well, that's three down - only 47 to go
(i'm not counting California)
*sigh*
but, this is BIG NEWS - the first state in my "native" neck of the woods
while i don't think that Ohio is going to follow suit any time soon, i'm very pleased that Iowa Supreme Court has taken this positive initiative
and impatient
progress can't come soon enough!!!
*this comes in the wake of the news that Sweden just legalized marriage - another country down, many to go!
Stockholm - Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:48:03 GMT - A broad majority in the Swedish parliament Wednesday approved adoption of same-sex marriage legislation after a six-hour debate. Six of the seven parties in parliament had backed the proposal drafted by the Committee on Civil Affairs to introduce a gender- neutral marriage law. Only the Christian Democrats, one of the four parties in the ruling centre-right coalition, opposed the move.
---------------
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iHUp4BkOCwXHCaN3c1RyYj61fYTQD97BM4000
Gay marriages expected to begin in Iowa April 24
By AMY LORENTZEN – 1 hour ago
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Gay marriage, seemingly the province of the
nation's two coasts, is just weeks away from becoming a reality in the
heartland and apparently it will be years before social conservatives
have a chance to stop it.
The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday
unanimously upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law
restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman. Now gays and
lesbians may exchange vows as soon as April 24 following the landmark
decision.
The county attorney who defended the law said he would
not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a
constitutional amendment, which couldn't get on the ballot until 2012
at the earliest.
"I would say the mood is one of mourning right
now in a lot of ways," said a dejected Bryan English, spokesman for the
Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative group that opposes same-sex
marriage.
In the meantime, same-sex marriage opponents may try to
enact residency requirements for marriage so that gays and lesbians
from across the country could not travel to Iowa to wed.
U.S.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, urged the Legislature to do so, saying he
feared without residency requirements Iowa would "become the gay
marriage mecca."
Only Massachusetts and Connecticut currently
permit same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California's high
court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.
For
gays and lesbians, meanwhile, the day was one of jubilation. The
Vermont House of Representatives also passed a measure Friday that
would allow same-sex couples to wed, on a 94-52 roll call vote, just
short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised veto by
Gov. Jim Douglas.
Gay marriage supporters hoped to convince a few
Vermont legislators to switch when it comes to the override vote, which
could be taken as soon as Tuesday.
In Iowa, hundreds cheered,
waved rainbow flags and shed tears of joy at rallies in seven cities
Friday evening. "Corn-fed and Ready to Wed!" read one man's sign at a
gathering at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls.
In downtown Des Moines, about 300 people gathered beneath rainbow flags to celebrate including Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie.
"We
finally have equality in Iowa," said Harold Delaria, of Des Moines, who
attended the rally and has two gay children. "It's kind of the last
wall of legalized discrimination and it's coming tumbling down."
The
Rev. Diane McLanahan of Trinity United Methodist Church in Des Moines
acknowledged that many people of faith won't agree with the ruling.
With that in mind, she said the court has reached a decision that
"pretty much insists that this will not be a debate about religious
rights but a matter of equality and fairness."
In its ruling, the
Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that
a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the
constitutional rights of equal protection.
Iowa lawmakers have
"excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely
important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient
justification," the justices wrote.
To issue any other decision, the seven justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."
At a news conference announcing the decision, plaintiff Kate Varnum, 34, introduced her partner, Trish Varnum, as "my fiance."
"I never thought I'd be able to say that," she said, fighting back tears.
Jason
Morgan, 38, said he and his partner, Chuck Swaggerty, adopted two sons,
confronted the death of Swaggerty's mother and endured a four-year
legal battle as plaintiffs.
"If being together though all of that
isn't love and commitment or isn't family or marriage, then I don't
know what is," Morgan said. "We are very happy with the decision today
and very proud to live in Iowa."
Iowa has a history of being in
the forefront on social issues. It was among the first states to
legalize interracial marriage and to allow married women to own
property. It was also the first state to admit a woman to the bar to
practice law and was a leader in school desegregation.*
Senate
Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat, said state lawmakers were
unlikely to consider gay marriage legislation in this legislative
session, which is expected to end within weeks.
Gronstal also
said he's "not inclined" to propose a constitutional amendment during
next year's session. Without a vote by the Legislature this year or
next, the soonest gay marriage could be repealed would be 2014.
Amendments
to Iowa's constitution must be passed by the House and Senate in two
consecutive general assemblies, which each last two years, and then
approved by a simple majority of voters during a general election.
Iowa's Democratic governor, Chet Culver, said he would review the decision before announcing his views.
Associated Press writers Nigel Duara in Urbandale and Marco
Santana, Melanie S. Welte, Michael Crumb and Mike Glover in Des Moines
contributed to this report.
*did not know this!
-------------------
also, some of the text of the decision: covering the argument basically that gay marriage is a danger to family values - and illuminates the hypocrisy of it all - encouraging language below, don't you think?
We begin with the County's argument that the goal of the same-sex
marriage ban is to ensure children will be raised only in the optimal
milieu. In pursuit of this objective, the statutory exclusion of gay
and lesbian people is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. The
civil marriage statute is under-inclusive because it does not exclude
from marriage other groups of parents--such as child abusers, sexual
predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent
felons--that are undeniably less than optimal parents. Such
under-inclusion tends to demonstrate that the sexual-orientation-based
classification is grounded in prejudice or "overbroad generalizations
about the different talents, capacities, or preferences" of gay and
lesbian people, rather than having a substantial relationship to some
important objective. See Virginia, 518 U.S. at 533, 116 S. Ct. at 2275,
135 L. Ed. 2d at 751 (rejecting use of overbroad generalizations to
classify). If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal
parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not merely
gay and lesbian people.-- http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/04/fascinating-words-iowa-court
------------------
for your (and my) information, here's the rundown on the current gay marriage situation in the entirety of the US:
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Massachusetts, Connecticut and
now Iowa allow same-sex couples to marry - all the result of decisions
by the states' high courts.
California briefly allowed same-sex marriage last year before a
voter initiative in November repealed it. The outcome of that vote is
now being challenged by lawsuits contending that the ballot measure
eliminated rights that should not have been subjected to a majority
vote. The state Supreme Court will rule within the next 60 days.
CIVIL UNIONS
Vermont, New Hampshire and New
Jersey permit same-sex couples to enter into civil unions that entail
the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but gay-rights
activists in all three states are pushing for full-fledged marriage
rights.
In Vermont, the state Senate this week joined the House in voting
in favor of gay marriage, though it's unclear whether a threatened veto
by Gov. Jim Douglas can be overridden.
New Hampshire's House passed a marriage bill in March, which now awaits a Senate vote.
New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine has pledged to sign a same-sex marriage bill that has been introduced in the legislature.
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS
California, Oregon,
Washington and the District of Columbia have domestic-partnership laws
that extend many of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.
Hawaii and Maine have more limited laws extending certain spousal
rights to same-sex couples.
CONSTITUTIONAL BANS
Voters in 29 states have
approved state constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia,
Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
Wisconsin.
Hawaii voters approved a constitutional amendment empowering the
Legislature to outlaw same-sex marriage; lawmakers did so in 1998.
- Associated Press
