Terri Nenendorf, right, and LaDonna Kyle, kiss outside the Judicial Building in Des Moines, Iowa, after the Iowa Supreme Court calls ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. (Photo by Rodney White / Des Moines Register / via AP)
by Mark Silva
The fight for the rights of gays and lesbians to tie the knot has gone to the heartland, and gay rights have won the day.
Iowa today became the first Midwestern state to approve same-sex marriages, with a unanimous Iowa Supreme Court ruling that a 1998 law restricting marriage to a man and a woman in the Hawkeye State is unconstitutional.
The court says Iowa could conduct same-sex marriages as soon as 21 days from now.
It becomes just the third state in the nation, along with Massachusetts and Connecticut, to legalize gay marriage.
"We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law," the Iowa justices wrote in their opinion. "If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded.
""The concept of equal protection is deeply rooted in our national and state history, but that history reveals this concept is often expressed far more easily than it is practiced.''
Iowa has plowed this ground before: Its court struck down slavery (in 1839) and banned racial segegration (in 1868 and 1873), and it became the first state to allow a woman to practice law (in 1869.)
"Today,'' said Kate Varnum, introducing her fiancée, Trish, at a hotel in Des Moines today, "I am proud to be a lifelong Iowan."
Others weren't so happy.
""The decision made by the Iowa Supreme Court today to allow gay marriage in Iowa is disappointing on many levels," State Sen. Paul McKinley, the Republican leader. "I believe marriage should only be between one man and one woman and I am confident the majority of Iowans want traditional marriage to be legally recognized in this state."
He called on the Iowa legislature to approve a constitutional amendment "that protects traditional marriage, keeps it as a sacred bond only between one man and one woman and gives every Iowan a chance to have their say through a vote of the people."
While only two states, Connecticut and Massachusetts, currently allow same-sex marriages, several others on the East coast allow civil unions, lawmakers in Vermont are considering gay marriage. California permitted it until November's election, when residents banned it with a voter initiative on the ballot.
Marriage, the Iowa court said, is a "civil contract.''
"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," the justices wrote.
The Associated Press contributed.
Comments
Iowa Supreme Court said gay-YES!
See the actual video.
video
Posted by: Alishia | April 3, 2009 2:55 PM
It is discrimination to deny the basic right to marry the adult partner of their choice to homosexuals, Those who would deny that right are no better than any other bigot. They are no better than those who fought against full civil rights for african americans. They are no better than those who fought against women's sufferage. Their brand of discriminationm is just as odious and just as evil.
Today is a good day. Thank you Iowa. Freedom continues it's long march through American history, defeating it's enemies, intolerance, discrimination, and hate.
Posted by: Liz | April 3, 2009 3:49 PM
A question: In a same-sex marriage, would one be allowed to marry family members? If not, why not? We know why relatives are not allowed to marry in hetro-sexual marriage.
.
As we slide down the slope, here come the polygamists.
Posted by: Terry | April 3, 2009 7:41 PM
Yuck. Gross.
Posted by: judyj | April 3, 2009 8:40 PM
Judyj,
.
Opens up a whole new can of yukky worms doesn't it?
Posted by: Terry | April 3, 2009 10:36 PM
Very good point Terry. If this is permissible, then logically to follow a 30 yr old man should be able to marry his 27 yr old sister. This is a war being waged by homosexuals on our way of life.
Posted by: Jim | April 3, 2009 11:17 PM
Judyj, Terry and Jim are examples of the biogotry I speak of. Their views are as repulsive and loathesome as those of the the most extreme Klan member. Thankfully they are on the losing side of history. Day by day the power of their hate filled ignorance weakens in this nation. Every day more people see them for what they are, and understand that they are in direct opposition to the liberty and equality this nation stands for. To put it in words of their level, They are yucky, and everyone is satrting to see it. They are losing the fight to impose their will on all Americans, and that, my friends, is truly a beautiful thing.
And no, Terry, Same sex marriage is utterly unrelated to marrying a relative. I see your bigotry is based at least in part in ignorance and a lack of logic.
Posted by: Liz | April 4, 2009 10:22 AM
Jim,
.
You missed the sentence "We know why relatives are not allowed to marry in hetro-sexual marriage." Maybe I assumed you knew why a brother can't marry his sister. Then again, you might not have studied genetics during your 13 years of free gov't education.
Posted by: Terry | April 4, 2009 10:38 AM
There are two types of Marriage.
Civil: The state gives you a license to marry. Think getting married at the court house.
Religious: A sacramental marriage where a state license is required by most religious institutions (but not polygamists for sure, and probably not others)
Most wishing to deny civil marriage to same-sex partners wish to want to impose their view of Religious marriage (or personal distaste) on those that do not share their beliefs. I can’t see this as anymore than denying of rights, freedoms and pursuits of happiness. This doesn’t seem like the freedom of choice in the America that I believe-in and love.
