Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Alyallen]

Judge: Same-sex couples can wed in Iowa
By DAVID PITT, Associated Press Writer

DES MOINES, Iowa - A county judge struck down Iowa's decade-old gay marriage ban as unconstitutional Thursday and ordered local officials to process marriage licenses for six gay couples.

Gay couples from anywhere in Iowa could apply for a marriage license from Polk County under Judge Robert Hanson's ruling.

Less than two hours after word of the ruling was publicized, two Des Moines men applied for a license, the first time the county had accepted a same-sex application. The approval process takes three days.

Gary Allen Seronko, 51, was listed as the groom on the form and David Curtis Rethmeier, 29, the bride.

"I started to cry because we so badly want to be able to be protected if something happens to one of us," Rethmeier said.

Deputy Recorder Trish Umthun said she took five calls from gay couples after the judge filed his ruling Thursday afternoon and expected a rush of applications Friday.

County attorney John Sarcone said the county will appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court and immediately sought a stay from Hanson that would prevent gay couples from seeking a marriage license until the appeal is resolved. The Supreme Court could refer the case to the Iowa Court of Appeals, consider the case itself or decide not to hear it.

A hearing is likely to be held on the stay motion next week, said Camilla Taylor, an attorney with Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization.

House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, said the ruling illustrates the need for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

"I can't believe this is happening in Iowa," he said. "I guarantee you there will be a vote on this issue come January," when the Legislature convenes.

Massachusetts is the only state where gay marriage is legal, though nine other states have approved spousal rights in some form for same-sex couples. Nearly all states have defined marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, and 27 states have such wording in their constitutions, according the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Dennis Johnson, the lawyer for the six gay couples who sued in 2005 after they were denied marriage licenses, had 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 rulings regarding civil rights.

Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant Polk County attorney, argued that the issue is not for a judge to decide.

Hanson ruled that 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 person comprising such a couple are of the same sex," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070831/ap_on_re_us/same_sex_marriage

[Alias]

More fuel to the fire for the religious right.

[thepeel]

The religious right can suck it (and many are). If America is the Land of the free, and home of the brave, then they have two choices:

1) be brave enough to let people be free or
2) stop describing yourself as such

Homosexuals are human and deserving of the same rights, responsibilities and benefits of anybody else. This is our peaceful, tolerant future. The Christians will have to be dragged kicking and screaming through modernity. Congratulations to Iowa. My condolences to the Democrats as the loony right just got a big issue.

[Ya-ta Boy]

While I fully support the right of any two people to form a legally binding union that protects their property rights to the same extent that marriage does for heterosexual couples, I am not comfortable with courts setting social policy. If one small group of judges can interpret the law in one way, then a swing of a relatively small number of people can change the law in another direction.

In my opinion, the correct way is to build political coalitions and a favorable public consensus. When that happens, the legislatures in the various states can change the law to reflect the views of the people.

[Hater Depot]

I think ya-ta is right. Turning to the courts at every opportunity has been bad for several movements. Abortion-rights activists have spent all their time on lawyering while opponents built actual networks and organizations.

[Alyallen]

Personally, I think it's been about time that the federal government stepped in and stated what their position is. My logic (and it may be very faulty) is that a man and a woman can go to the local courthouse and get a justice of the peace and get married. No religion involved. Why can't gays do the same? The federal government has to get involved if only because in the case of a gay American and a gay person from another country wanting to get married, they are denied the opportunity for the foreign member of the couple to gain citizenship. That right is allowed for a straight couple in that same predicament, so I think it does infringe on the rights of Americans. Religion should have nothing to do with it. Sure people will support or not support it based on their religion but marriage is not a "religion only" zone....

I've had this view but never figured out why it isn't this simple...I suppose that nothing that involves politics and religion can really be so simple....

[Nowhere Man]

I agree with Alyallen.

Though I suppose "All men were created equal" was the DoI and not the Constitution, I see both as fundamentally American.

Forming coalitions is good when judges don't acknowledge prejudice, but I'm also fine with judges judging against coalitions, provided they're making judgements based on fundamental American values.

I have yet to see a judge, especially in the high courts, who happens to make law a judgement absent of a coalition.

Ya-ta, what you're saying saying suggests slavery would be ok if we all voted for it. Can we vote for something unconstitutional? Yes, i suppose, with an amendment. Does gay marriage deserve an amendment?

