and separate the judicial argument from the political one, I could explain to anybody, pro-choice or pro-life how they could properly make abortion the law of the land or outlaw it (or any shade of grey), in affect the how. The why (what should we do) would be left to a grander debate.

In that spirit, speaking strictly to the legal question, HOW does one properly allow for gay marriage under the law, and should the majority of the people decide it to be the proper course of action, in your view, HOW would we prohibit legalized gay marriage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Please explain to me how it's discrimination.

---

Explain the discrimination of how a law prohibits one group from the same rights and benefits of another ? its self explanitory.

Quote:

---

And if you think heterosexual marriage is a uniquely Christian invention, you're sadly mistaken.

---

I dont, I think in the U.S. its a throwback to the christian puritism this country was founded on, which IMHO is way past its time....

Quote:

---

It's judicial activism because there is no "right" to marriage and decisions like these are simply judges enacting their own social/moral views while short-circuiting our democratic processes.

---

Exactly, there is no right to marry, therefore enacting laws that prohibit groups from not enjoying the act is the very essence of protections under checks and balances.

Legislating who can and cannot marry is based on the same social/moral views, your proclaim is short circuiting our democracy.

Since it isnt a right, and has somehow found its way into the legislative process, it now falls under the checks and balances of the system in place, and the check we are at now is judicial review based on case law and constitutional precident.

Quote:

---

If gay marriage can get passed democratically, that's one thing- but it can't because in most places a solid majority still opposes the idea. So instead of trying to win the political debate, activists turn to sympathetic judges to rewrite marriage laws to their liking.

---

Thats the final stage of the check and balance, referendum questions to change the constitution (required in MA anyway). If that doesn’t happen, the next check and balance is voters electing representation who will enact and support legislation to put said referendum on the ballot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

HOW does one properly allow for gay marriage under the law, and should the majority of the people decide it to be the proper course of action, in your view, HOW would we prohibit legalized gay marriage?

---

How would we prohibit legalized gay marriage? You would need a constitutional amendment, as a judge has already deemed the law prohibiting it to be unconstitutional. Or you would need a higher court to overturn that judges ruling, thereby reestablishing the validity of the prohibiting law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Explain the discrimination of how a law prohibits one group from the same rights and benefits of another ? its self explanitory.

---

Self explanatory is it? No group is prohibited from getting married. It's perfectly legal for homosexuals to get married.

Quote:

---

I dont, I think in the U.S. its a throwback to the christian puritism this country was founded on, which IMHO is way past its time....

---

That's right- it's your opinion. So go convince other people and change the laws. Don't look to judges to force the changes on us for you.

How exactly is it done in the states, does a gay couple that just live together have the same rights as a heterosexual one? If they insist on the church aproval on this marriage thing screw them, but how about fiscal issues? Equality in that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Self explanatory is it? No group is prohibited from getting married. It's perfectly legal for homosexuals to get married.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by source

The court also struck down a state law declaring valid marriages are only between a man and woman.

---

Apparantly it wasnt in Iowa.

Quote:

---

That's right- it's your opinion. So go convince other people and change the laws. Don't look to judges to force the changes on us for you.

---

Perhaps I am mistaken but I find your tone becoming hostile, not only will I continue to convince anyone I want, at anytime, I think I will do so fervently right here in this thread Xiahou.

Not only that, but I am thankful judges are doing thier jobs and intepreting the constituion as they are appointed, this way when people like you rail for the process, but exlude the ones that dont fit your position when making your arguments, its all the more gratifying.

:thumbsup:

Gays? Marrying in Iowa?

Radar wept.

http://xs318.xs.to/xs318/07355/abyssinia11.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Apparantly it wasnt in Iowa.

---

I don't see anything in that excerpt that says a gay man can't get married. In fact, I'm pretty certain that a gay man could get married in Iowa with no more problem than anyone else.

Quote:

---

Perhaps I am mistaken but I find your tone becoming hostile, not only will I continue to convince anyone I want, at anytime, I think I will do so fervently right here in this thread Xiahou.

---

Good, convincing people is exactly what should be done. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Self explanatory is it? No group is prohibited from getting married. It's perfectly legal for homosexuals to get married.

---

So in an alternate reality, where only same sex marriage was legal, you would joyfully wed a strapping young man. Very open minded of you, I'm sure you'll enjoy your honeymoon :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It's judicial activism because there is no "right" to marriage and decisions like these are simply judges enacting their own social/moral views while short-circuiting our democratic processes. If gay marriage can get passed democratically, that's one thing- but it can't because in most places a solid majority still opposes the idea. So instead of trying to win the political debate, activists turn to sympathetic judges to rewrite marriage laws to their liking.

---

So you think the rights of minorities should be protected by the majority? History would like to talk to you.

I know you're going to counter with "gays aren't a minority homosexuality is a choice blah blah"; we've had this discussion before. I do enjoy seeing people make completely irrational claims to cover up whatever biases lie beneath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I don't see anything in that excerpt that says a gay man can't get married. In fact, I'm pretty certain that a gay man could get married in Iowa with no more problem than anyone else.

---

Have you read my signature?

Quote:

---

Good, convincing people is exactly what should be done.

---

Now that you have seen the light, any other conversion would fall way short and frankly leave me limp. You know your kind of cute when your fired up Xiahou, ever been to MA ?

:7jester:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I do enjoy seeing people make completely irrational claims to cover up whatever biases lie beneath.