As the Iowa Supreme Court Decision mentioned, there are religious congregations and beliefs that permit and even encourage religious commitment between same-sex partners. Want to know more? Find the decision on the internet, and read it.
And what is this bit about ‘activist judges’ imposing agendas; a term used by politicians and commentators? Have they read the US constitution, or the constitutions of the various states? It’s the job of superior courts to interpret constitutions and laws made by legislatures, even those out-side of political popularity; to assure that rights are not denied.
Miscreation and marriage laws between races were once common in the US. Think in Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa too. These laws were overturned in the US by ‘activist judges’. A law that is popular does not make it a free America.
It is most abhorrent that many states have modified their constitutions to deny to same-sex or to others rights based on Religious beliefs of a (small) majority.
Posted by: Dennis | April 4, 2009 11:24 AM
Only a clueless dittohead like Terry could confuse homosexuality with incest.
How does gay marriage infringe on the sanctimony of heterosexual marriage?
Anybody?
Posted by: Bubba ✔ | April 4, 2009 12:24 PM
Bubba,
.
If you can't provide an answer, just mock the question.
.
The answer to YOUR question is gay marriage does not infringe on the sanctimony of heterosexual marriage. But neither would a polygamist marriage. Is the left going to get behind the polygamy movement next?
Posted by: Terry | April 4, 2009 5:30 PM
Actually the IL constitution would allow me to marry any of my male first cousins who are (like me) over 50 years old.
Posted by: Cheryl | April 4, 2009 7:43 PM
Cheryl,
.
Thanks for making my point about why according to gay marriage logic, two relatives of the same-sex could get married. Maybe Jim and Bubba might get the clue.
Posted by: Terry | April 5, 2009 8:53 AM
Terry,
We don't have to go any further than reading any of your posts on any given day to know why brothers and sisters shouldn't marry and reproduce.
Posted by: Bubba ✔ | April 5, 2009 11:28 AM
Now Bubba J, under gay marriage, explain why two siblings of the same sex could not get married?
Posted by: Terry | April 5, 2009 7:04 PM
Terry, Since your so deeply concerned about the genetically incompatible couples mtrrying, I'm sure you support laws requiring full genetic testing of couples before a marriage license being issued, and the denial of the right ot marry to those with the potential for genetic defects right? I assume you'd support denying the right to marry to any person with a disease or disorder with genetic origns, right?
Your interest in Eugenic policy couldn''t possibly jusy be a cover for your deep and abiding homophobia, could it? It couldn't be that you'll grasp onto any excuse, no matter how silly to defend your desire to discriminate against homosexuals, and to justify your hatred toward them, could it?
Posted by: Liz | April 5, 2009 9:49 PM
After you explain why sharks don't get cancer.
When you've mastered Logic 101, have obtained even a cursory understanding of genetics, philosophy, sociology, and common sense, feel free to respond.
Until then, you are a waste of time.
As usual.
Posted by: Bubba ✔ | April 6, 2009 12:53 AM
“Okay, get your thinking hats on, class, please, because we have a little quiz today and let’s have no cheating, borrowing answers, or conferencing. It’s an easy quiz, just one question, and those of you who have kept up on current affairs–and not the affairs in Hollywood or on Desparate Housewives–should do just fine if you’ve been paying attention to the world around you.”
Sounds of discontent begin.
“Ok, here we go. You will have more than enough time to pose queries and then 10 seconds from the time I finish asking the question and the end of the Q&A to write your answer. And stop the complaining that 10 seconds isn’t enough time. The quiz requires only a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response.
“The one question is, and wait until I finish asking it before you interrupt, please: Has any state in the United States of America ever approved by a constitutional, popular vote the legalization of marriages of people of the same gender? Yes or no?”
Suzie at once raises her hand and blurts out, “You never said we had to know this for a test!”
“Well, no, Suzie, but this isn’t a test, it’s just a quiz.”
“Yeah, but still, it’s no fair,” Suzie adds as she folds her arms in indignation and murmurs of agreement filter through the room.
“What do you mean by, ‘constitutional, popular vote,’ anyways?” Johnny blurts out. “What’s so popular about voting?”
“No, Johnny, ‘popular’ there refers to ‘reflecting the will of the people,’ not ‘popularity’ as with rock stars, for example.”
Johnny harrumphs.
“Any other questions?”
“Yeah, Teach, ah got a question,” Lionel chimes in. “What about this constitution thing, huh? I mean, what’s dat got to do with it? Who cares what some old White dudes wrote down thousands of years ago?”
Encouraged by a smattering of tepid applause, Lionel goes on. “I mean, if some sistah and some other sistah or some brutha and some other brutha wanna make hookin’ up all legal and whatevah, why not let them be happy? Ya know what ah mean?”
