Posted                      

quote:

---

DES MOINES, Iowa -- The Iowa Supreme Court announced its ruling in a landmark same-sex marriage case Friday morning.

The justices ruled unanimously in favor of six same-sex couples who sought to get marriage licenses, but were denied.

The 69 page ruling means same-sex couples in Iowa can now get married under state law. The ruling said that the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.

Same-sex couples will be allowed to get married under Iowa law in 21 days.

<snip>

Advocates against same-sex marriage have said they would likely not appeal a ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, if they lose the case. A group gathered outside the court to pray as the ruling was announced.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The forces arrayed against this are very strong.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The forces arrayed against this are very strong.

---

The forces of evil always are.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Cro, of friend of many years, this should have been started in Dead Horses, I think.

(Of course I'm pleased as punch about it anyway...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I wouldn't bar an amendment to the state constitution just yet. The forces arrayed against this are very strong.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
[ [QUOTE]Originally posted by mousethief:
[I'm not saying that's a good thing. I think state and religious marriage should be divorced and am in favor of civil marriage between any two consenting adults.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
[ [QUOTE]Originally posted by mousethief:
[I'm not saying that's a good thing. I think state and religious marriage should be divorced and am in favor of civil marriage between any two consenting adults.

---

If this, Iowa, is reasoned from equality of person, how can there be a limit to number of these persons to any one marriage?

IIRC, it was an actual law passed to limit number to two some time ago because of and to stop the Mormon practice.

How does the law stand at the moment with regard to multiply wives of Muslims when becoming US citizens? Or what would happen if, say, a Tibetan woman with two or more husbands arrived with them in the US?


Myrrh

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
If this, Iowa, is reasoned from equality of person, how can there be a limit to number of these persons to any one marriage?

IIRC, it was an actual law passed to limit number to two some time ago because of and to stop the Mormon practice.

How does the law stand at the moment with regard to multiply wives of Muslims when becoming US citizens? Or what would happen if, say, a Tibetan woman with two or more husbands arrived with them in the US?

Myrrh

---

quote:

---

Thanks to today’s decision, Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing all of our citizens’ equal rights.

The court has ruled today that when two Iowans promise to share their lives together, state law will respect that commitment, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.

When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today’s events will be why it took us so long. It is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency.

Today, the Iowa Supreme Court has reaffirmed those Iowa values by ruling that gay and lesbian Iowans have all the same rights and responsibilities of citizenship as any other Iowan.

Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.

In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue.

In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated "separate but equal" schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.

In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.

In 1869, Iowa became the first state in the union to admit women to the practice of law.

In the case of recognizing loving relationships between two adults, the Iowa Supreme Court is once again taking a leadership position on civil rights.

Today, we congratulate the thousands of Iowans who now can express their love for each other and have it recognized by our laws.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
But, if Iowa in its decision to limit the idea of marriage as a contract between equals, it has to take into account the possibility that some might view the limitation of number as inequality.

Myrrh

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Thanks. But, re "possibility of": if it hasn't taken this into account then it will leave open for someone to bring this to its attention and I can't see how they could argue against it, but if it has considered it already in ruling as they've done 'by equality' then it won't be surprised if some Mormon turns up demanding the contract of marriage as he knows it to be recognised.

Myrrh

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

originally posted by Bullfrog

I personally doubt that any one person can balance, effectively, so many different people's needs within an environment of real intimacy.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The forces arrayed against this are very strong.

---

The forces of evil always are.

---

Doubtless.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The forces arrayed against this are very strong.

---

The forces of evil always are.

---

Doubtless.

---

Could the opponents conceivably be acting in 'good conscience' or 'by their best lights' and if so, are they truly 'evil'?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I've got a lengthier post on the franchise vs. structure question as it relates to plural marriage in another thread that I invite you to peruse if my opinion of this topic truly interests you.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 ("The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ."). The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, "Marriage is a civil contract": and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code §595A.1. Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
One wonders whether they have also made provision for same-sex divorce.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:

quote:

---

originally posted by Bullfrog

I personally doubt that any one person can balance, effectively, so many different people's needs within an environment of real intimacy.

