posted on August 30, 2007 01:47:23 PM new
DES MOINES, Iowa - A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa's law banning gay marriage.
The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered Polk County Recorder Tim Brien to issue marriage licenses to several gay couples.
"It's a moral victory for equal rights," said Des Moines lawyer Dennis Johnson, who represented six gay couples who filed suit after they were denied marriage licenses.
Camilla Taylor, an attorney with Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, said the ruling requires "full equality for all Iowans including gay and lesbian Iowans and their families."
"The Iowa Constitution has lived up to its promises of equality for everyone," she said.
The county is expected to appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Johnson argued that Iowa has a long history of aggressively protecting civil rights in cases of race and gender. He said the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Legislature passed in 1998, contradicts previous court rulings regarding civil rights and should be struck down.
He said some of the case history in Iowa suggests that marriage is a fundamental right and as such, the state can't choose who people can or cannot marry.
Johnson said the Defense of Marriage law is "mean spirited" and was designed only to prohibit gays from marrying. He said it violates the state constitution's equal protection and due-process clauses.
Lambda Legal, which spearheaded a same-sex marriage drive across the country, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the gay and lesbian couples in Polk County District Court on Dec. 13, 2005.
Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant Polk County attorney, argued that the issue is not for a judge to decide.
Rachel Cunningham, a spokeswoman for the conservative Iowa Family Policy Center, which opposes gay marriage, said the decision will be appealed.
"We're very disappointed and will pursue to the next level of courts," she said.
In his ruling, Hanson said the state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.
"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...by reason of the fact that both person comprising such a couple are of the same sex," he said.
The judge said 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..."
State Sen. Ron Wieck, R-Sioux, said he was surprised by the ruling and promised the Legislature would take another look at the issue.
"We'll look at something we can do legislatively," Wieck said.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on August 30, 2007 02:38:56 PM new
Why do opponents here of same-sex marriages always bring in marriage to animals as a bugaboo to fear? I *think* the definition of marriage anywhere is something between "two persons." It's tiresome to read - again - the "might-be's"--that is, if we allow THIS, this other AWFUL thing will be the next domino to fall.
_____________________
There is more to life than increasing its speed. --Mahatma Gandhi
posted on August 30, 2007 02:42:25 PM new
Maybe it is because if it is "normal" just "different" why do liberals get hysterical when a Congressman is caught humping a cab driver or smooching with his mechanic?
posted on August 30, 2007 02:49:15 PM new
desquirrel: We awful godless liberals here have said many many times that we don't condemn what the congressman does--but we do condemn (and laugh at) the hypocrisy when it's a conservative "family values" person. It's the hypocrisy! Period.
_____________________
There is more to life than increasing its speed. --Mahatma Gandhi
posted on August 30, 2007 04:15:59 PM newIt's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
The sick and perverted will go to any lengths to justify their disgusting existence.
In the end.....they realize who and what they are and have to live with the sad, question of what am I,
They constantly repeat to themselves:
"I know It's wrong but I can't stop this unnatural, foul, horrid, nasty, nauseating, offensive, repellent, repulsive, revolting, sickening, ugly, unwholesome, vile lustful yearning."
They're an unhappy bunch.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
http://www.reverendcolin.com
[ edited by colin on Aug 30, 2007 04:17 PM ]
posted on August 30, 2007 05:25:38 PM new
"They're an unhappy bunch"
If they are an unhappy bunch, it is because of people like you and the vile, intolerant things you say. Gays can no more control their sexual preference than they can control what color eyes they are born with. Worry about your own behavior. What people do behind closed doors has no effect on you.
posted on August 30, 2007 06:34:54 PM new
Yep...some nutcase mayor of SF, CA tried this same thing. I believe some nutcase in OR did also. They were quickly overturned AS this judges ruling will be.
ONE person cannot overrule the will of the voters of ANY state. And cannot force their one 'opinion' upon those who VOTED against it.
Gay marriage will be overturned just as it has been in other states. Just as the ban on partial term abortions were held up for a couple of years as being illegal and later overturned for the law to stand.
Those who support gay marriage would also then have to support 'marriage' between ANY TWO people who wish to marry - using THEIR silly civil rights defense. LOL Two sisters, two brothers, cousins - first, second and third. Friends who want to marry could also.
That's why marriage has always been classified as between a man and and woman.....not just whomever wishes to 'marry'.
posted on August 30, 2007 06:38:28 PM new"Marriage" has a legal definition.
According to Arkansas law at the moment, two babies can marry so I guess that is OK with you as well.
So what are your toughts about a marriage in which one spouse is constantly cheating on their spouse all the time. I spouse that definition of marriage works for you as well.