Lionel returns to his seat to another smattering.
“Umm, Lionel, I know what you mean, I think, but first of all, it was hundreds, not thousands, of years ago, 1787, to be precise, and . . .”
“Wait, what’s all this have to do with the quiz?” Dwight asks.
“Good point, Dwight, and if there are no other questions, the 10 second answering time begins now.”
“Wait, wait, hold up, please! How much will this count toward our final average?” Suzie blurts out.
In the event it wasn’t obvious, that dialogue never actually happened verbatim although in one way or another it may well be the topic of discussion in many a classroom over the next week or so given the most recent trashing of America’s Constitution by the Iowa Supreme Court: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97B1TH80&show_article=1.
Once again, a judicial entity has superseded the authority and the right of the American people to determine who is legally entitled to marry whom in an ostensible democratic republic.
This issue of homosexual marriage seems to have a life of its own. Voted down by popular vote in California last November when Left Coasters resoundingly, and surprisingly, endorsed this simple 14 word amendment to its constitution, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” one would have thought the case was closed.
Not by a long shot.
Even though the vote was 52.3% to 47.7% against the gay agenda, in one of the most liberal states in the nation, that expression of the majority will of the people only ignited homosexual activists who then resorted to heated demonstrations, rioting, threats of violence, and even death threats to get their way.
(See “Homosexuals Resort To (More) Threats of Violence,” http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=745, for details and links to those efforts at intimidation.)
Undeterred by that defeat, and preceding it, homosexuals have also been resorting to liberal state courts as a remedy. . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com/)
Posted by: Gene Lalor | April 6, 2009 2:15 AM
Liz,
.
Absolutely not. Nice try at the straw man though. The gov't has put the restrictions on relatives marrying due to high probablity that if offspring were to come from the union, there would be genetic abnormalities. In the case of a same-sex (they wouldn't have to be gay) marriage between to relatives, the possibility of reproduction doesn't exist. Therefore, they s/b allowed to be married. Can't wait to here what the geniuses in the black robes have to say about that.
.
Bubba J.
.
After your rant, do you have a point to make? Can't answer the question, can you?
.
Posted by: Terry | April 6, 2009 10:51 AM
Terry, I'll take that as a compliment fron you, the World Champion of the Strawman Argument. See how silly your attempts to defend discrimination are?
You are a bigot, nothing more. Everyone who isn't as hate filled as you sees that.
Posted by: Liz | April 6, 2009 11:13 AM
Liz,
.
I don't care who you spoon with. If you are for expanding the boundraies of marriage, I guess you will be backing the polyganists next. Is that correct? If not, I guess you are just a bigot.
.
You still didn't answer the same-sex sibling marriage question.
Posted by: Terry | April 6, 2009 1:43 PM
Terry, the "same sex sibling question" as you have invented it is no question at all. There are reasons to ban incest outside of the genetic issues. There are strong pyschological and sociological reasons out side of the genetic ones, and they remain completely outside the question of same sex marriage.
As to your next red herring, polygamy, again that is a different issue altogether. Three people in marriage, of whatever sex, is a far different legal and contractual issue than a simple partnership. In addition, no one is born a polygimist, so to ban the action of polygamy is not to discriminate against a group seeking the same rights as every other group, based solely on an innate portion of their nature. (Oh, and before you pull out the "it's a choice" nonsense, tell us when you "chose" to be straight.)
Tell us Terry, how would letting same sex couples marry hurt you at all? What is your interest in deny that right to others? Will your marriage fall apart? What is the stae's interest in keeping same sex couple from marrying?
Will someone tell me why I'm wasting my time arguing with this narrow minded bigot?
Posted by: Liz | April 6, 2009 2:22 PM
"There are strong pyschological and sociological reasons out side of the genetic ones," - Is that the gov'ts issue? Why should the gov't be concerned with the choice of two adults who happen to be same-sex siblings on their life-choice?
.
"Three people in marriage, of whatever sex, is a far different legal and contractual issue than a simple partnership." Three people can a form a prtnership - ever seen a law firm?
.
So what if no one is born a polygamist. Once again, adults making a life choice. I would think the left would line behind these folks to defend that choice.
.
"how would letting same sex couples marry hurt you at all?" See my answer on April 4th and then tell me how a polygamist marriage would hurt someone in a gay marriage?
.
"What is the stae's interest in keeping same sex couple from marrying?" The state's only interest in marriage is keeping a society going thru the creation of off-spring - something a gay marriage cannot do (outside of invetro). With hetrosexual marriage, which creates offspring and a functional family unit, society can keep going for generations. We have seen what just creating off-spring and no functional family unit does - see the inner cities. In order for society to function at its best - one needs hetrosexual marriage. Society can function w/o same-sex marriage.
