Iowa Supreme Court upholds gay marriage

[DMB]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7981893.stm

The judges rejected an appeal against a lower court's 2007 ruling that the ban violated the rights of gay men and women in the state.

The case stems from a 2005 suit filed by a New York-based gay-rights group on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples.

Iowa now becomes the third US state to allow same-sex marriages after Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Good, eh! :clap: :clap:

[Goodchild]

One step at a time :)

[Worldtraveller]

It was unanimous too. I skimmed the ruling, and the reasoning is very good. I'd like to see this appealed, because I think the next level up would have a very hard time disregarding the reasoning in this decision.

[crazyfingers]

It was unanimous too. I skimmed the ruling, and the reasoning is very good. I'd like to see this appealed, because I think the next level up would have a very hard time disregarding the reasoning in this decision.


The next level of appeal would be the US Supreme court. This is an Iowa Supreme Court ruling based on the Iowa constitution, not the US Constitution.

I don't know on what basis the SCOTUS would take an appeal. They don't usually attempt to interpret state constitutions.

[Goodchild]

From what I read in various articles it seems that the only way to overturn this would be through the state legislature, likely a time-consuming and difficult proposition.

People in California and New York especially should be embarrassed that they're being led by Iowa, freaking Iowa, in the move towards equality :)

[crazyfingers]

From what I read in various articles it seems that the only way to overturn this would be through the state legislature, likely a time-consuming and difficult proposition.

People in California and New York especially should be embarrassed that they're being led by Iowa, freaking Iowa, in the move towards equality :)

I expect that it would have to be a constitutional amendment and not a simple law. I don't know off hand the Iowa method of amending the constitution.

[Worldtraveller]

Unlike Cali, Iowa amendments need to get 2/3rds (I think) approval from both houses, plus a 60 or 75 percent majority popular vote (according to a post I read elsewhere, I haven't substantiated this).

[Goodchild]

Upon further reading, i've discovered that for the legislature to ban gay marriage would take a vote of approval in two consecutive legislative sessions and then a public vote. The soonest this could be accomplished would be 2012 unless the legislature takes it up in it's two remaining weeks right now ... which has already been dismissed as a possibility by many Iowa state legislators.

Plus, and even more promising, is the fact that a ban on gay marriage already FAILED once in the legislature and that was when republicans had control. Democrats now control the state legislature so the chances of such a ban passing even one vote are slim going on none :)

[Goodchild]

A little more reading and an explanation of why this won't be overturned by an Iowa state senator:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/3/716096/-Marriage-Equality!-In-Iowa!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/3/716181/-Gay-Iowa-Senator-explains-why-Iowa-marriage-wont-be-reversed

[patchy]

I'm rather surprised (and heartened) that progress like this was initiated in "Middle America." I think, and hope, it sends a message that gay marriage isn't just some fringe issue affecting both coasts.

[sohy]

Iowa has a long history of being progressive when it comes to civil rights. I think that we sometimes just assume that states that aren't in the northeast or west coast are backwards.

http://www.oneiowa.org/courts_history.html

From its earliest days, the Iowa judiciary has played a preeminent and indispensable role in protecting the state constitution's guarantees of freedom, equality, and inalienable rights. This tradition of judicial leadership and independence is so essential to the state's history that the Iowa Judicial Branch devotes a section of its web site to the state's early civil rights cases. "Like the courts of today," the Judicial Branch explains, "the early Iowa courts were sometimes called upon to decide cases that involved volatile social or political controversies of the time. . . . These decisions demonstrate legal foresight as well as a deep and abiding respect for the values enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights." This history sheds valuable light on the role of the judiciary in deciding whether state officials may exclude same-sex couples from the protections and responsibilities of marriage.

[Christina]

Some of the most hardcore conservatives that I know support gay marriage, not because they care all that much but because they feel that the Federal government is interfering with state's rights and personal freedoms. Those ones aren't particularly religious, though.

[tjakey]

Still...IOWA? That's actually pretty cool.