---

That's perfectly true but you don't have to demonstrate that you can meet one person's need within an evironment of real intimacy before you are allowed to be married. Your potential spouse might require it but the state doesn't !

---

If it did, marriage would be an extremely rare event...

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
One wonders whether they have also made provision for same-sex divorce.

---

Given that the ruling seems to be allow Canadian-style same-sex marriages instead of British-style civil unions, all portions of existing family law are now available to same-sex couples.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
One wonders whether they have also made provision for same-sex divorce.

---

But of course, spring is the season of marriage and the season of divorce.


--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that the ruling seems to be allow Canadian-style same-sex marriages instead of British-style civil unions, all portions of existing family law are now available to same-sex couples.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

U.S. civil law structures marriage as an exclusive partnership. One of its chief functions is that it allows you to easily designate your next-of-kin, someone who can make decisions on your behalf should you be unexpectedly incapacitated or killed. The problems with having two such individuals, or worse a committee, should be readily apparent. I'm also increasingly skeptical of 'slippery slope' arguments in this context since they're usually advanced in a bad-faith attempt to change the subject.

---

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

quote:

---

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

So I'm to assume that people who have "no" religion (=at least 16% of the population at the last census) shouldn't be allowed to marry?

---

quote:

---

Or you are saying that governments should regulate the secular arrangements related to property, health care, designation of next-of-kin for legal purposes, etc.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macx:
Why would people who have no religion wish to marry? Wouldn't you just live with your partner and let that be that? Isn't it kind of a lie to be all "I'm not religious" and then turn around, dress up and ask a religious offical to perform a religious ceremony? Guess hypocrisy isn't limited to Christians.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macx:
I think there is some legitimacy to the question. Chiefly, it is my political goal to get the government out of marriage altogether. It is clearly a violation of 1A / Church and State for the government to say anything one way or the other. It is just as wrong for gay marriage to be barred as it is for it to be allowed. . . the government should be mute on the topic.

I think this is a great time for the religious left and the religious right to come together and do something that should have been done a long time ago: kick gov't. out of marriage If some denominations want to allow gay marriage, polygamy, or moonbat worship, that should be up to them & likewise the denominations that oppose such. Any other solution is an intrusion by the gov't. where it doesn't belong. It constitutes the government saying "this religion is allowed, this other religion isn't" and that smells an awful lot like a violation of that first clause in the following statement

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

I understand the argument from a civil law perspective, however, that doesn't provide a reason for the government to intrude on the religious topic of marriage. Just because some bad laws were passed does not justify passing more bad laws. That is bad logic.

---

quote:

---

595.1A Contract - Marriage is a civil contract, requiring the consent of the parties capable of entering into other contracts, except as herein otherwise declared.

---

quote:

---

595.2 Gender - age
1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.

2. Additionally, a marriage between a male and a female is valid only if each is eighteen years of age or older. However, if either or both of the parties have not attained that age, the marriage may be valid under the circumstances prescribed in this section.

3. If either party to a marriage falsely represents the party's self to be eighteen years of age or older at or before the time the marriage is solemnized, the marriage is valid unless the person who falsely represented their age chooses to void the marriage by making their true age known and verified by a birth certificate or other legal evidence of age in an annulment proceeding initiated at any time before the person reaches their eighteenth birthday. A child born of a marriage voided under this subsection is legitimate.

