DES MOINES, Iowa, Aug. 31, 2007
Iowa Gay Marriages On Hold
One Gay Couple Legally Marries Before Judge Stays Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Ban
-
Sean Fritz, left, and Tim McQuillan, center, exchange rings during their wedding ceremony as Rev. Mark Stringer, right, looks on in Des Moines, Iowa, on Aug. 31, 2007. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
-
Interactive Same-Sex Marriage Debate State-by-state coverage, opinions, history, photos and a look at the amendment process.
-
Interactive Gay In The U.S.A. State-by-state laws on gay issues, the marriage debate and photo essays.
It was a narrow window of opportunity.
About 20 gay couples had applied for marriage licenses by 11 a.m., when the Polk County Recorder announced that she had been instructed to stop accepting the applications.
Recorder Julie Haggerty said the instruction came from the county attorney's office after Polk County Judge Robert Hanson, the same judge who threw out the ban, verbally issued a stay of his ruling at the county's request. Hanson told The Associated Press about an hour and half later that he had filed the written ruling.
Before the county stopped taking applications, one couple applied and then obtained a judge's waiver of Iowa's three-day waiting period for marriage licenses.
The men, Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan of Ames, then drove to the Des Moines home of the Rev. Mark Stringer, who quickly performed a wedding ceremony in his front yard.
"This is it. We're married. I love you," Fritz told McQuillan after the ceremony.
Stringer, a reverend at the First Unitarian Church of Des Moines, performed the marriage a day after Hanson issued a decision that Iowa's ban on same-sex marriage violated the state's constitution.
The ruling applied only to Polk County, but Iowa law allows citizens to take out a marriage application in any county.
Stringer concluded the ceremony by saying, "This is a legal document, and you are married."
The men then kissed and hugged.
Less than an hour later, the county stopped accepting applications.
That morning, a stream of gay couples filed applications at the recorder's office.
Katy Farlow and Larissa Boeck, students at Iowa State University, said they got to the county recorder's office at 5 a.m., then sat in lawn chairs and ate snacks until the office opened at 7:30 a.m.
They wanted to file an application early out of fear a judge would grant a stay, stopping applications while Thursday's ruling is appealed.
"This might be our only chance," Farlow said. "We already knew we were spending the rest of our lives together."
The first couple to apply for a license was Gary Allen Seronko, 51, and David Curtis Rethmeier, 29, who did so Thursday afternoon.
"I started to cry because we so badly want to be able to be protected if something happens to one of us," Rethmeier said.
In Hanson's ruling, he ordered the Polk County recorder to issue marriage licenses to six gay couples who filed the lawsuit.
"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."
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The secrets of tennis legend 
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 13
- next
See all 249 CommentsPosted by pwrslm at 07:32 AM : Sep 03, 2007
The mindless stupidity of this and others of your posts is breathtaking. The lies just flow out of you so easily. Now you''re claiming that ga*ys want to have se*x in front of children? Or that ga*ys have a lifespan of only 42 years? You''re so full of sh*it on these and other points that the only answer that can be is that you actually believe what you''re saying. That makes you genuinely mentally ill.
pwrslm infers things and then denies them by saying he didn''t EXACTLY say what he inferred. He claims that HIV/AIDS is a ga*y disease and when I point out to him the truth that worldwide it''s much more prevalent in heterosexuals he comes back with statistics just from the US, which as you state is not a response to what I said. The reason it is more prevalent in the ga*y community in the US is that it first appeared here in the ga*y community. So being as ga*y men tend to only have se*x with other ga*y men it spread more quickly among ga*y men before moving into the straight community. That still doesn''t change the truth that in most of the rest of the world it is clearly a heterosexual disease. I have no doubt that pwrslm is aware of this truth, but it doesn''t fit in his point of view, so he ignores it. In other words he''s a classic right winger who like the rest of them honestly think that when the facts don''t fit your beliefs, then the facts must be wrong and need to be changed. In that sense he''s no different then the lunatic creationists. You''ll never get and honest debate from him, because he''s not looking for one. He just wants to spread his propaganda.
You are far more emotional than rational. I spoke about your statistics utilizing the percentages of gay people in the geeral population and I questioned how they determined the percentage of *** when so many are in the closet and it isn''t something which stats are usually kept on.
You respond with CDC stats on HIV/AIDS for all patients which contain no reference to *** whatsoever and you think you''ve proven some point. What point would that be?
When SgtRDS pointed out that more heterosexual people contract AIDs you denied making the inference that *** were responsible and challenged him to find a post where you made such an inference. Your last post to me does just that!
Enlighten me on your alleged answer to my question that I allegedly acknowledged in my post. It seems reasonable that it would involve much less effort on your part to clealry answer the question than to make repeated references to allegedly answering it already but not revealing what the answer is.
After all, I''ve had to explain why I''m questioning your stats about 3 times now and I don''t do it by referring to a previous post that doesn''t exist.
