Iowa Court To Hear Gay Marriage Arguments

Supreme Court Weighs Challenge To Same-Sex Marriage Ban

(AP)  The gay marriage debate will play out in a courtroom in the Heartland this week as the Iowa Supreme Court hears arguments in a challenge to the state's same-sex marriage ban.

If the Iowa court rules in favor of the half-dozen gay couples who filed the lawsuit, it would be the fourth state behind Massachusetts, California and Connecticut to uphold the right for same-sex couples to legally marry. In California, however, voters changed course last month, opting to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

The Iowa case has spent more than three years wending its way through the legal system, and it could take a year or more for the Supreme Court to issue a ruling after hearing oral arguments Tuesday morning.

Camilla Taylor, an attorney for Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization representing the gay and lesbian couples behind the lawsuit, said Iowa is a fitting spot for the issue to be decided. She said the state has historically been a leader in supporting minority and women's rights.

"Iowa has an opportunity to play the role that it often has played in the past - being at the forefront of civil rights struggles - often long before other states were willing to be similarly courageous," she said. "This is not an uncomfortable role for Iowans, and we are looking at them to make a reality out of the promise of equality in the Iowa constitution."

Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit in 2005 on behalf of the six Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses, as well as three of the couples' children. It names former Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.

The lawsuit prompted a ruling in August 2007 by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson, who said a state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.

The ruling prompted nearly two dozen people to apply for marriage licenses, but only one couple managed to get married before Hanson stayed his decision the next day.

The marriage of Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan (left) of Ames stands, but its validity could depend on whether the state's high court sides with the Polk County judge.

The Polk County attorney's office declined to comment on the pending case. In court documents, it criticized the lawsuit, saying it's an attempt to change the way public policy is made.

"Plaintiffs seek to have this court establish that the courts and not the Legislature should make public policy for the State of Iowa by redefining marriage to be something totally different from what it has ever seen," the county attorney's office argued.

Maggie Gallagher (pictured, left, in 2005), president of the Manassas, Va.-based Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage, said Americans have repeatedly made clear that they want traditional marriage protected.

"I think it has to be clear to judges that Americans do care about this issue, and in 30 out of 30 cases, when they've been allowed to vote, they say that same-sex marriage is not a civil right," she said. "Americans don't think that two men in a union are just the same as a husband and wife, and they don't really appreciate the idea that the legal system is going to force them" to accept that.

However, Aderson Francois, a law professor who heads Washington, D.C.-based Howard University's Civil Rights Clinic, said while a majority of Americans may be against gay marriage, it should be left to the courts to decide issues of constitutional equality.

"It doesn't really matter whether a majority of people want to deny that right, the constitution simply doesn't provide for that," he said.

Francois predicts that the Iowa Supreme Court, like other courts, will rule in favor of the gay couples.

"On the pure legal, constitutional issue, it's close to a no-brainer that two adults ought to have the right to marry whoever they choose - that the state ought not to be preventing that," he said.

Dawn and Jen BarbouRoske, of Iowa City, are one of the gay couples who are plaintiffs in the lawsuit. They have two daughters and said they want their relationship and their family to be fully recognized under the law.

Jen BarbouRoske tells a story of searching for a preschool for their daughter and almost settling on a place only to be told their daughter wouldn't be allowed to talk about her family during family units. In court records, Dawn BarbouRoske expressed her worries over a medical condition her partner suffers from that could require hospitalization and required an emergency room visit in Texas.

"I was terrified that the hospital staff would refuse to recognize our relationship, and that I would not be permitted to stay by her bedside," she said.

Dawn BarbouRoske said in an interview that they want people to understand they are "just everyday folks" who are seeking the same rights as other Iowans.

"We just happen to be in love with someone of the same sex. We are committed to our community, our neighborhood and taking care of our kids," she said. "When it comes down to it ... whether you agree or not about same-sex marriage, it really is a basic civil right."

[mrmeatspin]

when they are not trying to bring down religion..they are feverishly fighting to blend in with religion..


marriage does not make a couple happy and it does not make you any more acceptable..

what is just proves is insecurity

[honestabe8]

tj217: when was it that you made your choice regarding your sexual orientation?

[rixmix98]

I belive there is no place set aside in heaven for homosexuals.

Posted by wvu7462 at 08:35 AM : Dec 09, 2008



You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I respect you for that. However, I disagree.

The following is scripture from the book of Leviticus. I am a gay Christian. I don''t necessarily pick and choose from the Bible; however, if the following scripture is true, there are a lot of people that are going to be denied access to Heaven.

Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies.

When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest.

Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God

''''Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. ''''Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. For three years you are to consider it forbidden it must not be eaten.

In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to the LORD.

But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit. In this way your harvest will be increased. I am the LORD your God.

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.

[rixmix98]

how come you christianist... american taliban... only follow laws in the bible that fit your agenda... the following are bible verses with the verse number. please explain why there is no outcry about these so called biblical laws. if the bible is the literal word of god you guys preach i think you got some splaining to do....
# DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
# DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has *** with someone else''''s husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
# MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
# LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman''''s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
# MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.

Posted by jmdintpa at 11:37 AM : Dec 08, 2008



Excellent post. However, I see nobody responded. I''ve tried this same argument with these morons who like to pry into other people''s business and tell people how to live. I got the same response, nada.

