Iowa > California. Whoa.
In case you haven't heard yet, some good news: the Iowa supreme court apparently knows how to do their job.
Full text of that story also available right here, with my own completely fair and balanced commentary
The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously rejected a state law Friday that banned same-sex marriage,
Yayz. The Iowa SC can haz cheezburger. Wait, read that again: unanimously. And again: Unanimously. They can follow up their cheezburger with teh intartoob cookies.
and opponents wasted little time in pushing for a state constitutional amendment that could send the issue to voters.
Big surprise. Bugger, our bigotry is unconstitutional, better change the constitution! Yes, someone apparently doesn't understand how constitutions are supposed to work.
But nothing could dampen the spirits of the six same-sex couples who shouted and clapped at a news conference held by Lambda Legal after hearing the court's opinion. Lambda Legal bills itself as the nation's oldest and largest legal group working for the civil rights of gays.
Two by two, the excited couples -- some with children -- spoke at the briefing.
"Good morning, my name is Kate Varnum, and I'd like to introduce you to my fiance, Trish Varnum. I never thought I'd be able to say that."
And you still shouldn't be able to. Because either you're engaged to your sister -- eewww, is this Iowa or West Virginia? -- or you're jumping the gun a bit on the name-changing thing.
Dawn BarbouRoske told the group, "We're proud that our kids will be able to grow up knowing their family is respected."
Hah! If only. Not respected, just legally protected. But hey, it's a start. The opposition will erode slowly. Water on rock, grasshopper.
Her daughter added: "Hi, I'm McKinley, and I'm really, really happy. I feel that my family has always had this right, and today it is true. No longer shall we be just people who aren't allowed to be married. We are able to get married."
Out of the mouths of babes... always had the right, now it's just official. Well said, Little Miss Namedafteramountain.
Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit against Polk County's former recorder on behalf of the six same-sex couples.
"This is a great day for civil rights in Iowa," said former Iowa Solicitor-General Dennis Johnson, a co-counsel with Lambda Legal. "Go get married. Live happily ever."
Especially the last three words, if just to enrage the bigots.
The court's decision becomes effective in 21 days, and county recorders then will be required to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Lambda senior staff attorney Camilla Taylor said at the news conference.
"You do not have to be an Iowan to seek a license here," she said, and Iowa should recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
Aha! Now I see: it's all just a ploy to increase tourism. "Iowa: Vegas for queers" (but without the cabaret and excessively extravagant fountains).
Iowa will become the third state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage, after Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Three down. 47 to go. We will overcome. Actually two more in New England are on the brink. Water on rock, grasshoppers.
Not everyone was pleased.
And the Award for Obvious Statement of the Year goes to...
"It's, quite frankly, a disaster," said Brian English, a spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a nonprofit research and educational organization committed to strengthening the family.
OK, it used to be darkly ironic, but now it's just tediously predictable. "Alliance for Families", "Family Value Institute", "Family Policy Center", any society with "Family" in the title is virtually guaranteed to be equivalent to "Campaign for Religious Bigotry". (Exception: if "Family" is immediately followed by "planning".) Now, you pile of rabid jizzmonkeys, once again: please explain how *stopping* people from getting married is strengthening the family.
"Obviously, we're extremely disappointed," he said. "We're saddened. Perhaps a little bit surprised in the unanimous decision that the court handed down."
Yeah, you got your hatemongering arses handed to you on fine wedgewood china by a flunky with white gloves who calls you "sah" (to your face -- behind your back he calls you "that sanctimonious fucken fundie cumbubble"). I guess it's too much to hope that the unanimity of the decision would suggest anything to you. Or that you actually read the court's ruling. Where they completely eviscerate your pathetic arguments. (eg "Consequently, a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal environment to raise children. This conclusion suggests stereotype and prejudice, or some other unarticulated reason, could be present to explain the real objectives of the statute." and "While the institution of civil marriage likely encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships, we must evaluate whether excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships. The County offers no reasons that it does, and we can find none. The stability of opposite-sex relationships is an important governmental interest, but the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not substantially related to that objective." and so on.)