I know you are more concerned about who is getting married instead of what the instution of marriage is really about.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on August 30, 2007 06:40:18 PM newONE person cannot overrule the will of the voters of ANY state. And cannot force their one 'opinion' upon those who VOTED against it.
Wrong Linda. If the law is unconstitutional it can be over-turned.
I guess you don't like the way the US CONSTITUTION is written.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on August 30, 2007 06:41:50 PM new
"Worry about your own behavior. What people do behind closed doors has no effect on you."
LOL
Typical liberal response. Our society has ALWAYS been run by what our society accepts and doesn't accept. Liberals are SO misguided on this issue.
PLUS I'll inform you that we can 'worry' about anything we wish to. The liberals haven't stopped ALL free speech YET and YOU don't get to decide for us what WE'LL focus on.
And the LIE that it has 'no effect on us'....is so wrong it only shows ignorance.
Of course what happens in our society has an 'effect' on us...in many, many ways.
Funny how the aclu trampling on religious freedoms/etc. doesn't bother the liberals. THEY can work to intrude on OUR RIGHTS. But of course, with the DOUBLE STANDARDS, it's not to work in the same way for others.
posted on August 30, 2007 06:45:06 PM newThose who support gay marriage would also then have to support 'marriage' between ANY TWO people who wish to marry - using THEIR silly civil rights defense. LOL Two sisters, two brothers, cousins - first, second and third.
People in your state would be jumping for joy if they could marry their brothers and sisters.
It's such a joke. A sick joke.
Yes heterosexuals have turned marriage into a joke:
Marriage reality shows that treat marriage as a game.
Vegas style weddings of anyone who wants to get married regardless of how long they have known each other.
Easy divorces
Some straight people getting married 13 times
Marriages that have spouses cheating on one another.
This is the instutition that you are defending
I bet you think Larry Craig's marriage is a perfect example of what marriage ought to look like.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
[ edited by logansdad on Aug 30, 2007 06:47 PM ]
posted on August 30, 2007 06:46:36 PM new
Published August 30 2007
Gay marriage is shaping up to be a hotly debated topic in elections across the nation. I have a problem, though, with one argument that I hear over and over again—from people who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds. Religion shouldn't even enter into the debate; marriage is a legal issue.
All you need to get married is $30 and a pen. No one needs a church to be legally married.
Recently Logo aired a presidential debate in which several Democratic candidates discussed issues specifically relating to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community. The hottest topic was gay marriage. Of all the candidates participating, only Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel completely supported gay marriage. The others—Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson insisted that civil unions are good enough for gay citizens. They suggested that if people are hung up on the word "marriage," then perhaps we should call the pairing of gay couples "civil unions."
Sorry, but I don't want to say I am "civilly unionized." I want to say I am "married."
Why should heterosexuals be permitted to wed while homosexuals get the consolation prize of civil unions? It's because people equate marriage with religion and the Bible, despite this country's Constitutionally-based tradition of separating church and state.
You do not need the church or religion to be recognized as a married couple in this country—if you're heterosexual, that is. Legal marriages simply require signing a piece of paper at city hall. Any man and woman can go to their local courthouse, apply for a marriage license and legally wed. They never have to set foot in any house of worship.
My brother-in-law, Mark, and his wife, Kate, did just that. They eloped and had a civil ceremony at the Cook County Courthouse. They now get the same rights as if they'd had an elaborate church wedding.
Gay couples want the same rights.
According to the Cook County Clerk's Office, only three things are required for couples to marry:
>> Both partners have to be 18 or older.
>> They must be of opposite genders.
>> They cannot be blood relatives.
Nowhere is a priest or church mentioned.
Illinois' rules mention that first cousins over the age of 50 may marry, but a gay man can't marry the same-sex partner he's been committed to for 50 years? Please. Even a gay man and a lesbian can walk into the court, plop down the required fee of $30, and marry each other—simply because they are of opposite gender. No questions asked.
A straight couple can fly to Las Vegas and have an Elvis impersonator preside over their marriage in a quickie chapel and it is a 100 percent legal marriage, but I can't use the word "married" because someone's religious beliefs have kept the law from permitting it.
Sure, gay partners can take part in a commitment ceremony at many of the open and accepting churches in this country. That doesn't make them legally married, however, because they aren't allowed to sign that elusive piece of government paper.
One day this country will look back at same-sex marriage and think, "Why did it take us so long to honor our own Declaration of Independence, where it clearly states that 'All men are created equal'?"
Why indeed. "In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on August 30, 2007 06:48:06 PM new
Again, ld shows his ignorance.
NO where in the constitution does it approve of gay marriages nor abortions.
