Iowa Gay Marriages On Hold

One Gay Couple Legally Marries Before Judge Stays Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Ban

(AP)  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.

Polk County planned to appeal the ruling Friday, County Attorney John Sarcone said.

Sarcone said the case will be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, which could refer it to the Iowa Court of Appeals, consider the case itself or decide not to hear the case.

Des Moines lawyer Dennis Johnson represented the six gay couples who filed the lawsuit after they were denied marriage licenses.

He 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.

Johnson said the law 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 persons 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..."

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 issued a statement stating his opposition to gay marriage.

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

Culver left the option open for state action.

Kate Varnum, another plaintiff, said she was elated but expected more legal battles.

"I don't expect this to be the last one," said Varnum, of Cedar Rapids.

[sgtrds]

The homosexual agenda wants ignorance to dominate these types of debates, because only in ignorace can anyone justify the mindless deviation of natural sexual conduct into sodomy in front of kids.

Posted 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.

[sgtrds]

realpatriot1

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.

[realpatriot1]

pwrslm,

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.

[pwrslm]

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.
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.

[realpatriot1]

pwrslm,

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.

[pwrslm]

Posted by realpatriot1

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.

[realpatriot1]

pwrslm,

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.

[realpatriot1]

pwrslm,

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.

[sgtrds]

Animals are conscious of what feels good and what feels natural to them, so if homosexual activity feels good and they seek it out (as many do) then it is natural. If you think it''s morally right or wrong doesn''t mean sh*it to them or to ga*y people or anyone else. Your version of morality is just that, your version. Personally I couldn''t care less what other people consider moral or not. What any two (or more) adults do in the privacy of their own home is their business, even get married, as long as they''re not hurting anyone else. Homosexual activity does not harm anyone, least of all the people who object to it on religious grounds. The "moral" people need to mind their own fu8cking business and who does or does not get married is not their business.

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.

[pwrslm]

pwrslm,

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.

[pwrslm]

Thank god! It''''s about time we went back to the Constitution, instead of having only the freedoms some church says we can have.
Posted by SgtRDS

Actually, with out God fearing men, the constitution would never have existed.

[sgtrds]

SgtRDS,

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.

[realpatriot1]

SgtRDS,

We''re in total aggrement.

[sgtrds]

To put it another way, people saying that their religious beliefs should allow them to decide who can or can not get legally married (which is what ga*y marriage is, a legal ceremony) are no different then if they said that atheists can not get married because atheists don''t believe in god. Or that Muslims can''t get legally married here because they don''t worship Jesus. The same with Buddhists or any other belief that does not conform to theirs. Saying that two men or two women can not get legally married because the Christians object to it based on religion is no less absurd then these examples.

[sgtrds]

Posted by realpatriot1 at 06:40 PM : Sep 02, 2007

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.

[realpatriot1]

SgtRDS,

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.

[j-whitman]

Republicans would rather you spend a life time with a woman you have to take viagra just to have s e x with.

[sgtrds]

Well I will point to nature itself. No species on earth would be able to survive in a homosexual environment. That is a FACT. You can live with whoever you want. I don''''t care and neither do most Americans. It is however not MARRRIAGE. Marriage by definition is between a MAN and a WOMAN. You can call it "life partners" or you can call it a "Joining" or a whatever you want. YOU can''''t call it marriage. And no it is not natural. Why do so many men who are gay have problems in their childhood?

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.

[sgtrds]

America is becoming a Godless nation.

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.

[sgtrds]

What a few people here seem to be unable to grasp is that when it comes to Ga*y marriage or ga*y rights or the personal freedoms of other people to be happy, it doesn''''t matter one little tiny fu*ck what the bible or any other religious book does or does not say. That''''s a fools argument. It''''s like arguing the relative merits of Grimms Fairy Tales and if one should or should not live their lives according to their "wisdom". This is the United States of America. We are NOT a christian nation or even a nation of any religion. We are a nation where a person has the right to live their life as they see fit as long as it does not harm anyone else''''s life. AND the fact that the way some people live their lives offends YOUR religious beliefs, don''''t mean sh*it. You do not get to decide based on your religious sensibilities. If they are not actually hurting you (and ga*ys and ga*y rights and ga*y marriage certainly does NOT actually harm you) then it is none of your god-da*mn business. Butt the fu*ck out.