DES MOINES, Iowa, April 3, 2009
Iowa Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
State's Supreme Court Says Law Violates Rights Of Gay And Lesbian Couples
-
(CBS/AP)
-
Interactive Same-Sex Marriage Debate State-by-state coverage, opinions, history, photos and a look at the amendment process.
-
State Fast Facts Iowa Learn about the people, economy and geography.
In its decision, the court upholds a 2007 Polk County District Court judge's ruling that the law violates the Iowa Constitution. It strikes the language from Iowa code limiting marriage to between a man a woman.
"The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.
Court rules dictate that it will take about 21 days for the ruling to be considered final and a request for a rehearing could be filed within that period. That means it will be at least several weeks before gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses.
Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said the county attorney's office will not ask for a rehearing, meaning the court's decision should take effect after that three-week period.
The case has been working its way through Iowa's court system since 2005 when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. Some of their children are also listed as plaintiffs.
The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.
"Iowa is about justice, and that's what happened here today," said Laura Fefchak, who was hosting a verdict party in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale with partner of 13 years, Nancy Robinson.
Robinson added: "To tell the truth, I didn't think I'd see this day."
Quote
In its unanimous ruling, the Iowa Supreme Court upholds an August 2007 decision by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson who found that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.
Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage.
From Iowa Supreme Court opinion in Varnum v. BrienThe Polk County attorney's office, arguing on behalf of Brien, claimed that Hanson's ruling violates the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.
Lambda Legal scheduled a news conference for early Friday to comment on the ruling. A request for comment from the Polk County attorney's office wasn't immediately returned.
Around the nation, only Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed gay marriage before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows domestic partnerships.
New Jersey and New Hampshire also offer civil unions, which provide many of the same rights that come with marriage. New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and legislators there and in New Jersey are weighing whether to offer marriage. A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont has cleared the Legislature but may be vetoed by the governor.
The ruling in Iowa's same-sex marriage case came more quickly than many observers had anticipated, with some speculating after oral arguments that it could take a year or more for a decision.
Richard Socarides, an attorney and former senior adviser on gay rights to President Clinton, said ruling carries extra significance coming from Iowa.
"It's a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage. And it shows that despite attempts [to] stop gay marriage through right wing ballot initiatives, like in California, the courts will continue to support the case for equal rights for gays," he said.
For more info:
By Associated Press Writer Amy Lorentzen
© MMIX The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 410 Comments
- Gays and Lesbians can live in whatever dreamworld they see fit to adopt. The state of Iowa has recognized gay marriage and associated all the rights and entitlements that come with it. That is fine, but please be aware that this is only mans civil recognition of the partnership. It does NOT mean that the partnership is recognized in the eyes of God. I will not cast judgment on those who choose to carry out this lifestyle, that judgment will take place by the Lord our god himself and at a time when all mankind are held in judgment for their sins. As for the comment that would God prefer a child be raised in a stable lesbian home rather than an abusive heterosexual home. Both of those "homes" exhibit sinful behavior therefore NEITHER of those environments would be suitable.That is like saying would God prefer a child to be raised in a den of snakes rather than a den of savage wolves. And as for the whole country adopting Iowa's position of Gay marriage in 2012, we better hope it happens prior to December that year, because according to prophecy we will all be gone by that time, in a massive cleansing!!
- Reply to this comment
- Please understand where most Christians (not the ones that are being overly loud on this issue) would like to just not have gay marriage CALLED marriage. Give it another name. Marriage was defined centuries ago. The courts are creating a new definition for a centuries-old word. Go ahead and have your civil rights. Take care of your families. Be given the opportunity to live as normal a life as possible. Just please call it something other than MARRIAGE. Someone out there is creative enough to find another name for your type of committment, because it isn't the same as marriage. Don't be offended by this because if it was the same you wouldn't be fighting for rights. I'm just suggesting you all talk to you congressman to find a TRUE definition for your type of civil union, because committing to a person of the same sex is not marriage.
- Reply to this comment
- We're sick of being marginalized by religous zealots and homophobic morons. YOURE WRONG on this issue, and you can damn well bet we'll keep fighting until we can marry.
The reason all of these state Suprme Courts are ruling in favor of gays and lesbians is because legally, by every single deifnition, we have the right to marrige just as you do. Now, you can find glitches that allow you to discriminate us such as writing specifically in a Constitution, the only thing over a Supreme Court, that marriage is between a 'manand a woman.' But it's not gonna work forever.
The younger generation overwhelmingly supports gay marriage, and gays and lesbians who want to marry want it more than you don't want us to. And stop pretending you have compassion for us, as you look us in the eyes and tell us we're not equal to you. How DARE you say such a thing, and then use your religion to back it up. We don't see you for any more than the zealots you are, so at least have the muster to say you honestly either you a) wish we didn't exist and you can't stand the thought of us or b) think armegeddon will happen after we're allowed to marry, and I'll have more respect for your pathetic selves then.
