As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Iowa gay marriage ban unconstitutional
PantsB
Fake Thomas JeffersonRegistered User regular
Fake Thomas JeffersonRegistered User regular
Before it takes over every other political thread (under El Jeffe's Law), this seems like kinda a big deal. I'll just quote the introductory paragraphs from the AP
Iowa gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional
State supreme court says law violates rights of gays and lesbians
Iowa is not Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or even California. Iowa is "fly-over-country", a swing state, the home of the first caucus (also corn), etc etc.
In related news
Gay-marriage bill in Vermont poised for veto
Vermont may still get gay marriage soon but it looks like it might not be this year.
Did the post-Prop 8 protests mark a tipping point while everyone was looking at the economy? Or are these just additional incremental steps that can only change things at the state level until DOMA is repealed?
edit - I see that someone posted this in the other gay marriage/prop 8 thread. If the mods want to merge/lock I'm fine with that.
Iowa gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional
State supreme court says law violates rights of gays and lesbians
DES MOINES, Iowa - The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday finding that the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making Iowa the third state where gay marriage is legal.
In its decision, the court upheld a 2007 district court judge's ruling that the law violates the state constitution. It strikes the language from Iowa code limiting marriage to only between a man a woman.
"The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.
Iowa is not Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or even California. Iowa is "fly-over-country", a swing state, the home of the first caucus (also corn), etc etc.
In related news
Gay-marriage bill in Vermont poised for veto
BOSTON (Reuters) - The Vermont House of Representatives passed a bill late on Thursday that would legalize gay marriage, but supporters failed to get enough votes to override a veto threat from the governor.
Lawmakers in the Democratic-led House voted 95-52 in support of the measure, which had already passed the state Senate by a 26-4 vote. Advocates were five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.
Vermont may still get gay marriage soon but it looks like it might not be this year.
Did the post-Prop 8 protests mark a tipping point while everyone was looking at the economy? Or are these just additional incremental steps that can only change things at the state level until DOMA is repealed?
edit - I see that someone posted this in the other gay marriage/prop 8 thread. If the mods want to merge/lock I'm fine with that.
PantsB on
0
Posts
Awesome.
Not necessarily.... California started out the same way, which is how it was legal to start with.
Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment.
Basically, they said, "It's not constitutional? Fine, we'll change the constitution."
Same thing could happen in Iowa.
Well, I'm *hoping* that eventually SCOTUS will rule the same way and throw all of these state amendments out the window.
I live in Florida -- the state that recently decided that not only do we not have to honor gay marriages from other states, we also don't have to honor any relationship "substantially equivalent to marriage" for anyone. I'd be happier to just get rid of the states' stupid shit in this particular issue.
Yeah, and according to the Des Moines Register:
EDIT: The article is from last year, so presumably we're now past the deadline to get an amedment on the ballot by 2010.
Guess it depends on public opinion
There are gay people in Iowa?
How would D.C. go about lifting bans on homosexual marriage? They wouldn't be able to without a federal ruling or can congress folk make up special rulings just for the district alone? It's all topsy turvy after the Heller handgun ruling last year.
We don't have much recourse down here except for a federal law. I'm going to support and campaign for an amendment to override Amendment 2, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Then people absorbed the idea and started telling their Reps not to vote for this. People saw the sky wasn't falling and said, "Fuck it, let them live in peace." The conservatives had to fight to even get a vote and when they got it the measure was handily defeated, it never made the ballot and now even Massachusetts Republican state reps don't want to overturn gay marriage.
edit to fix my memory
The first time it came up formally was after people started getting used to the idea 62 votes went for it, but that was still the minority position (you only needed 50 votes in 2 joint sessions in a row to get it on the ballot)
The second vote:
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I didn't realize it, but as the decision itself explained, this is very true.
The decision is very nicely written, btw.
I know there's a lot of factors other than democrat and republican party affiliations that would play into this if it does come down to a vote, but for what it's worth here's a link to the state's 2008 Presidential election results.
I'd actually expect this from pretty much any state, but that's mainly because I have a lot more faith in the judiciary than the legislature or public in general. It's a clear equal protection issue, and any court deliberating based on the Constitution or the law (which they're more likely to do than a legislature) should come to the same end.
Here's hoping it sticks.
Has DOMA every been before the SCOTUS? Are there any cases working there way towards it right now?
From what darthmix posted, it looks like it'll be three years before the voters will get to see this on the ballot. Three years is a long time to acclimate yourself to something that has been made legal.
Hmm, I missed that earlier. 3 years is a long time. I have no doubt that there will still be an attempt, but hopefully after that much time it will die before it even makes it to the ballot.
1) The assertion that the plaintiff's appeal to equal protection statutes fails, because same-sex and opposite-sex couples are not "similarly situated," because same-sex couples cannot "procreate naturally," and the equal protection statutes apply to similarly-situated persons.
2) The assertion then, though, that the ability to say this runs against the grain of what the law is meant to do, as in any situation where one party is appealing against one in a better position there will always be an avenue where the two can be demonstrated not to be "similarly-situated." Then, they say, the corollary is that the two groups must be similarly-situated with respect to the subject of the claim.
3) They finally assert that for all of the purposes of marriage, same-sex and opposite-sex couples are similarly-situated, and the ban is therefore subject to being struck down under the equal protection clause.
3a) The fun implication here, that they make obvious by the section where they handle bullet point 1), is that this is also a statement that procreation has nothing to do with marriage. (They mention families, but they mention this as something which same-sex couples are similarly-situated, which I guess also can be interpreted as a statement on the validity of those family structures.)
It's possible I am reading some of this wrong, so feel free to point out if I am, but I think that this is the gist of the sections on the decision itself. ^^
Iowa.
All of my friends' facebook statuses are something along the lines of "Woo HOO" expect the one guy who also writes a "I lost my phone send me yur numbers" one every three months or so.
Score one for the good guys (and girls) who like other guys (or girls).
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Apparently, the Iowa Supreme Court anticipated your shock.
I'll see if I can dig up the article.
They keep getting banned.
Was that meant to be a pun?
I don't know if pun is the right word.
I can't wait for Obs's perspective. I am actually on the edge of my seat.