English, who said opponents of gay marriage prayed outside the courthouse Friday as they awaited the court's decision,
How telling. So the only opponents are religious, hmm? Implying that the only reason to oppose gay marriage is because your deity supposedly tells you to. So much for all those other "reasons" you put forward. Oh, and the Justices of the Court weren't fooled, either: "Now that we have addressed and rejected each specific interest advanced by the County to justify the classification drawn under the statute, we consider the reason for the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage left unspoken by the County: religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The County’s silence reflects, we believe, its understanding this reason cannot, under our Iowa Constitution, be used to justify a ban on same-sex marriage."
already has begun lobbying the legislature for an Iowa Marriage Amendment.
"It (the proposed amendment) will be very brief. It will reaffirm in the state constitution that marriage is the union of one man and one woman," he said. "We're beginning the next step in the process."
The process of violating the First Amendment, you mean? As demonstrated by your comment about praying outside the courthouse, your motives are clearly religious, which means your proposed amendment would enshrine a particular religious belief in law. No can do. Federal amendment #1 says so. Again, read the ruling. You failz law and civics. (And life, but that's a separate issue.)
A spokesman for One Iowa, which supports gay and lesbian equality, said the earliest the issue could get on a ballot would be 2012.
I am starting to love Iowa. Hopefully by 2012 we'll have had a chance to observe Armageddon not happen as a result of this ruling. In fact, I'd love to see someone put one of these fundie windbags on the spot: you claim that gay marriage will have some definite dire consequences? OK, make a prediction: what will happen? What will we observe between now and 2012 that will happen because of gay marriage in Iowa? Specifics, please.
Friday's decision upheld a 2007 ruling by a lower court that Iowa's 1998 law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples went against the state's constitution.
The state's highest court determined that "the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution," court spokesman Steve Davis said in a written statement.
It really is that simple. Iowa Supreme Court rules that people are people too.
"The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage," the statement on the court's Web site says.
The Iowa Supreme Court said it has the responsibility to determine whether a law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution.
Hey, whaddyaknow, the Iowa SC passes civics 101!
"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," the court said.
Holy irrefutable logic, batman! They even know what a constitution is. And how the rule of law is supposed to work in a free, pluralistic society. Amazing.
Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson earlier determined that the law violated the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection and hurt gay and lesbian couples "in numerous tangible and intangible" ways.
"Civil marriage in Iowa is the only gateway to an extensive legal structure that protects a married couple's relationship and family in and outside the state," Hanson ruled in Des Moines. "Iowa reserves an unparalleled array of rights, obligations and benefits to married couples and their families, privileging married couples as a financial and legal unit and stigmatizing same-sex couples."
A modern Daniel! Most learned judge! (With the added benefit of no tricky reversal at the end.) See? See, O ye frothing embarrassments unto the Lord? "Extensive legal structure". That's what everyone's actually talking about. Nothing to do with your particular warped religious obligations. "An unparalleled array of rights, obligations and benefits" being available equally. Get it? Your god, that you've created in your close-minded image, can declare teh geyness abhorrent if you want, but neither you nor your small god can take away their equal legal rights. Not in this country, anyway.
The case was joined on appeal by several state lawmakers who opposed Hanson's ruling, calling it "a mockery of the judicial system."
Yes, I suppose so. Judge Hanson showed how it's supposed to be done, thus making a mockery of how it's so often buggered up.
They argued that the ruling stepped on the state legislature's authority by using the courts "to effectuate fundamental changes in public policies regarding marriage."
Fail. Fail with extra fail. Smothered in fail sauce and served with a side of fail. How can people be allowed to hold public office if they don't understand how it works? (Or how grammar works, for that matter. Srsly, "effectuate"? Do you mean "effect"?) Follow closely now: the Supreme Court is SUPPOSED to step on the legislature's authority. That. is. precisely. its. job: to determine the constitutionality of legislation.
At the news conference, Jason Morgan, who was with his partner, Chuck Swaggerty, said they had been together nearly 12 years.
This clearly threatens my heterosexual marriage. The end of civilization is near.
"We've been together in sickness and health, through the death of his mother, through the adoption of our children, through four long years of this legal battle," Morgan said, choking up. "And if being together through all of that isn't love and commitment or isn't family or isn't marriage, then I don't know what is."
Getting drunk in Vegas and getting married for 5 hours? Trading women as property? Taking your barren wife's concubine so as to beget heirs for yourself? Hmm. Good point, Jason. What *is* marriage? Any takers out there...? No? OK, good. Then STFU already.
God bless, Jason and Chuck. I hope you have another 12 years together. And another. And another. 'Til death parts you.
