http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage DES MOINES, Iowa – Iowa's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state — and first in the nation's heartland — to allow same-sex couples to wed. In its decision, the high court upheld a lower court's ruling that found a state law restricting marriage to between a man and woman only violated Iowa's constitution. "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 court stated in its ruling. The decision 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." 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. Its opponents were equally dismayed. "I would say the mood is one of mourning right now in a lot of ways, and yet the first thing we did after internalizing the decision was to walk across the street and begin the process of lobbying our legislators to let the people of Iowa vote," said Bryan English, spokesman for the conservative group the Iowa Family Policy Center. "This is an issue that will define (lawmakers') leadership. This is not a side issue." The Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr., pastor at the Maple Street Baptist Church in Des Moines, went to the Supreme Court building to hear of the decision. "It's a perversion and it opens the door to more perversions," Ratliff said. "What's next?" Technically, the decision will take about 21 days to be considered final and a request for a rehearing could be filed within that period. But Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said his 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." That means it will be at least several weeks before gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses. Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat, said the decision addresses a complicated and emotional issue. "The next responsible step is to thoroughly review this decision, which I am doing with my legal counsel and the attorney general, before reacting to what it means for Iowa," Culver said in a statement. The case had 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 state's 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 planned to comment on the ruling later Friday. 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, New Hampshire and Vermont 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. 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.
This could make the 2012 caucuses much much more interesting with Iowa being the first state. Since it's GOP only, all the candidates will be against it, but if there were a Dem caucus, that would be fascinating to watch.
All states have to recognize an Iowa license right? So if one state has it then basically all of them do (for rich people anyways)?
Welp, I didn't have Iowa very high on my big board of most likely states to legalize gay marriage. But either way, good for them.
while conveniently ignoring the usual tones of states' rights. honest question: is there a legitimate reason to make gay marriage illegal that finds its base in anything other than someone imposing their faith/religion on other people?
No - each state can have their own laws. For example, NY recognizes gay marriages from other states, but doesn't do them on their own. MA and CT already have it legal, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily recognized in other states.
My favorite is when they say, "It's unnatural!!", then someone supplies evidence that other species in "nature" practice homosexuality and they respond "You don't want us to be any better than animals!!!"
A small step in the right direction. One wonders when we will stop attempting to legislate morality and move on to issues that have an appreciable positive impact.
Or the " marriage is a complete failure already clogging up the court system with it's greater than 50% failure rate, do we really want to add to that or find a better solution" argument.
I'm surprised as everyone else that its Iowa. Demographically I figured MN or WI would be the first Midwestern State to do so. I'm not aware of a court case in MN regarding Gay marriage and wasn't aware of one in IA until now. I know there is a MN defense of marriage bill and for the last few legislatures a Constitutional Ammendment to ban same sex marriage has been talked about but still hasn't gotten to the ballot.
