Iowa Supreme Court strikes ban on same sex marriage

I thought so too. But I'm now reading that such an amendment won't be available for a vote until 2012. Or four years down the road (well, technically 3.5 years, but hey).Either way, good news indeed.

I'm upset because it didn't take more than a hand full of people to decide the law was unjust. At this rate, my grandchildren will still be fighting the same battles on the same battlegrounds. While I agree that bigotry isn't limited to any race, black folks out of all people should know discrimination when they see it. I remember attending a lecture about this issue. One of the speakers was a gay man who in the 90s was told by a black woman "we don't serve your kind here" when he was trying to find a 1 bedroom apartment for himself and his partner. Amazingly enough, this was not an isolated incident. Perhaps we should bring back jim crow and interracial marriage bans? See how they like it. That's how many people out of the population of Iowa?Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Perhaps not the right thread, but:
Sweden apparently legalized same-sex marriage on april fool's day. The law goes into effect on the first of may. While it doesn't grant homosexuals the right to marry per se, it strikes the use of gender in the marriage laws with the effect of opening the door to same-sex couples to get married. I'm not sure if I've actually seen the bill, but everything I've read in swedish so far suggests this to be the case. At any rate, come may, same sex marriage is legal in sweden.Same-sex marriage in Sweden - Wikipedia.Since the timing is so close to the Iowa decision, I thought it vaguely appropriate to put it here.Embarrassing that I'm just now finding out about it. I mean, I live in Sweden right now!

What are you trying to tell us, kuresu?Staying in Sweden for a while.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

you're good, man.I've actually been here since august supposedly studying. I say supposedly because the uni system is so far easier than CU, which is crazy.

Now, be honest. You dress up in drag every night, don't you? That's why you have long hair.

That's the way it works here in Wisconsin, too. Unfortunately, our state legislature didn't wait for the courts to overturn anything, they just passed it in two consecutive legislatures and gave us the referendum, which passed. Of course, the amendment, as written, goes beyond banning gay marriage and does away with anything "similar to marriage."Crazy

Yeah, here in Wisconsin we definitely have a fear of anything different. Things are changing though. We will probably have state wide no smoking law in next 2 years and I think the gay marriage thing will be reversed within 5 years.Why aren't fundies satisfied with just screwing up their own lives?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

So you agree with taking one group of peoples rights away, but then want to give another group of people rights, sounds a bit contradicting?Sorry, I'm a smoker, and I think that anti-smoking laws are just another one of those selfrighteous, bullshit laws.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

That's pretty nasty. You might have to wait for a federal challenge to anti-gay-marriage laws to get that one off of the books.Fortunately, the more states issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, the more people have grounds to challenge DOMA on a federal level (as I recall, DOMA states that the feds don't recognize homosexual marriages, and also that states don't have to recognize gay marriage licenses issued by other states a blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution).Once DOMA is overturned, all states will be forced to recognize marriage licenses issued in other states - including licenses issued to gay couples. At that point many state constitutional amendments (like Prop (h)8) would be invalidated because they would violate the Federal Constitution. Even if the amendment is worded so that marriage licenses simply cannot be issued (as opposed to defining what marriages are recognized), they'll effectively have been castrated, and should be relatively easy to repeal (and in the meantime, a quick trip to a non-bigoted state can resolve the issue).If only the US Supreme Court had fewer Bush appointees at the moment...

quote:

---

and also that states don't have to recognize gay marriage licenses issued by other states a blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution).

---

I'd be curious to hear why DOMA violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause.The fact of the matter is that no state would be required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognize a gay marriage from another state in the first place, so there didn't need to be a federal act that says so. What's more, the Supreme Court isn't bound by Congress's interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and would be free to hold the exact opposite anyway.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

DOMA says:

quote:

---

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
  —"DOMA says:"

---

The Constitution says:

quote:

---

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
  —"the Constitution says:"

---

The Constitution clearly states that public acts and records (like the issuance of marriage certificates) issued in one state must be given full faith and credit in all other states.DOMA clearly states that no faith or credit is required to be given to any homosexual marriage, even though full faith and credit are given to other marriages across state lines.The Full Faith and Credit clause is the reason a marriage in California is still valid if you move to Connecticut. DOMA clearly violates that for homosexual marriages. Or am I missing something? The current Supreme Court is stacked with conservatives who are more likely to support DOMA. Congress' views at this point are irrelevant, unless we can convince them to simply repeal DOMA (a possibility, but not very likely).

quote:

---

Or am I missing something?

---

You are missing something.There's a long established Full Faith and Credit Clause line of cases that hold that states do not have to accept acts from other states that go against the public policy of the recognizing state. For example, different states have different ages of consent or different rules for consanguinity for marriage. If I marry my first cousin in a state that allows such marriage then move to a different state where such marriages are prohibited, the state I move to does not have to recognize that marriage. Obviously this same reasoning would apply to gay marriage.

quote:

---

The current Supreme Court is stacked with conservatives who are more likely to support DOMA.

---

Not true. First, let me point out that 5 of the 6 who voted with the majority in Lawrence v. Texas are still there (Justice O'Connor replaced by Justice Alito). Although the Lawrence opinion specifically disassociated itself from any argument that it extended to the right to homosexual marriage, it's at least some evidence that those 5 Justices might be receptive to an argument.Second, the Court is hardly "stacked with conservatives."Nobody familiar with their voting records would call Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter or Stevens conservative. Kennedy is usually considered a "swing vote." He sometimes votes with the conservative bloc, sometimes with the liberal. As an example of his liberal positions, he wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence as well as in Romer v. Evans, both very important cases in gay rights jurisprudence.People who don't pay particular attention to the Court beyond noting who was appointed by whom often assume that since Kennedy, Souter and Stevens were appointed by Repugnantcans (Reagan, Bush I and Ford, respectively), they must be conservative. As President Eisenhower found out with C.J. Earl Warren, it doesn't work that way.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Second hand smoke is a known killer. I have no problem with people smoking, but I believe in regulating indoor smoking. Why should people that work in the service industry be subjected to peoples smoke?Smoking is not a right. Being able to marry the person you love is a right. Two men getting married does not infringe on me in any way. Having to eat next to people smoking infringes on my rights.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Ahem....Topic, please. Thanks.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat