Iowa Supreme Court Declares Ban on Gay Marriage Unconstitutional
The Iowa Supreme Court this morning upheld a Polk County judge’s 2007 ruling that marriage should not be limited to one man and one woman.
The ruling, viewed nationally and at home as a victory for the gay rights movement and a setback for social conservatives, means Iowa’s 5,800 gay couples can legally marry in Iowa beginning April 24.
There are no residency rules for marriage in Iowa, so the rule would apply to any couple who wanted to travel to Iowa.
Shelly Wolfe and Melisa Keeton, who waited for word of the ruling outside the Polk County Recorder’s Office, immediately called their pastor anyway to make plans.
“We’re going to make it legal,” Keeton, 31, of Des Moines said.
Wolfe, 38, and Keeton, who is 21 weeks pregnant, went through a commitment ceremony two years ago. Their marriage certificate was among the 26 that were put on hold when Polk County Judge Robert Hanson’s decision to open the door for gay marriage was delayed until the high court could weigh in.
I know there are many who will not agree with me on this, and this is probably why I lean more Libertarian than truly conservative. I do not believe in condemning behavior based on the law of a book such as the bible, especially when I know my own house is not clean. I consider myself Christian, but I also do not feel right judging anyone else. I have met many extraordinary gay men and women in my life and I’m not quite sure where I technically stand on the issue since I see it both ways. I see the fact that all men and women are created equal, that this could be considered the pursuit of happiness, although many married couples will also argue that marriage isn’t happy – LOL. I can also see the point of the social conservatives who declare that marriage is a religious and spiritual rite, however, many heterosexuals overlook that fact when they marry nowadays as well.
That’s why I’m a strong believer in states’ rights and local government. I don’t believe in federal mandates which would force this upon everyone if they are not ready. But I strongly believe in localized government making better decisions on behalf of its constituents, whether you personally agree with the decision or not.
I think shockingly, my opinion on the issue here, is best summed up by a Democrat:
Harkin, a Democrat, issued a written statement today that said: “my personal view has been that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I have voted in support of that concept. But I also fundamentally believe that same sex couples in a civil union should be entitled to all the basic legal protections and benefits of marriage.”
“I know that this decision will be very hard for many to accept,” he added. “But I also know that it will provide many committed same sex couples and families important rights, as well as an important sense of recognition and belonging.”
What do you think?
I am not for any Federally sanctioned marriage. Marriage is between the people involved, their families, communities, and church. It is not for the federal government to be in anyone’s home in any way, shape, or form. With that said, I do believe it is for the State to determine what it will deem socially acceptable. However, I don’t think states, either, should give benefits and tax breaks to those couples who enter into “approved” relationships. Something about that is just reprehensible to me. Now then, given the set up there is now with social security, and other federally and state mandated benefits, including medical insurance I can understand the need for making certain that couples, be they gay or straight, receive the same benefits and considerations.
On a lighter note… given divorce law what it is now, I don’t know why anyone in their right mind would want to marry.
You are correct, in my humble opinion, I agree with most of what you are saying. Marriage is a sacrament before God in the church. As such “Marriage” is between a man and a woman. However, I agree same sex couples should be allowed to form Civil Unions, and have the same rights. Further though, they will have to be treated the same in front of a judge if or when the Union goes way left (lol). My biggest concern is if there are children ivolved (as in any situation). There are several scenarios that could complicate things very much in some cases.
I am also concerned about is if the majority votes, as in Prop 8 in CA, and the vote does not turn out their way, the scorned group resorts to intense and intimidating protests that turn violent in some cases.
That does no one any good and makes the cause look bad.
PS
Dont let anyone fool you. Marriage is a wonderful thing. Finding the right person is the key! (And make sure they can cook)
Exactly, Pete. If the people vote, in that State, and they do not want a particular State Constitutional right or amendment, then the people should be heard. The people are the law… not the government. The government is created to uphold the law, not create it. IMHO.
BTW… I know many fine folks straight and gay who are in committed relationships, within or without the law, and are raising terrific families.