Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

"All justices concur"

In a unanimous decision on Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down the 'Defense of Marriage Act' on the grounds of equal protection of the law.

Woo Hoo

Iowa is the first midwestern state to do so. It cannot be challenged by referendum before 2011 and isn't likely even then (Dems control the governorship and both houses of the Legislature). There is no initiative process in Iowa, so it cannot be challenged that way.

In about two weeks, civil marriage, not civil union will be legal.

From the decision:
Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person�s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution.

The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the
same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.

The entire opinion is here:http://www.iowapolitics.com/1009/large/090403varnumruling.pdf

It's interesting to follow the legal arguments, point by point as the Court discounts each one.

It would be even better if the Defense of Marriage Act had never been passed and the public had supported same-sex marriage from the start. Left to themselves, I think most Iowans, like a lot of Midwesterners, are tolerant and believe in leaving other people alone. (It's the extremists who get all riled up.) I say that because when I was a kid a lesbian trio lived openly in our small town of 1,200. (Two were lovers and one was just a friend, I guess.) It's good to remember that it was an activist court that struck down Brown vs Board of Education and today few would object to that decision.

In the last election there was some talk about there being a 'real' America that was not big city or on one of the coasts. It's going to be a little harder now for those making that claim. Those using that definition of 'real' would be hard-pressed to find a state more 'real' than Iowa.

Vermont and New York are also close to achieving the same human rights victory. I hope the Iowa decision helps it carry in those states. With three states in row moving, it could stimulate a national tsunami.

[wesharris]

This is good. For more reasons than not. A persons choice is their choice, if it doesn't effect others in a bad light.
_+_
Wes

[Ya-ta Boy]

"That Iowa's Supreme Court�s upheld the decision solely on the basis of the equal protection clause of the Constitution, rather than due process, is seen as a major victory for the gay community as well as it creates a more expansive legal foundation for gay marriage. �The case is an important historic decision for Iowa, but it�s a significant milestone for the rest of country as well,� Susan Sommer, Senior Counsel for Lambda Legal, the official counsel for the plaintiffs in the Iowa case, told The Daily Beast. �It�s a decision from the heartlands and a decision from the heart. This isn�t just a coastal issue. Marriage equality is important from coast to coast, and everywhere in between."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/big-fat-story/2009-04-04/heartland-shocker/

"The decision today by the Iowa Supreme Court that ruled a ban on same-sex marriage in the Hawkeye State unconstitutional is certain to have an impact on the state's critical Republican presidential caucuses in 2012...

And, with the Republican caucus typically dominated by social conservatives, you can imagine the long-term impact today's ruling could have on the presidential jockeying.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/iowa-same-sex-marriage-and-the.html?wprss=thefix

This will make it harder for a socially moderate Republican candidate to win in Iowa. Winning the first in the nation vote gives a week of free publicity to anyone who does win--not a decisive advantage, but an advantage.

[harlowethrombey]

Well I guess I cant still keep saying I.O.W.A. (Idiots Out Wandering Around).

It might be a sign of the times when Iowa is leading the progressive charge in America.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[canuckistan]

I'm with Clint, and Iowa, on this one:

"Everyone leaves everyone else alone."

[ChopChaeJoe]

I'm not even totally in favor of hetero marriage. Seven year itch and all that. The whole thing smacks of religion. We should replace the whole idea with legally binding contracts.

[Fox]

[bacasper]

[Chris2007]

[Kuros]

[Ya-ta Boy]

Nanci Griffith has a new song worth hearing about Richard and Mildred Loving. It's terrific. If you don't know who they were (they've both passed on now), read the article before listening to the song. Unless your heart is filled with peanut butter, you'll be moved.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howie-klein/nanci-griffith-has-a-new_b_183743.html

I especially like one of the posters: Marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual privilege.

I agree with Kuros. The state does have a legitimate interest in marriage. One example is minimum age restrictions. Kuros mentions children. I would add property. When couples are together they collect property and in many/most cases the state is inevitably drawn in in the division of that property when marriages fall apart.

[Ya-ta Boy]

Here's another aspect of the story that isn't obvious at first glance:

The Road to Gays in the Military Runs through Iowa

Here's how the road to--and out of--"don't ask, don't tell" runs through Iowa. Powell says that the unique nature of the military, and its role in defending America's national security, mean it can trample rights that civilian institutions never could. This is the doctrine known as "judicial deference" to the military, and there are times when it is proper for the courts to defer to military judgment. But "judicial deference" does not give the military a blank check to do whatever it wants. Instead, the courts must determine if a given action has a "rational relationship" to a "compelling governmental interest," and can only defer if they decide it does. So far, federal courts have indeed determined that banning open gays from service is a compelling governmental interest, even though no research has ever shown any detriment whatsoever to the military by openly gay service. Wisely, a court's interpretation of the meaning of "rational" and "compelling" evolves as the culture evolves, allowing the courts to stay in sync with an ever-changing reality.

Enter Iowa...

Yet the same determination by federal courts in upholding the ban on gay troops rested on a cultural debate where Iowa figured prominently. One colonel, for instance, said in 1993 that he didn't think gays would "ever be openly accepted in the military" by "corn-fed guys from Iowa." In fact, the whole apparatus of anti-gay discrimination in the military is built on the story-line--never proven--that 18-year-olds from Iowa and Kansas are homophobes who can't tolerate serving with gays. Former Senator John Warner said most recruits are "coming out of what are usually small towns, and high school environments" where they are taught by parents and in Sunday School that homosexuality is wrong. "In their own simple way of thinking it through," he said of these idealized small-town men, "they may just be right." Warner used this romantic vision of small-town America, presumably free of the messy burdens of homosexuality, to endorse the intolerance he claimed not to have.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathaniel-frank/the-road-to-gays-in-the-m_b_183492.html

[Cheonmunka]

To me, someone who has done it for ten years, marriage ain't such a bad institution. It's a stable and cool thing.
As for the fellahs who want to marry each other, good. They'll be in a stable relationship, get their finances together, and all the other trappings.
Shame about not being able to biologically have kids but.

People are people; there are bad women out there who shouldn't be mothers. So, if you're thinking, how a man can replace a mother, well, it depends on the man and the woman he is replacing doesn't it?

[Fox]