Gays have even angered the black community by TRYING to falsely compare their civil rights 'struggle' with that of theirs. LOL LOL
===========
"If they are an unhappy bunch..."
IF???? lol They have a very HIGH suicide rate. They're self loathing because of their gender confusion. Can't blame that one on others. We each are responsible for our OWN actions/behaviors and lifestyle choices.
posted on August 30, 2007 08:26:57 PM new
"What people do behind closed doors has no effect on you"
And nobody cares about that.
"It's because people equate marriage with religion and the Bible,"
No, it's because people draw the line. They no longer chastise someone who is mentally ill but functional in society. That's a far cry from National Schizophrenic Day or "special laws" in case someone robs or kills a schizophrenic. And no matter how much a public figure can smile and verbalize in the best politically correct manner, most people share the same opinion.
posted on August 30, 2007 09:51:00 PM new
" Friends who want to marry could also."
OMG--what an awful thought! Imagine--friends getting married! What is this world coming to?
If a church, temple, mosque refuses to perform same sex marriages, that is their right. If you don't like it, don't go to that house of worship. But there is no reason for not allowing civil marriages between same sex partners. It hurts no one. Do not force your religious beliefs on others. That is also part of religious freedom.
posted on August 30, 2007 09:56:58 PM new
"special laws"
If a person harms someone solely because of their sexual preference, race, religion or disability--that is a hate crime. Everyone has the right to live without fear of harm from people who have nothing better to do than hate you because of your race, religion or sexual preference. That is called being civilized.
posted on August 30, 2007 10:17:20 PM new
The victim is just as dead. This is a direct conflict to the liberal kumbaya, "we are all equal" chant. But is typical for liberals to be totally contradictory depending on which way the wind is blowing.
posted on August 30, 2007 11:19:16 PM new
""""I know It's wrong but I can't stop this unnatural, foul, horrid, nasty, nauseating, offensive, repellent, repulsive, revolting, sickening, ugly, unwholesome, vile lustful yearning." """
Was that a quote from REPUBLICAN Senator Craig or REPUBLICAN Foley or REPUBLICAN george bush(talking about alcohol and coke)? Or was it Rudy talking about his sex addiction?????
posted on August 31, 2007 03:50:40 AM newNO where in the constitution does it approve of gay marriages nor abortions.
Linda you have had a very difficult time understanding what is written as of late.
For your information the US Constitution does not talk about "straight marriage" either, but that is not what was originally mentioned.
You claimed one person could not overturn the "will of the people". It can be overturned if the law is deemed unconstitutional which is exactly what happened in this case. Are you going to claim you know alot about the judicial system now.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on August 31, 2007 03:55:25 AM new
C'mon Linda. Don't you have any rebuttal against what a joke your institution of marriage has become. The situtaions described below are what you are defending and you can't defend them. tsk tsk tsk
Not one of the items below protects the sanctity of marriage, but go on keep trying to defend the traditions and definitions of what marriage is all about.
To date you and the rest of your hateful bigots can not give one valid reason why gay marriage should be banned except for hate.
It's such a joke. A sick joke.
Yes heterosexuals have turned marriage into a joke:
Marriage reality shows that treat marriage as a game.
Vegas style weddings of anyone who wants to get married regardless of how long they have known each other.
Easy divorces
Some straight people getting married 13 times
Marriages that have spouses cheating on one another.
This is the instutition that you are defending
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on August 31, 2007 04:34:18 AM new
"""If a church, temple, mosque refuses to perform same sex marriages, that is their right. If you don't like it, don't go to that house of worship. But there is no reason for not allowing civil marriages between same sex partners. It hurts no one. Do not force your religious beliefs on others. That is also part of religious freedom. ""
That's a great quote and worth repeating for the brain-dead like desquirrel and linduh, complete and total bigots in every sense of the word who don't have enough brain cells to form an intelligent thought.
They hate the constitution and "freedom and equality for ALL" more than bushit does!!!!!!!
posted on August 31, 2007 06:49:19 AM new" Friends who want to marry could also." OMG--what an awful thought!Imagine--friends getting married! What is this world coming to?
I guess it is OK if life-long heterosexual friends get married since high school sweethearts get married.
Another theory busted since it is happening already.
Linda and desquirrel want to come up with all these absurd hypothetical situations. I think Linda's greatest absurd situation was when she wondered what if a nun wanted to work at a gay bathhouse. I think she spends all night thinking of these absurd situations and then thinks they will be the norm.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
[ edited by logansdad on Aug 31, 2007 11:50 AM ]
posted on August 31, 2007 08:40:28 AM new
Webster's Definiton of Marriage:
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
Friends who want to marry could also.