GAY MARRIAGE IN IOWA, VERMONT, MASSACHUSETTS, CONNECTICUT, AND THE UNITED STATES SOON ENOUGH! - Reply to this comment
- Congrats, Iowa! No More jokes about the Midwest now!!
Now, could someone find me a nice big Farmboy?! - Reply to this comment
- Well, I've enjoyed the discussion. I going to have to sign off. If you get these sources you can leave them on the site. Maybe I'll see them. We will just have to agree to disagree.
- Reply to this comment
- It was not me that changed the subject to faith. No, we are not talking about the Iowa Supreme Court decision anymore. You changed the subject. Yes, some of my beliefs about homosexuality are based on my faith and some of my beliefs are based on Science; just the same as your beliefs are based on whatever they are based on. What started this discussion today is my disgust with the Iowa Supreme Court decision and your approval of it.
- Reply to this comment
- Yes, you are right, there are 3 types of love. The love that God has for his people is not Eros love. I can't recall where Eros love is specifically mentioned in the Bible, but sexual sin is mentioned a lot.
- Reply to this comment
- Nope, just giving my opinion. That is why I said that I believe he would. The point that I was trying to make is that there is a lot of sin in the world. Is one sin any worse than another sin. Sin is sin. We all sin so we are all sinners. Does being a Christian make me any better than anyone else. No I am still a sinner. I just have the peace that only comes from God, which gets me through each day no matter what and Oh what a blessing that is.
- Reply to this comment
- There are different types of Love. The love in the Bible doesn't have anything to do with the physical kind of love/emotional love, but agape love that comes with commitment, which I believe is what you were just referring to.
The Bible also talks about man having sex with a man in the book of Judges and when it talks about Sodom and Gomorrah. It is in other places, but I would have to find them again. The Bible calls this lifestyle a sin. There are a lot of references to different types of sexual sin.
Does God hate homosexuals, no? Would God rather have a child placed in a loving supportive lesbian home, than in a heterosexual abusive home. Yes I believe he would. - Reply to this comment
- The law wasn't unconstitutional. We will have to wait until 2012. Then we will add it to our constitution like other states have. Then this won?t be an issue anymore.
- Reply to this comment
- My outrage at this moment is based on the fact that the citizens of Iowa had their vote stomped on and it was our right to pass this law. The judges had no right to throw out a law that the people of this state voted in.
Yes I am a Christian. Yes, my beliefs are based on my Christian faith, but also on the fact that Science doesn?t support this lifestyle.
Posted by wanttobeheard at 9:01 PM :
They had every right to throw it out if they deemed it to be against the constitution. People don't get to vote for something that is unconstitutional, your vote does not trump that document. - Reply to this comment
- _____ You can't compare a gay couple not being able to have children, because they are the same sex, with a couple not being able to have children, because one of them is sick in some way. They aren't the same.
_____ As far as people falling out of love with their partner; I actually wasn?t thinking about gay couples at all. My thoughts were 100% on the fact that married couples don?t know how to make a commitment. When the emotions start to die they walk out of their marriage and find another person that excites them at that moment breaking apart the family.
_____ Just because something isn?t illegal doesn?t mean you should be able to get a license for it. I guess that I am not getting your point here.
_____ What Scientific proof is there that this is genetic? I?d like to see these studies. It is pretty hard to have a true scientific study based on a person?s feelings/emotions. Please give me sources and I will read the studies.
You see in the news all the time that people do things you never would have dreamed that they would do, because they let their feelings/emotions control them. Emotions often lead people to have mental breakdowns. Sometimes you have to not act on feelings that you have. You hear all the time in this world that people have had an affair or murdered someone, or stole something, etc., because they could not get control of their emotions.
You can not act on every thought or feeling that you have. I am not stupid. I can see how people could have feelings for someone of the same sex, especially if the opposite sex has been abusive to them in the past. The nurturing they receive from that person would be comforting.
_____ My outrage at this moment is based on the fact that the citizens of Iowa had their vote stomped on and it was our right to pass this law. The judges had no right to throw out a law that the people of this state voted in.
Yes I am a Christian. Yes, my beliefs are based on my Christian faith, but also on the fact that Science doesn?t support this lifestyle. - Reply to this comment
- wantobeheard: "Think about it. What if everyone was homosexitual and was faithful to their partner and there wasn?t artificial insemination. Where would earth be in 100 years?"
It would be pretty much devoid of humans, WHETHER OR NOT GAY MARRIAGE WAS LEGAL.
Are you capable of writing a single sentence that is not total nonsense? - Reply to this comment
- wanttobeheard: "Two people of the same sex cannot procreate. "
Nor can 60-year old women, or people who've had vasectomies or hysterectomies.