[psk123-2009]

I''ve no problem with anyone believing anything religion they want to believe in. I''ve no problem with said people adhering to the rules of their faith. I do have a problem with said people feel the need to push their religious rules onto the rest of the population as secular law. I don''t believe in YOUR faith, why should I have to live by it? Why should my family, friends and neighbors live by someone else''s religious rules?

I don''t get it. No one is asking YOUR churches to marry gay couples. No one is asking you to marry someone of your own gender when your door obviously does not swing that way.

Please keep your faith to yourselves. Keep your faith private between you and your God or what ever deity you believe in. I keep my faith to myself. I do not ask you to live your lives by my religious rules or values. Have some consideration for others and do the same.

[wolfear1]

%u201CYou made the choice to be a homosexual.%u201D - tj217?
______________________________________________________
That is liek saying you made the concious decision to be stupid. I have several friends that I have known since childhood. And they were attracted to the same gender from day one. Never any questions, no decisions to make.

[patrik1974]

%u201CYou made the choice to be a homosexual.%u201D - tj217?

Why would any person willingly choose to be homosexual knowing they would be subjected to persecution and ridicule? How many homosexuals do you know? I am guessing none, because anyone who knows homosexuals understand their sexuality is not a choice.

[wolfear1]

We don''''t allow criminals to vote.Posted by tj217
_____________________________________________________
Actualyl that isn''t true. only 2 states completely remove this right KY & VA. and 8 others AL, AZ, DE, FL, MS, NE, NV, & TN have it for some but not all felony offenses. The other 40 states allow Felons to vote after varying periods of time and either completion of probation or parole. Proof you ask?
http://projectvote.org/fileadmin/ProjectVote/pdfs/felon_voting_laws_by_state_Sept_11_2008.pdf

[jmdintpa]

if marraige did not come with state and federal tax breaks and rights then this would be a mute point. and civil unions mean nothing on a federal level so they are not the same. why do religious people feel the need to force there version of the bible on everyone else. why not just leave civil matters to the civil law and if you dont believe in gay marraige simply do not marry a gay. you are still free to not recognize the marriage your still free to teach your kids its wrong your still free to believe and teach what you want. how does any of this affect you or restrict your right to practice your private relgion.

[jtdev1]

this is a church issue, plain and simple.

Posted by tj217




So using your same logic, then divorce should also be a Church issue (if you were married in a church)


see, 100 % of divorces are handled by the state no matter how the marriage was made. else one could just not believe in religion and the marriage is ended, no divorce, lawyers, or cost...

[nojoy01]

And I say, let them get married. Legally. With all of the rights, priviledges, and responsibilities that go with being married. And then when they decide they no not want to be married any more, let them find out what a good (or even a bad) divorce lawyer costs nowadays. Not to mention the property settlement, alimony, child support (if any adopted), credit card payments, healthcare payments, etc, etc.

[wolfear1]

And my point still remains the same. States marry people all the time and god has nothing to do with it. Atheists get married all the time. We are talking about 2 consenting adults that choose to be together and want the same rights as hetero couples. It doesn''t hurt your marriage if same gender couples marry. As always the rhetoric is the same as it was when interracial marriage was legalized.

[wolfear1]

Posted by tj217
Actually marriage is a state issue as well. The state not only sets the base age limits but also has say over needs for blood tests and other requirements for marriage. For that matter the state also handles the ending og marriages. I have been married twice and never set foot in a church for either. Both ceramonies were performed by judges. So marriage is definately a state issue.

[jmdintpa]

j

[jmdintpa]

how come you christianist... american taliban... only follow laws in the bible that fit your agenda... the following are bible verses with the verse number. please explain why there is no outcry about these so called biblical laws. if the bible is the literal word of god you guys preach i think you got some splaining to do....
# DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
# DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has *** with someone else''s husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
# MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
# LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman''s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
# MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.

[klgrube1]

I live in California, and the people here finally were allowed to speak! No gay marriage. The challenges rasied in State Supreme Court to our vote against gay marriage are unlikely to change that outcome. It will take another election to change it if our gay population can muster the votes, which is unlikely because of the horrific way they acted during and after the election, targeting Mormons and pushing people around who disagree with them.

In California, there are no rights granted to married couples by the state that are not also granted to legal domestic partners here. This isn''t ''separate but equal'' or ''2nd class citizenship'' since the gay lobby itself helped pass these statutes! Perhaps rather than trying to force gay marriage on the state, the Iowa courts and voters should work on developing better domestic partnership laws.

In any event, the author of this article was absolutely wrong that this should be decided by the courts! We are ruled by the consent of the governed and not by judicial caveat. Clearly gay marriage isn''t something the people of Iowa want, and their voices need to be heard.

[wolfear1]

Being a resident of Iowa it is good to see that this has finally made it to the courts. With any luck they will side with those of us that are tollerant and not w/ the religious right. When looking at Marriage from a state perspective it is simply a contract between 2 adults that allows for certain rights to be transferred in the event of an emergency. If your church doesn''t want to marry 2 people of the same gender then so be it. But the state needs to be unencumbered by such ideology.

[connapa]

If a state''s constitution is written in such a way that the courts can interpret as not banning gay marriage, then the only way to change that is to have the people vote on a constitutional amendment. Simple passage of a bill through the legislature does not qualify. Many laws get passed that attempt to deal with social issues (prime example- teenage curfews.) Just because a law is passed doesn''t mean that it is constitutional. Many get overturned because they do violate a states, or even the federal, constitution. If you want to take away anyone''s constitutional rights, then do it by due process of law.