Iowas Decision

[micatala]

As you may have seen, the Iowa Supreme Court has legalized gay marriage.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/articl ... S/90403010

The ruling is not up for appeal, and the legislative avenue for turning this back will be difficult and time consuming, with no possibility for a voter recall until 2012.


Questions for debate:

1) How much does this bolster the case in the U.S. agains gay marriage bans?

2) Is this a blip, or a signal of the tide turning?

A couple of snippets from the judges:

Friday’s decision also addressed what it called the “religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate� and said judges must remain outside the fray.

“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,� Cady wrote.

“This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all.�

I will try to post a link to the full decision. As another question for debate, we could consider the quality of this decision. Is this "judicial activism run amok" or is this another "Brown versus Board of Ed" ruling in which the judiciary stands up for minority rights that the majority is unwilling to bestow?

[micatala]

Here is a link to the full court decision.

http://www.kcci.com/download/2009/0403/19084885.pdf

[Goat]

Here is a link to the full court decision.

http://www.kcci.com/download/2009/0403/19084885.pdf

It's hard to say.. Iowa is a mixed bag politicaly and socially. They had a lot of woman's rights very early on, when other places were denying rights to women.

Sometimes, it will take a few decades to figure things out.

[micatala]

I think the following is worth highlighting, as it points out that gay people, in couples or not, are ordinary every day citizens and as deserving of rights, respect, and legal recognition of their consenting relationships as anybody else.

This lawsuit is a civil rights action by twelve individuals who reside in
six communities across Iowa. Like most Iowans, they are responsible,
caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are
retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities.
They include a nurse, business manager, insurance analyst, bank agent,
stay-at-home parent, church organist and piano teacher, museum director,
federal employee, social worker, teacher, and two retired teachers. Like
many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some
are foster parents. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within
the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be
maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto.

[micatala]

Here is a link to the full court decision.

http://www.kcci.com/download/2009/0403/19084885.pdf

It's hard to say.. Iowa is a mixed bag politicaly and socially. They had a lot of woman's rights very early on, when other places were denying rights to women.

Sometimes, it will take a few decades to figure things out.

My question would be, assuming it does take a few decades, how far along might we already be in this process?


I am hopeful that, while 2012 is only 3 years away, even three years will be some time for people to see that the sky is not falling. It was worth noting that some of the plaintiff couples have been together for quite a number of years already.




I did just read through most of the full decision. It is pretty compelling. The justices clearly by into the common sense arguments that banning gay marriage is really nothing more than legalizing a traditional prejudice.

[Goat]

Here is a link to the full court decision.

http://www.kcci.com/download/2009/0403/19084885.pdf

It's hard to say.. Iowa is a mixed bag politicaly and socially. They had a lot of woman's rights very early on, when other places were denying rights to women.

Sometimes, it will take a few decades to figure things out.

My question would be, assuming it does take a few decades, how far along might we already be in this process?


I am hopeful that, while 2012 is only 3 years away, even three years will be some time for people to see that the sky is not falling. It was worth noting that some of the plaintiff couples have been together for quite a number of years already.




I did just read through most of the full decision. It is pretty compelling. The justices clearly by into the common sense arguments that banning gay marriage is really nothing more than legalizing a traditional prejudice.

I don't know. I do remember one couple in Mass. that got married was together for over 50 years.

[micatala]

Here is a link to the full court decision.

http://www.kcci.com/download/2009/0403/19084885.pdf

It's hard to say.. Iowa is a mixed bag politicaly and socially. They had a lot of woman's rights very early on, when other places were denying rights to women.

Sometimes, it will take a few decades to figure things out.

My question would be, assuming it does take a few decades, how far along might we already be in this process?


I am hopeful that, while 2012 is only 3 years away, even three years will be some time for people to see that the sky is not falling. It was worth noting that some of the plaintiff couples have been together for quite a number of years already.




I did just read through most of the full decision. It is pretty compelling. The justices clearly by into the common sense arguments that banning gay marriage is really nothing more than legalizing a traditional prejudice.

I don't know. I do remember one couple in Mass. that got married was together for over 50 years.

I too note with interest the number of couples that have come up that have been together for years.

It is one of the reasons I find the malicious and defamatory charges that gays cannot maintain long term relationships and are "dominated by their unnatural passions" so ridiculous and galling.


I am hopeful that this ruling will move justice forward, in the same way that the Kitzmiller decision put a knock-down blow on the ID movement.

[Goat]

What I think is an important change, Vermont, which allowed civil unions due to court procedings, has over ridden their governors veto, and is going to be allowing full marriages come September 1st.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_ ... ge_vermont

[Ooberman]

A great day for human rights.

[micatala]

What I think is an important change, Vermont, which allowed civil unions due to court procedings, has over ridden their governors veto, and is going to be allowing full marriages come September 1st.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_ ... ge_vermont

I agree, this is another significant step forward.

We may have to be patient with respect to how long it will take to overturn some of the recent spate of anti-gay ballot measures. As CNN reported today, 29 states have passed some form of anti-gay marriage bills or ballot measures. Failing court action on these, we would need to wait until the tide of public opinion turns. I think it is turning but I wouldn't expect a drastic sea change across the country too quickly. We'll see. Maybe I'll be wrong.