Here endeth the rant. Amen.
Full text of that story also available right here, with my own completely fair and balanced commentary
The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously rejected a state law Friday that banned same-sex marriage,
Yayz. The Iowa SC can haz cheezburger. Wait, read that again: unanimously. And again: Unanimously. They can follow up their cheezburger with teh intartoob cookies.
and opponents wasted little time in pushing for a state constitutional amendment that could send the issue to voters.
Big surprise. Bugger, our bigotry is unconstitutional, better change the constitution! Yes, someone apparently doesn't understand how constitutions are supposed to work.
But nothing could dampen the spirits of the six same-sex couples who shouted and clapped at a news conference held by Lambda Legal after hearing the court's opinion. Lambda Legal bills itself as the nation's oldest and largest legal group working for the civil rights of gays.
Two by two, the excited couples -- some with children -- spoke at the briefing.
"Good morning, my name is Kate Varnum, and I'd like to introduce you to my fiance, Trish Varnum. I never thought I'd be able to say that."
And you still shouldn't be able to. Because either you're engaged to your sister -- eewww, is this Iowa or West Virginia? -- or you're jumping the gun a bit on the name-changing thing.
Dawn BarbouRoske told the group, "We're proud that our kids will be able to grow up knowing their family is respected."
Hah! If only. Not respected, just legally protected. But hey, it's a start. The opposition will erode slowly. Water on rock, grasshopper.
Her daughter added: "Hi, I'm McKinley, and I'm really, really happy. I feel that my family has always had this right, and today it is true. No longer shall we be just people who aren't allowed to be married. We are able to get married."
Out of the mouths of babes... always had the right, now it's just official. Well said, Little Miss Namedafteramountain.
Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit against Polk County's former recorder on behalf of the six same-sex couples.
"This is a great day for civil rights in Iowa," said former Iowa Solicitor-General Dennis Johnson, a co-counsel with Lambda Legal. "Go get married. Live happily ever."
Especially the last three words, if just to enrage the bigots.
The court's decision becomes effective in 21 days, and county recorders then will be required to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Lambda senior staff attorney Camilla Taylor said at the news conference.
"You do not have to be an Iowan to seek a license here," she said, and Iowa should recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
Aha! Now I see: it's all just a ploy to increase tourism. "Iowa: Vegas for queers" (but without the cabaret and excessively extravagant fountains).
Iowa will become the third state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage, after Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Three down. 47 to go. We will overcome. Actually two more in New England are on the brink. Water on rock, grasshoppers.
Not everyone was pleased.
And the Award for Obvious Statement of the Year goes to...
"It's, quite frankly, a disaster," said Brian English, a spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a nonprofit research and educational organization committed to strengthening the family.
OK, it used to be darkly ironic, but now it's just tediously predictable. "Alliance for Families", "Family Value Institute", "Family Policy Center", any society with "Family" in the title is virtually guaranteed to be equivalent to "Campaign for Religious Bigotry". (Exception: if "Family" is immediately followed by "planning".) Now, you pile of rabid jizzmonkeys, once again: please explain how *stopping* people from getting married is strengthening the family.
"Obviously, we're extremely disappointed," he said. "We're saddened. Perhaps a little bit surprised in the unanimous decision that the court handed down."
Yeah, you got your hatemongering arses handed to you on fine wedgewood china by a flunky with white gloves who calls you "sah" (to your face -- behind your back he calls you "that sanctimonious fucken fundie cumbubble"). I guess it's too much to hope that the unanimity of the decision would suggest anything to you. Or that you actually read the court's ruling. Where they completely eviscerate your pathetic arguments. (eg "Consequently, a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal environment to raise children. This conclusion suggests stereotype and prejudice, or some other unarticulated reason, could be present to explain the real objectives of the statute." and "While the institution of civil marriage likely encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships, we must evaluate whether excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships. The County offers no reasons that it does, and we can find none. The stability of opposite-sex relationships is an important governmental interest, but the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not substantially related to that objective." and so on.)