Please explain why they should not be allowed to marry. - Reply to this comment
- Two people of the same sex cannot procreate. If this is a normal lifestyle the couple would be able to procreate. Think about it. What if everyone was homosexual and was faithful to their partner and there wasn?t artificial insemination. Where would earth be in 100 years? There would be no people left. This has nothing to do with discrimination; it has to do with common sense. Laws should not be established which conflict with the best interest of the country.
And I am sick of hearing that two people that are in love should be allowed to marry. Emotions have always gotten people into trouble. Divorce wouldn?t be as rampant if people chose commitment & common sense over their emotions. People fall out of love with their partner so they have an adulterous affair with someone that stirs their emotions, oh but they are in love with them.
Someone said earlier that maybe divorce should be outlawed. Well, maybe it should be except in the cases where abuse is involved. Then at least children would be raised by both parents and our country wouldn?t be such a mess.
The point is you are basing equal rights on the emotional feelings of the people involved and when you do that you are stepping way over the line and anyone who wants to live an alternative lifestyle, no matter how dysfunctional it may be, can yell that my equal rights are being abused. Think of the repercussions of that.
Gay people choose their sexual orientation, their partner and their lifestyle. A black person doesn?t choose the color of their skin. A woman doesn?t choose to be a woman. We are born that way. The difference between equal rights for these people and equal rights for someone who is gay is that they didn?t have a choice in the color of their skin, but the homosexual is gay, because they choose to be. - Reply to this comment
- Yes, I am afraid that this did affect me. I am one of the many Iowans who voted in the Defense of Marriage Act stating that marriage was between 1 man and 1 woman. This was voted on in my state and signed into law. The majority ruled, until 7 judges used their position to overturn a law that was legally voted into law by the people of their state.
How did they overturn it; by saying that it was unconstitutional under the Equal Rights law. This issue has nothing to do with equal rights. Gay couples can set up wills and buy property together. Insurance and taxes might be issues, but those could be addressed outside the marriage issue.
So yes, this did affect me and yes, I am angry about yet one more government entity being corrupt. These judges had no legal right to use a law as important as the Equal Rights law to change a law voted in by the people of that state. - Reply to this comment
- Adultery & fortification are not illegal either, but it doesn?t make them right. Are these people hollering for equal rights? Homosexuality and heterosexuality are both life style choices. With heterosexuality two people can procreate. Nothing more needs to be said. We all face the consequences of our choices. The issues that homosexuals face are consequences of the choice they have made. I very much defend hate crimes against homosexuals or anyone else for that matter. Those laws should stand, but should be written so that they aren?t misinterpreted and take away my right to free speech. In other words I do not hate homosexuals. I just disagree with the gay rights issue being made an equal rights issue which it is not.
- Reply to this comment
- For those raising a false equivalence between gay marriage and group marriages:
Allowing gays to marry requires no other changes to the legal code, and simply allows gays to enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. No one has to do anything special or unusual except to allow more people to live without being harassed or denied basic human decency.
Group marriages, whatever your take on them, would raise enormous legal and financial complications. In a group marriage, who gets to make the life-and-death decisions when one spouse is in a coma? If one spouse dies, how are social security benefits determined for the surviving spouses? How do you rewrite the tax laws, the real estate laws, etc. etc. etc.?
The practical effects of thousands of laws, contracts, etc. are predicated on marriages having exactly two spouses. Since women achieved legal equality, no practical effects depend in any way on the gender of those spouses.
Until you show how ALL of those issues would be addressed in group marriages, you are simply being dishonest to say that allowing gays to marriage would force us to accept group marriages--you're equating apples with tennis shoes.
And as for marrying animals--just show that they are 21 years old and able to read and sign a legal contract. But only one at a time. - Reply to this comment
- Discriminating against someone because of their skin color or their sex (male or female) is wrong. Slavery was never right. The lifestyle choices of ?Gay? individuals do not fit into this category. These choices do not involve equal rights. The Iowa Supreme Court deciding against the vote of the people of the State of Iowa is completely wrong. They had nothing to base this decision on except ?Equal Rights.? The gay lifestyle is a choice not a right. I have friends who are gay. I do not hate gays anymore than I hate a friend who is having an adulterous affair. I don't have to like what they are doing, but I am not discriminating against them. "Gay Rights" do not involve "Equal Rights". If we are going to say that people who make the gay lifestyle choice are protected under the ?Equal Rights? law then that means that polygamist lifestyle, pornography, child pornography, incest, adultery, bestiality, all could someday be protected on the ?Equal Rights? law as well. We are opening a whole can of worms here. The citizens of Iowa voted. The Iowa Supreme Court should not be allowed to rule against them.
- Reply to this comment
- Maybe only the Facists in Congress are right and they know better than we do.
Guess we better let Barny Frank decide what is right and wrong.
Posted by megawhy at 3:59 PM : Apr 3, 2009
If you think that the Democrats are fascist, what do you think about the GOP? Go look up the definition of fascism in your dictionary - Reply to this comment
The road ahead in Afghanistan, and the crucial decision Obama faces.