I''ll just have to assume that you want to deny marriage to adulterers, like Rudy Guliani.
Posted by realpatriot1
I answered your question. You even acknowledged my answer in your post. Is this how you work? You make some ludicrious correlation and demand that I waste my time on it? Wake up.
You didn''t answer my question; if you had an answer you would offer it again. It isn''t worth a reply and yet you reply to everything else. You have no reply and you know it. The fact is you''re honed in on homosexuality as the only sin that really, really bothers you.
I don''t care if the stats are made up by you or by someone else, common sense clearly demonstartes that they''re absurd. Lying with statistics is the oldest trick in the books.
I answered your question two days ago. Its not worth the reply. That was my answer.
If you think Im making all these stats up, its pretty easy to prove it. Just paying lip service, calling it a lie, is all you are doing.
Put up or shut up. Its that simple.
The only one ignoring points is you. You invent your stats regarding ***, there''s no census of *** to base percentages on when many *** are still in the closet(example-Newt Gingrich).
You''ve been ignoring my direct question for several days and have been talking all around it because you know you can''t justify denying marriage to *** but not to thieves, adulterers,murderers, and the covetous.
Your statistics don''t prove a point, they''re just numbers and opinions themselves. For the sake of argument I conceded your point and correctly stated that whether or not homosexuality is unhealthy behavior is no more relevant to who decides who gets married than the health risks associated with alcoholism or adultery.
I didn''t attack anyone''s religion, you attack mine and I defended it.
You cam back "a day later" too. I''m responding to your "point" but you still dodge mine, because you can''t respond. You have no point, just an ignorant argument.
Oh and HIV/AIDS is a sexual disease, not a homosexual one. Far more straight people get infected with it and die from it worldwide then ga*y men.
You are quite confused.
posted by a realputz
Im confused? Why is it that you come along well after the day is gone, and without any information, with out a single scientific study to back you up, you condemn everything I posted in 4 little words?
I would suggest that you have hit the end. You dont have a rebuttal against the CDC statistics, you dont have a rebuttal against the solid science I posted by MD''s. The only thing you have is an opinion, and its full of the same rhetoric that sodomites have been spreading for years, with out "ANY" scientific basis in reality or truth.
So, all you have left is to attack religion. Your getting so lame. And RDS too, there is sufficient non religious facts to move the moral compass of homosexuality to anti social behavior, solid, hard core, science. Yet you both ignore it.
I call that wilfull ignorance. Simple and to the point.
Posted by SgtRDS
Actually, with out God fearing men, the constitution would never have existed.
We''''re in total aggrement.
Posted by realpatriot1 at 07:41 PM : Sep 02, 2007
It''s just simple commonsense really. I guess it shows that for some people religion blinds them more then opens their eyes.
We''re in total aggrement.
There are many churches that do recognize ga*y marriage these days, but making ga*y marriage legal won''t force any church to recognize it. While civil unions are a good half-way point they are still not legally marriage. Having nearly all of the rights as married couples is still not having all of them and that''s the discrimination. It''s also why I fail to understand why so many religious people get upset over ga*y marriage because it does not require them to allow ga*y marriage in their particular church or religion. It just means that the legal state recognizes the marriage. For instance the first time I got married it was in front of a judge in a civil marriage, but it was legal even though it wasn''t in a church. Having the ceremony in a church is not what makes it a legal marriage and is optional. So if someone doesn''t want their church to allow ga*y marriage then I have no problem with that. I do however have a problem with them using their church to say that other people can''t get legally married because their religion doesn''t think they should. That''s imposing their religion on other people legal rights.
While I agree with you that religion doesn''t trump the Constitution and that we are a pluralistic nation where people''s rights take precedence over religious dogma, from a Christian perspective the religious argument is important.
That''s because, as some have argued here, the marriage ceremony itself is a religious ceremony which they feel should not be available to gay couples. There are people who are ok with civil unions which afford spousal benefits, but want to deny the spiritual ceremony based upon their interpretation of scripture.
My advice to them is to find a church which discriminates against ***; it won''t be difficult because most do. Just don''t try to limit the ability of churches who do accept *** lovingly as they believe that Christ intends. You aren''t the only ones with the right to practice your faith as you understand it.
Posted by cbville72 at 03:21 PM : Sep 02, 2007
The FACT is that many species of animals practice some form of homosexuality, so it is natural. Also for nearly two centuries it was illegal for two people of different races to get married in this country because bigots said it was "unnatural", so I guess that would be OK with you too? Marriage can be defined as between a man and a woman for you and yours if that''s what makes you happy, but it can also be defined as between to adults that are in love and want to form a marriage and you don''t have the right to push your definition off onto them.
Posted by pwrslm at 08:50 AM : Sep 02, 2007
Thank god! It''s about time we went back to the Constitution, instead of having only the freedoms some church says we can have.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 13
- next
See all 249 Comments