English, who said opponents of gay marriage prayed outside the courthouse Friday as they awaited the court's decision,
How telling. So the only opponents are religious, hmm? Implying that the only reason to oppose gay marriage is because your deity supposedly tells you to. So much for all those other "reasons" you put forward. Oh, and the Justices of the Court weren't fooled, either: "Now that we have addressed and rejected each specific interest advanced by the County to justify the classification drawn under the statute, we consider the reason for the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage left unspoken by the County: religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The County’s silence reflects, we believe, its understanding this reason cannot, under our Iowa Constitution, be used to justify a ban on same-sex marriage."
already has begun lobbying the legislature for an Iowa Marriage Amendment.
"It (the proposed amendment) will be very brief. It will reaffirm in the state constitution that marriage is the union of one man and one woman," he said. "We're beginning the next step in the process."
The process of violating the First Amendment, you mean? As demonstrated by your comment about praying outside the courthouse, your motives are clearly religious, which means your proposed amendment would enshrine a particular religious belief in law. No can do. Federal amendment #1 says so. Again, read the ruling. You failz law and civics. (And life, but that's a separate issue.)
A spokesman for One Iowa, which supports gay and lesbian equality, said the earliest the issue could get on a ballot would be 2012.
I am starting to love Iowa. Hopefully by 2012 we'll have had a chance to observe Armageddon not happen as a result of this ruling. In fact, I'd love to see someone put one of these fundie windbags on the spot: you claim that gay marriage will have some definite dire consequences? OK, make a prediction: what will happen? What will we observe between now and 2012 that will happen because of gay marriage in Iowa? Specifics, please.
Friday's decision upheld a 2007 ruling by a lower court that Iowa's 1998 law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples went against the state's constitution.
The state's highest court determined that "the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution," court spokesman Steve Davis said in a written statement.
It really is that simple. Iowa Supreme Court rules that people are people too.
"The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage," the statement on the court's Web site says.
The Iowa Supreme Court said it has the responsibility to determine whether a law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution.
Hey, whaddyaknow, the Iowa SC passes civics 101!
"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," the court said.
Holy irrefutable logic, batman! They even know what a constitution is. And how the rule of law is supposed to work in a free, pluralistic society. Amazing.
Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson earlier determined that the law violated the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection and hurt gay and lesbian couples "in numerous tangible and intangible" ways.
"Civil marriage in Iowa is the only gateway to an extensive legal structure that protects a married couple's relationship and family in and outside the state," Hanson ruled in Des Moines. "Iowa reserves an unparalleled array of rights, obligations and benefits to married couples and their families, privileging married couples as a financial and legal unit and stigmatizing same-sex couples."
A modern Daniel! Most learned judge! (With the added benefit of no tricky reversal at the end.) See? See, O ye frothing embarrassments unto the Lord? "Extensive legal structure". That's what everyone's actually talking about. Nothing to do with your particular warped religious obligations. "An unparalleled array of rights, obligations and benefits" being available equally. Get it? Your god, that you've created in your close-minded image, can declare teh geyness abhorrent if you want, but neither you nor your small god can take away their equal legal rights. Not in this country, anyway.
The case was joined on appeal by several state lawmakers who opposed Hanson's ruling, calling it "a mockery of the judicial system."
Yes, I suppose so. Judge Hanson showed how it's supposed to be done, thus making a mockery of how it's so often buggered up.
They argued that the ruling stepped on the state legislature's authority by using the courts "to effectuate fundamental changes in public policies regarding marriage."
Fail. Fail with extra fail. Smothered in fail sauce and served with a side of fail. How can people be allowed to hold public office if they don't understand how it works? (Or how grammar works, for that matter. Srsly, "effectuate"? Do you mean "effect"?) Follow closely now: the Supreme Court is SUPPOSED to step on the legislature's authority. That. is. precisely. its. job: to determine the constitutionality of legislation.
At the news conference, Jason Morgan, who was with his partner, Chuck Swaggerty, said they had been together nearly 12 years.
This clearly threatens my heterosexual marriage. The end of civilization is near.
"We've been together in sickness and health, through the death of his mother, through the adoption of our children, through four long years of this legal battle," Morgan said, choking up. "And if being together through all of that isn't love and commitment or isn't family or isn't marriage, then I don't know what is."
Getting drunk in Vegas and getting married for 5 hours? Trading women as property? Taking your barren wife's concubine so as to beget heirs for yourself? Hmm. Good point, Jason. What *is* marriage? Any takers out there...? No? OK, good. Then STFU already.
God bless, Jason and Chuck. I hope you have another 12 years together. And another. And another. 'Til death parts you.
Here endeth the rant. Amen.