I have my answer.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[huffdaddy]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Tony_Balony]

Another Iowa judge turned the marriages off.

[Alyallen]

Tony is correct....

Iowa gay marriage applications halted

By DAVID PITT, Associated Press Writer Fri Aug 31, 8:07 PM ET

DES MOINES, Iowa - Same-sex marriage was legal here for less than 24 hours before the county won a stay of a judge's order on Friday, a tiny window of opportunity that allowed two men to make history but left dozens of other couples disappointed after a frantic rush to the altar.

At 2 p.m. Thursday, Judge Robert Hanson ordered Polk County officials to accept marriage license requests from same-sex couples, but he granted the stay at about 12:30 p.m. Friday. By then 27 same-sex couples had filed applications, but only Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan of Ames had made it official by getting married and returning the signed license to the courthouse in time.

In the front yard of the Rev. Mark Stringer, pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Des Moines, they become the only same-sex couple wed in the U.S. outside of Massachusetts, where some 8,000 such couples have tied the knot.

Stringer concluded the ceremony by saying, "This is a legal document and you are married." The men then kissed and hugged.

"This is it. We're married. I love you," Fritz told McQuillan after the ceremony.

No more same-sex weddings will be recognized, and no more applications will be accepted, pending Polk County's appeal of Hanson's ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court, County Attorney John Sarcone said.

Hanson's order had applied only to the county, but because any Iowa couple could apply for a license, people from across the state rushed to Des Moines, only to see fluorescent green signs explaining the stay and adding, "Sorry for the inconvenience."

Lytishya Borglum and partner, Danielle Borglum, drove 2 1/2 hours from Cedar Falls, along with their 13-month-old daughter, Berlyn. They planned to apply in Polk County and told their pastor in Cedar Falls to be ready to marry them when they returned.

"(We) plan to take the application home and pray that things change. Even though it is a setback, it is a step in the right direction," Lytishya Borglum said.

She said they would like to get legal status to gain more rights but added, "As far as we're concerned, our marriage is between us and God. We've been married for three years � if you ask us."

Accepting marriage licenses from same-sex couples has been illegal under a 1998 state law that permitted only a man and a woman to marry.

Hanson, ruling in a case filed by six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in 2005, declared the law unconstitutional Thursday. He ruled that 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."

The marriage license approval process normally takes three business days, but Fritz and McQuillan took advantage of a loophole that allows couples to skip the waiting period if they pay $5 and get a judge to sign a waiver.

Other couples, even those who got an early start Friday, were out of luck. Katy Farlow and Larissa Boeck, students at Iowa State University, said they got to the county recorder's office at 5 a.m., then sat in lawn chairs and ate snacks until the office opened at 7:30 a.m. They got their application in but didn't get their license.

"This might be our only chance," Farlow said. "We already knew we were spending the rest of our lives together."

Hanson granted the stay after Sarcone filed a motion saying his ruling should be put on hold because lifting the ban was far reaching and would likely be overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court.

Hanson wrote that Sarcone's arguments "do indeed constitute good cause for the issuance of the requested stay."

Plaintiff's attorney Dennis Johnson had argued that the county's appeal probably would not succeed and disputed its contention that a reversal would throw any licenses issued into legal doubt.

He said a marriage license is valid until one or both of the spouses seek to have it dissolved or one dies, "regardless of changes in the law that may occur after the couple marries."

The Iowa Supreme Court can refer the case to the Iowa Court of Appeals, consider the matter itself or decide not to hear the case. The flurry of activity in the courts prompted a quick response from some lawmakers. House Republican leader Christopher Rants called on Democrats, who hold a majority of seats in the Legislature, to respond.

"The Democrats should call a special session immediately to take up such issues and to introduce a marriage amendment for Iowa's constitution," he said in a statement. "House Democrats need to start leading or get out of the way."

Language defining marriage as being between a man and a woman has been written into the constitutions of 27 states, according the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most other states have laws to the same effect; Iowa's was approved overwhelmingly by the Legislature in 1998.

Gov. Chet Culver on Thursday issued a statement stating his opposition to gay marriage and said he would wait for the court process to play out before considering any push for legislative action.

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

Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, and nine other states have approved spousal rights in some form for same-sex couples.

___

Associated Press writers Henry C. Jackson, Amy Lorentzen and Nafeesa Syeed contributed to this report.

http://tinyurl.com/35cg28

[Alyallen]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Alyallen]