AKA William

Share

Great news! From The Des Moines Register:

The Iowa Supreme Court this morning struck down a 1998 state law that limits marriage to one man and one woman.

The case, Varnum vs. Brien, involves six same-sex Iowa couples who sued Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien in 2005 after his office denied them marriage licenses. The ruling is viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families.

The decision makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages. Lawyers for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group that financed the court battle and represented the couples, had hoped to use a court victory to demonstrate acceptance of same-sex marriage in heartland America.

“I think it’s significant because Iowa is considered a Midwest sate in the mainstream of American thought,” Socarides said. “Unlike states on the coasts, there’s nothing more American than Iowa. As they say during the presidential caucuses, ‘As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.’”

It’s probable that county and state governments in Iowa, as in other states that have passed gay marriage laws, will be given two or three months to put the change in place. That means that such unions won’t begin today.

Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady, who wrote the unanimous decision, even invoked the court’s first-ever decision, which struck down slavery laws 17 years before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of a slave owner to treat a person as property.

“Iowa’s gay marriage ban is unconstitutional, because the county has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage,”

As Iowa goes, so goes the nation! More to come . . . .

UPDATED: All kinds of videos and commentary after the jump.

Also from the opinion:

In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. 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. This result is what our constitution requires

>

Above:
CNN’s first response.
First self-hating-gay anti-gay Iowan reaction?
What will anti-gay-marriage Iowans try to do next?
Gay Iowa state senator Matt McCoy says, “We will not go back.”
Iowa “Pro-Family” bigots react to the great news.

From around the internet:

CON: “Power Bottom” Peter LaBarbera: “Today Iowa becomes the first state not on either of the nation’s two liberal coasts to impose counterfeit, homosexual ‘marriage’ or its mischievous twin, ‘civil unions,’ on its citizens through judicial tyranny . . . “Homosexual ‘marriage’ is wrong because homosexual behavior itself is wrong and destructive – as proved by its role in the needless, early deaths of countless ‘gay’ men.”

PRO: Anonymous Liberal “Once you accept the premise that there is nothing wrong with being gay (a premise which, I think, the vast majority of people–especially educated people like judges–accept), it becomes nearly impossible to make a principled legal argument in defense of laws that prohibit gay people from being married. It’s just such an obvious and straightforward violation of equal protection.”

CON: “Iowa Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley issued the following statement this morning in response to the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to allow gay marriage in Iowa: “The decision made by the Iowa Supreme Court today to allow gay marriage in Iowa is disappointing on many levels. 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.”

PRO: “I’m off the wall,” said Democratic Sen. Matt McCoy of Des Moines, who is openly gay. “I’m very pleased to be an Iowan.”

CON: National Review’s Ed Whelan: “The lawless judicial attack on traditional marriage and on representative government continues. Today the Iowa supreme court ruled unanimously (7-0) that a “state statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.” Amidst the opinion’s 69 pages of blather, there are two key assertions (and they’re nothing more than that) (1) “[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.” 2) “The point in time when the standard of equal protection finally takes a new form is a product of the conviction of one, or many, individuals that a particular grouping results in inequality and the ability of the judicial system to perform its constitutional role free from the influences that tend to make society’s understanding of equal protection resistant to change.” “

PRO: Politico’s Ben Smith “It’s really a sweeping, total win for the gay-rights side, rejecting any claim that objections to same-sex marriage can be seen as “rational,” rejecting a parallel civil union remedy, and pronouncing same-sex marriages and gay and lesbian couples essentially normal.”

And Pam’s House Blend has the full pdf of the unanimous decision.

As for my thoughts, I’m with Anonymous Liberal. If the argument starts at the idea that being gay is normal, then all of the arguments against it fade away. All of the CON arguments above are rooted in gay sex as being, at one time or another, gross. And when people move beyond their own fascination with what happens physically in gay sex, when people move beyond which body parts go where, then objecting to something that is non-sexual, as in the commitment two people make to each other through the institution of marriage, becomes self-refuting.

The New York Times Same-sex marriages will be permitted in Iowa for at least two years, because the legislative process required to overturn the ruling would take that long. A constitutional amendment would require the state legislature to approve a ban on same-sex marriage in two consecutive sessions after which voters would have a chance to weigh in. says,