Iowa District Court Rules Gay Marriage Legal

[Ice]

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.

[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.

[Odin]

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.

[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.

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.

[Odin]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

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.

[Don Corleone]

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?