4. A marriage license may be issued to a male and a female either or both of whom are sixteen or seventeen years of age if both of the following apply:
a. The parents of the underage party or parties certify in writing that they consent to the marriage. If one of the parents of any underage party to a proposed marriage is dead or incompetent the certificate may be executed by the other parent, if both parents are dead or incompetent the guardian of the underage party may execute the certificate, and if the parents are divorced the parent having legal custody may execute the certificate; and
b. The certificate of consent of the parents, parent, or guardian is approved by a judge of the district court or, if both parents of any underage party to a proposed marriage are dead, incompetent, or cannot be located and the party has no guardian, the proposed marriage is approved by a judge of the district court. A judge shall grant approval under this subsection only if the judge finds the underage party or parties capable of assuming the responsibilities of marriage and that the marriage will serve the best interest of the underage party or parties. Pregnancy alone does not establish that the proposed marriage is in the best interest of the underage party or parties, however, if pregnancy is involved the court records which pertain to the fact that the female is pregnant shall be sealed and available only to the parties to the marriage or proposed marriage or to any interested party securing an order of the court.

5. If a parent or guardian withholds consent, the judge upon application of a party to a proposed marriage shall determine if the consent has been unreasonably withheld. If the judge so finds, the judge shall proceed to review the application under subsection 4, paragraph "b".

---

quote:

---

595.2 License - Previous to the solemnization of any marriage, a license for that purpose must be obtained from the county registrar. The license must not be granted in any case:
1. Where either party is under the age necessary to render the marriage valid.
2. Where either party is under eighteen years of age, unless the marriage is approved by a judge of the district court as provided by section 595.2.
3. Where either party is disqualified from making any civil contract.
4. Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.
5. Where either party is a ward under a guardianship and the court has made a finding that the ward lacks the capacity to contract a valid marriage.

---

quote:

---

595.10 Who may solemnize.
Marriages may be solemnized by:
1. A judge of the supreme court, court of appeals, or district court, including a district associate judge, associate juvenile judge, or a judicial magistrate, and including a senior judge as defined in section 602.9202, subsection 3.
2. A person ordained or designated as a leader of the person's religious faith.

---

quote:

---

595.11 Nonstatutory solemnization - forfeiture.
Marriages solemnized, with the consent of parties, in any manner other than that prescribed in this chapter, are valid; but the parties, and all persons aiding or abetting them, shall pay to the treasurer of state for deposit in the general fund of the state the sum of fifty dollars each; but this shall not apply to the person conducting the marriage ceremony, if within fifteen days after the ceremony is conducted, the person makes the required return to the county registrar.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

On reflection, it's not that surprising that the law is moving towards the view that it's the legal recognition side that gets to be called marriage, regardless of what the religious side thinks of the relationship. As the Iowa decision demonstrates rather eloquently, the law can really only deal with one side of the equation.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I'd venture to say that when the GLBT community tries to aquire the term "marriage" for their civil unions it has more to do with anger and resentment toward strait &/or Christian Right people than any real desire for the term.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:

quote:

---

I'd venture to say that when the GLBT community tries to acquire the term "marriage" for their civil unions it has more to do with anger and resentment toward strait &/or Christian Right people than any real desire for the term.

---

No, I think most probably it's simply the desire to, well, get married.

---

Don't be ridiculous, Nicole! Every action taken by every homosexual, from the trivial to the life-altering, is ranked against one, and only one, criterion: How will this make the Christian Right feel? Gay people have no inherent desires or dreams of their own beyond doing whatever Christian Conservatives don't want them to do. It's all about the Christian Right. It's always about them!

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posted                       

quote:

---

Gay people have no inherent desires or dreams of their own beyond doing whatever Christian Conservatives don't want them to do.

---

quote:

---

No, I think most probably it's simply the desire to, well, get married.

---

quote:

---

Basically, you object to the idea of GLBT people being people, and don't want them to sign legal contracts.

---

quote:

---

The state, fortunately, doesn't have the luxury of disliking some of its citizens.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Appropriating a tradition for the purpose of dilluting and eventually erradicating what came before it

---

Of course it's all about appropriating a Christian tradition, because we know that there was no marriage in any culture or religion prior to the advent of Christianity, and there isn't any marriage in any non-Christian culture now.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!