Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Marriage Ban

[bush_cheney2004]

This will light a fire under movements to amend state contitutions to ban same gender marriage:

The Iowa Supreme Court this morning upheld a Polk County judge’s 2007 ruling that marriage should not be limited to one man and one woman.

The ruling, viewed nationally and at home as a victory for the gay rights movement and a setback for social conservatives, means Iowa’s 5,800 gay couples can legally marry in Iowa beginning April 24.

There are no residency rules for marriage in Iowa, so the rule would apply to any couple who wanted to travel to Iowa.

- DesMoines Register

[Michael Hardner]

means Iowa’s 5,800 gay couples can legally marry in Iowa beginning April 24.

How do they know exactly how many gay couples live in Iowa ?

[punked]

How do they know exactly how many gay couples live in Iowa ?

Civil Unions I assume

[GostHacked]

This will light a fire under movements to amend state contitutions to ban same gender marriage

Let's hope not.

[punked]

This will light a fire under movements to amend state contitutions to ban same gender marriage:

Democrats run the Senate how do you think they are going to get an amendment to the constitution through? Nope looks like gay marriage in Iowa for at least a little while longer.

Not only that but because this was a decision on equal protection a constitutional amendment might not even stand up the ruling. Awesome I love when Dems get and push for all people to be equal then Republicans try to claw it back but the flood gates are already open.

Edited April 3, 2009 by punked

[Shady]

Civil Unions I assume

Speaking of Civil Unions, what's wrong with them that the law had to be changed? I'm all for gay/lesbian couples afforded the rights and priviledges that heterosexual couples enjoy. But that's what I thought Civil Unions were all about. I support Civil Unions, but I don't support "gay-marriage." It's an oxymoron.

[punked]

Speaking of Civil Unions, what's wrong with them that the law had to be changed? I'm all for gay/lesbian couples afforded the rights and priviledges that heterosexual couples enjoy. But that's what I thought Civil Unions were all about. I support Civil Unions, but I don't support "gay-marriage." It's an oxymoron.

Why don't we give gays marriage and let hetrosexuals have civil unions or trade off every year. If there is nothing wrong with them why don't they trade? In Iowa the law was shoot down under equal protection. That means you treat everyone the same.

[xul]

This will light a fire under movements to amend state contitutions to ban same gender marriage:

Honestly, if it is called as a constitution not an Is**mic Law in some countries, I think it would be better your politicians amend it and put such terms in somewhere more suitable if they still wanted it.

Edited April 3, 2009 by xul

[bush_cheney2004]

....Not only that but because this was a decision on equal protection a constitutional amendment might not even stand up the ruling. Awesome I love when Dems get and push for all people to be equal then Republicans try to claw it back but the flood gates are already open.

This issue has nothing to do with "Democrats".....hell....President Clinton signed DOMA into law. Lots of "Democrats" in California too, which just passed a referendum against such marriage recognition.

[bush_cheney2004]

Honestly, if it is called as a constitution not an Is**mic Law in some countries, I think it would be better your politicians amend it and put such terms in somewhere more suitable if they still wanted it.

I don't really care either way...it's a civil rights issue....they can earn it the hard way just like everybody else.

[punked]

This issue has nothing to do with "Democrats".....hell....President Clinton signed DOMA into law. Lots of "Democrats" in California too, which just passed a referendum against such marriage recognition.

It has a lot to do with Democrats when they control the State house and the State Senate, and when they say they probably wont deal with this during the closing days of this session.

BC2004 I will give a quick lession in civics here

California is a different state then Iowa. This means it has different state procedures. To even make this a ballot issue to a constitutional amendment it has to pass through both houses twice. That means this law if it does not go through during this session, as the Dems say it wont, minimum it might be on the ballot in 2011-2012. So you got two years to cry over it have fun.

[punked]

I don't really care either way...it's a civil rights issue....they can earn it the hard way just like everybody else.

When have old white men ever had to earn their civil rights the hard way? You sound like bigot.

[bush_cheney2004]

It has a lot to do with Democrats when they control the State house and the State Senate, and when they say they probably wont deal with this during the closing days of this session.

Bullpuckey...wait until the election cycle warms up.

...So you got two years to cry over it have fun.

Why would I cry over it? You sound like one of the dolts who thought California was a done deal too.

[bush_cheney2004]

When have old white men ever had to earn their civil rights the hard way? You sound like bigot.

And you sound like an asshole....so what?

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on affirmative action. It bars quota systems in college admissions but affirms the constitutionality of affirmative action programs giving equal access to minorities.

Edited April 4, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[punked]

Bullpuckey...wait until the election cycle warms up.

Why would I cry over it? You sound like one of the dolts who thought California was a done deal too.

Don't worry you guys are trying to hold the line but it wont last forever. Yes a constitutional amendment in Iowa has to go through both houses twice it will take a while for it to become a ballot issue. It might even be the norm by the time it does and people might see the world didn't end because if it. Hold that line best you can. California will fall in 4 years we have nothing but to time to push progressive issues.

Edited April 4, 2009 by punked

[punked]

And you sound like an asshole....so what?

When was that time you had to fight for your civil rights again? When were you treated as less then equal?

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't worry you guys are trying to hold the line but it wont last forever. Yes a constitutional amendment has to go through both houses twice it will take a while for it to become a ballot issue.

What guys? Americans have the right to pursue such an amendment, or oppose it. That's what matters.

[punked]

What guys? Americans have the right to pursue such an amendment, or oppose it. That's what matters.

Conservatives. That is right you have that right but in Iowa such an amendment has to go through the democratic house and Senate twice, I bet they don't touch till after this session. Marriages for all in Iowa for a little while at least.

[bush_cheney2004]

Conservatives. That is right you have that right but in Iowa such an amendment has to go through the democratic house and Senate twice, I bet they don't touch till after this session. Marriages for all in Iowa for a little while at least.

....just like in California. Those "Conservatives" will include many Democrats as well, starting with Baptists.

[punked]

....just like in California. Those "Conservatives" will include many Democrats as well, starting with Baptists.

Don't worry you are holding a line which is changing constantly. California will have gay marriages in it's future just like many states and the world wont end becuase of it.

[bush_cheney2004]

When were you treated as less then equal?

When I had to drink from "black" water fountains in Florida back in the late 1950's.

[punked]

When I had to drink from "black" water fountains in Florida back in the late 1950's.

and that was right becuase you didn't "fight enough" for it right?

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't worry you are holding a line which is changing constantly. California will have gay marriages in it's future just like many states and the world wont end becuase of it.

I am not holding any line....why do insist that is the case? Is that Mr. Asshole typing?

[bush_cheney2004]

and that was right becuase you didn't "fight enough" for it right?

It was the law....until the law was changed. Pretty simple.

[punked]

It was the law....until the law was changed. Pretty simple.

Making it right.