Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

[garbon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage

The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday finding that the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making Iowa the third state where marriage is legal.

In its decision, the court upheld a 2007 district court judge's ruling that the law violates the state constitution. It strikes the language from Iowa code limiting marriage to only between a man a woman.

"The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.

The ruling set off celebration among the state's gay-marriage proponents.

"Iowa is about justice, and that's what happened here today," said Laura Fefchak, who was hosting a verdict party in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale with partner of 13 years, Nancy Robinson.

Robinson added: "To tell the truth, I didn't think I'd see this day."

Des Moines attorney Dennis Johnson, who argued on behalf of the gay and lesbian couples, said "this is a great day for civil rights in Iowa."

"We have all of you courageous plaintiffs to thank: Go get married, live happily ever after, live the American dream," he said.

Court rules dictate that the decision will take about 21 days to be considered final, and a request for a rehearing could be filed within that period. That means it will be at least several weeks before gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses.

But Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said the county attorney's office will not ask for a rehearing, meaning the court's decision should take effect after that three-week period.

"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said. "This is not a personal thing. We have an obligation to the law to defend the recorder, and that's what we do."

The case has been working its way through Iowa's court system since 2005 when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. Some of their children are also listed as plaintiffs.

The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.

The state Supreme Court's ruling upheld an August 2007 decision by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson, who found that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.

The Polk County attorney's office, arguing on behalf of Brien, claimed that Hanson's ruling violates the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.

Lambda Legal scheduled a news conference for early Friday to comment on the ruling. A request for comment from the Polk County attorney's office wasn't immediately returned.

Around the nation, only Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed gay marriage before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows domestic partnerships.

New Jersey and New Hampshire also offer civil unions, which provide many of the same rights that come with marriage. New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and legislators there and in New Jersey are weighing whether to offer marriage. A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont has cleared the Legislature but may be vetoed by the governor.

Richard Socarides, an attorney and former senior adviser on gay rights to President Clinton, said the ruling carries extra significance coming from Iowa.

"It's a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage. And it shows that despite attempts stop gay marriage through right wing ballot initiatives, like in California, the courts will continue to support the case for equal rights for gays," he said.

The ruling in Iowa's same-sex marriage case came more quickly than many observers had anticipated, with some speculating after oral arguments that it could take a year or more for a decision.

Iowa? Oh California, why hast thou forsaken me?

[Valmy]

Iowa?!

Wow I never thought I would see the day.  I am so proud of my Great-great-Grandfather's homestate. 

[Caliga]

Given that Iowa is rather conservative (though it did vote for Obama) I expect a rather vicious reaction from a large portion of the state's voters.

[Valmy]

Given that Iowa is rather conservative (though it did vote for Obama) I expect a rather vicious reaction from a large portion of the state's voters.

They have nothing to worry about.  The head bigot in charge will veto the gay marriage bill and the house has just enough bigot support to uphold the veto.

[Sheilbh]

Given that Iowa is rather conservative (though it did vote for Obama) I expect a rather vicious reaction from a large portion of the state's voters.

They have nothing to worry about.  The head bigot in charge will veto the gay marriage bill and the house has just enough bigot support to uphold the veto.

Apparently it'll take a while to change the constitution.  The Iowa House and Senate have to vote for a change in two consecutive sittings and it then has to be approved by a referendum.  The earliest is 2012.  I think, and hope, that with 3 years of gays getting married and the world not collasping, other people's marriages not meaning less and so on, that it may not get through.

[Caliga]

They have nothing to worry about.  The head bigot in charge will veto the gay marriage bill and the house has just enough bigot support to uphold the veto.

It sounds like you're describing the situation in Vermont right now, rather than Iowa.

[Faeelin]

I am sick of people using courts to adjudicate political and economic rights.

[Valmy]

It sounds like you're describing the situation in Vermont right now, rather than Iowa.

Ooops you are correct.

Ok well in that case the battle in Iowa is just starting.  Good luck to all right thinking Iowans to battling back the backlash.

[Valmy]

I am sick of people using courts to adjudicate political and economic rights.

Yeah.  That cat escaped its bag a long time ago though.

[Faeelin]

I am sick of people using courts to adjudicate political and economic rights.

Yeah.  That cat escaped its bag a long time ago though.

I was joking.

[Valmy]

I was joking.

[Faeelin]

Anyway, it will get repealed by referendum because the religious groups of America have made it clear they'd rather spend hundreds of millions of dollars to stop people from being happy rather than, you know, feed the hungry.

[Neil]

Anyway, it will get repealed by referendum because the religious groups of America have made it clear they'd rather spend hundreds of millions of dollars to stop people from being happy rather than, you know, feed the hungry.

As well they should.  I'd spend huge amounts of money to destroy my enemies too.

[Valmy]

Anyway, it will get repealed by referendum because the religious groups of America have made it clear they'd rather spend hundreds of millions of dollars to stop people from being happy rather than, you know, feed the hungry.

Hate better generates the type of outrage that fuels politics in the US better than love.

[Valmy]

As well they should.  I'd spend huge amounts of money to destroy my enemies too.

Well yes but you also consider the poor your enemies.