Same-sex marriage in Iowa

[katiuska]

Iowa upholds gay marriage rights


Iowa's Supreme Court has ruled that a ban on same-sex marriages in the US state was unconstitutional.

The judges rejected an appeal against a lower court's 2007 ruling that the ban violated the rights of gay men and women in the state.

The case stems from a 2005 suit filed by a New York-based gay-rights group on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples.

Iowa becomes the third US state to allow same-sex marriages, joining Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Other states allow civil partnerships or other unions, but these do not carry the same legal weight as marriages.

In its summary, the Supreme Court said the ruling "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".

It said the ruling would remove language from Iowa's legal code which limited marriage to being between a man and a woman.

Remaining statutes must also be "interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage", the court said.

Dennis Johnson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said it was "a great day for civil rights in Iowa".

"We have all of you courageous plaintiffs to thank: Go get married, live happily ever after, live the American dream," he said.

No appeal

Polk County Judge Robert Hanson had ruled in 2007 that Iowa's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, violated the couples' constitutional rights.

But on the same day, Polk County Attorney John Sarcone filed an appeal arguing that the issue should be left to the legislature - that appeal has now been rejected.

The Associated Press reported that Mr Sarcone would not ask for a rehearing, meaning the court's decision should take effect in three weeks' time.

Lambda Legal, which filed the case, said the couples cited had been together for between five and 16 years and three of them had children.

The group had said the couples wanted "the responsibilities of marriage and the protections only marriage can provide".

It said the couples' children and any future children should have the right to "have their families treated fairly".

Iowa is the first state to legalise gay marriage in the US Midwest - traditionally a more conservative area of the country.

Analysts said the ruling showed acceptance of same-sex marriage was becoming more mainstream.

The state of California briefly legalised same-sex marriage in 2008.

Thousands of couples were married before the ruling was overturned by a referendum in November.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7981893.stm


First, I'm going to take a moment to feel proud of what I've come to think of as my home state.

...Okay. So, the history is there in the article: this has been in the works since 2007, when Judge Hanson ruled against the gay marriage ban. The decision was immediately suspended and subject to review until yesterday, when same-sex marriage was officially given the green light. No initiatives are in works, and any legislation which would once again ban same-sex marriage can't go through until at least 2012.

My friends who are still in Iowa are pretty happy, and I kind of wish I were there to join in the popping of corks and highing of fives.

It's a funny thing, Iowa's not what most people would call especially liberal, and yet it's preceding a lot of more "progressive" states in this decision. I wouldn't have expected it either. It's not huge on demagoguery either way, though, so you've got people who may not actively support gay rights but simply don't care what two consenting adults do together. If someone actually steps up (as seems to have happened), more power to them.

Some people will resist, of course, and I don't know how this'll play out. Massachusetts actually seems proud of its distinction, and I'm not sure if Iowans will feel that protective of theirs, but I don't know. I do think that universal recognition of same-sex marriage rights is inevitable, sooner or later. Maybe that's overly optimistic, but it seems like increasingly more people don't care either way at worst and actively endorse such rights at best.