.
When all else fails call someone a bigot. Next post, cut to the chase and use Nazi.
Posted by: Terry | April 6, 2009 3:34 PM
Terry, If the only point in marriage is offspring, should sterile individuals be allowed to marry? How about women who have passed through menopause? How about people who choose not to procreate?
And I see that your bigotry doesn't stop at homophobia does it? The "inner cities", huh? We all know exactly what you mean there. What a pathetic hate filled excuse for a human being you are. I call you a bigot because you clearly are one on many levels.
Posted by: Liz | April 6, 2009 4:08 PM
Liz,
.
Determining who is sterile and who isn't is going into a little deep into gov't intrusion. But then again, for those on the left, the more gov't intrusion, the better.
.
Ditto for menopause. Do want a questionairre when applying for a marriage license? Are you sterile? Had menopause? Do you plan to pro-create? Imagine that dat base being accumulated by your avg civil servant.
.
The inner-cities. Do you want statistics on that or just thro out the word bigotry when you don't have the facts. Go get the facts first.
.
Still no answer to the polygamist arguement or sibling arguement.
When you have no basis in facts, throw out the name-calling. I know you can work your way up to the Nazi reference - your a good progressive.
Posted by: Terry | April 6, 2009 7:13 PM
Terry, I f you start making statements that show that you are a Nazi believer I'll call you a Nazi. You make bigotted staements, as you repeatedly have, I'll call you a bigot.
I hope you haven't infected your kids with your hate and bigotry, but you probably have. Hopefully they will see the light eventually and will reject the darkness you have put in thier hearts. Heck, maybe one of them is gay. Wouldn't that be wonderful? I hope they find someone nice to marry in Iowa.
Posted by: Liz | April 6, 2009 10:16 PM
Life wasn't meant to be complicated. For example, you plant a seed in the ground and the result is an object that sustains life and cleans the air. If the seed should say, "This ground isn't compatible to my needs and desires. I don't want to be a plant. Then, woe is us. Where would we get our food? What would happen to the air we breathe? No, this not the right path to take. Let's live a simple, uncomplicated life so that we can plant healthy seed that will produce a mighty harvest of traditional marriage.
Phone: 1-800-525-5683
Cell: 210-491-5100 or 210-442-6397
Web:www.billygraham.org
e-mail: MattLauerNBCNews@emailtactics.com
Posted by: Bill | April 7, 2009 11:33 AM
Liz,
.
I've taught my kids not to discriminate against polygamists. They are taught to treat those that believe in polygamy the same as those that beleive in same sex marriage.
.
What would really be nice if the citizens of Iowa got to decide this issue for thesselves.
.
So I guess you rae in favor of same-sex siblings getting hitched in Iowa. Glad you see the light.
Posted by: Terry | April 7, 2009 7:50 PM
This has to be the most specious line of argument of this whole gay rights affair -- the contention that introducing gay marriage WILL NOT also eventually open the door to polygamous marriage.
Once you make marriage about "love" and "commitment" between consenting adults and not about an institution to help with the raising of children, then you open the door to all consenting adults that "love" each other, not just homosexual couples.
One of the reasons the same people who argue so ardently for gay marriage are so dismissive of polygamy is because of the stereotype associated with polygamist unions. Most see them as a type of marriage observed by backwards, hickish, fundamentalist religions with a big boss guy and a bunch of little starlets popping out kids. But, I'm taking a much broader view of polygamy.
What if, for example, three gay people, three guys say, all wanted to marry. Under what argument could you deny them? They're all in "love" theoretically, committed, and consenting. What about a woman and a man and the gay lover the woman decided to take on after ten years of marriage? Maybe they all have threesomes, they all love each other, and they all want to be married. Why not them?
Why not a brother and sister who agreed to be surgically sterilized? The BBC did an entire piece (look for it on youtube) about brothers and sisters who are separated by adoption when they are young. Upon reuniting, many of them translate their love for each other into a sexual relationship in a well documented psychological phenomenon. Why not them? Why not a mother and son, or a mother and daughter, etc.?
Why not broaden it? Why can't groups of people get married? Maybe someone has a cult, and all of the people in that cult want to be married to each other. If they're all consenting, why not?
See, the arguments against polygamist marriage are pretty thin if you look at marriage as nothing more than a commitment between loving adults. I can't see a reason. Of all of the websites (yours and at least 20 others) I've searched for a valid, legal distinction that makes sense to me, I haven't been able to find any. Most of the arguments against extending gay rights to polygamy have been, as I say, based off religious bigotry. It's more "acceptable" to be pro-gay than pro-fundamentalist in our society. But, the dichotomy flies in the face of reason.
If you decide to extend the definition of marriage, I really feel you have to include everyone under the big tent.
Posted by: J C | June 13, 2009 2:58 AM