---

In a agree of be ignorant kinda way huh :no:

"The law describing marriage as between a man and a woman, "constitutes the most intrusive means by the state to regulate marriage. This statute is an absolute prohibition on the ability of gay and lesbian individuals to marry a person of their choosing," Hanson wrote. "

So how is that not juridical activism exactly? Sounds to me like, exactly that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

So in an alternate reality, where only same sex marriage was legal, you would joyfully wed a strapping young man. Very open minded of you, I'm sure you'll enjoy your honeymoon :thumbsup:

---

Well, if I lived in a world where homosexual marriage evolved as the norm I probably wouldn't need to worry about it- I most likely wouldn't exist. But I'll humor you.:thumbsup:

No, I would not wed a man. I'd go out and make the case that marriage laws as constituted are inadequate. I don't really think I'd have a hard time making the case that the state has an important interest in encouraging couples to remain in stable relationships for the raising of children. You act like it was just random chance that heterosexual marriage is the norm instead of gay marriage- that's plainly not the case.

Quote:

---

So you think the rights of minorities should be protected by the majority? History would like to talk to you.

---

No, I don't. Not sure where I said that. I think everyone should be protected by the same rights.

Quote:

---

I know you're going to counter with "gays aren't a minority homosexuality is a choice blah blah"; we've had this discussion before. I do enjoy seeing people make completely irrational claims to cover up whatever biases lie beneath.

---

I've never made that claim and whether homosexuality is genetic, a choice, or "something else" is irrelevant to my current argument. Classy attempt at calling me a bigot though. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Now that you have seen the light, any other conversion would fall way short and frankly leave me limp. You know your kind of cute when your fired up Xiahou, ever been to MA ?

---

Fired up? No more than usual.:inquisitive:

Never been to MA. Haven't had a reason to yet. :shrug:

How is this discriminatory? All people (or the right age, etc.) can marry a person of the opposite gender, and no one can marry a person of the same gender.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

How is this discriminatory? All people (or the right age, etc.) can marry a person of the opposite gender, and no one can marry a person of the same gender.

CR

---

Based on the same logic you could of course also make inter-racial marriages illegal and argue that this would not be discrimination:

"All people are allowed to marry a person of the same skin-color, and no one can marry a person of a different skin-color"

This does not necessarily mean that I consider the right of same-sex marriage to be equal to the right of iner-racial marriage - I just consider your argument (one that I have seen here over and over again) to be very flawed (and actually borderline "cheeky")

Abolish Marriage!

But I'm not arguing for restrictions based on race, so please explain how my example would be discrimination.

The statement has the same logic as 'All people can marry someone over the age of consent, and no one can marry someone under the age of consent.'

Crazed Rabbit

Legalising it will not mean people who would otherwise would marry the opposite sex will now become homosexual (except in areas where the pretence of social norms neds to continue).

The ability of homosexual couples to raise children probably has a large overlap with heterosexual couples (and probably greater than single parents).

Mariages used to be there for dynastic purposes, and that use can still be maintained. I fail to see why a few queers shacking up hurts anyone else.

~:smoking:

I fail to see why they complain endlessly if they can't get a small piece of paper from the government.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

But I'm not arguing for restrictions based on race, so please explain how my example would be discrimination.

---

I am aware that you are not argueing for restriction based on race and I am sure that you would consider such restrictions to be wrong.

The question is - if your argument proves the point that same-sex marriage is not discriminating - wouldn't the argument I presented be valid as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Based on the same logic you could of course also make inter-racial marriages illegal and argue that this would not be discrimination:

"All people are allowed to marry a person of the same skin-color, and no one can marry a person of a different skin-color"

This does not necessarily mean that I consider the right of same-sex marriage to be equal to the right of iner-racial marriage - I just consider your argument (one that I have seen here over and over again) to be very flawed (and actually borderline "cheeky")

---

And that is little more then a moral apeal. If the law is marriage is between a man and a woman, and if that is wrong, there are ways to change it. It's the judge's work to apply the law not judge the law, otherwise he indeed is just an activist. I still haven't got an answer to my question on how it works over there, but if a homosexual couple has all the benefits a heterosexual couple why exactly marriage, which is between a man and a woman. sure they love eachother and all that stuff, but I find it very egocentric to put your sexual preference above the believes of others(if it is that, again no answer to me question yet).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

How exactly is it done in the states, does a gay couple that just live together have the same rights as a heterosexual one?

---

No not in every state.

Quote:

---

If they insist on the church aproval on this marriage thing screw them, but how about fiscal issues? Equality in that?

---

the argument trancends both really, but as a practical matter a homosexual couple are not afforded the same rights as married couples. (example joint tax returns, health care coverage, heir rights...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

I am aware that you are not argueing for restriction based on race and I am sure that you would consider such restrictions to be wrong.

The question is - if your argument proves the point that same-sex marriage is not discriminating - wouldn't the argument I presented be valid as well?

---

No. Yours discriminates based on race.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

And that is little more then a moral apeal.

---

It was not meant as a moral appeal - it should not even be seen as an argument pro same-sex marriage.
To make it very clear - it is also not(!) my intention to imply that anybody who is against same-sex marriage is probably also a closet-racist.

My point is, you might have your reasons to be against same-sex marriage - but please state your real reasons - the argument I responded to is a bogus argument as the logic behind it would indeed allow for almost any discriminatory legislation to be justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

the argument trancends both really, but as a practical matter a homosexual couple are not afforded the same rights as married couples. (example joint tax returns, health care coverage, heir rights...)

---

Then that should be fixed.