Posted by: zhak39 | April 4, 2009

Iowa Recognizes Marriage for Same Gender Couples

I have to stop taking video breaks.  (Or not.)

A dear friend from Iowa gave me the heads up yesterday. The Iowa Supreme Court passed a ruling that upholds the right of same gender couples to be married.  Enjoy the music and scenery then look in the comments for his announcement.  Thank you, bud.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Iowa Recognizes Civil Unions for Same…“, posted with vodpod


  1. Submitted on 2009/04/03 at 11:00am by Bill; copied and pasted by ZhaK

    The famous inscription on the Statue of Liberty, as I’ve been taught, says, “Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore/Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me/I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

    Today, the Iowa Supreme Court, in a surprisingly unanimous decision — written by one of the more conservative justices — took that sentiment two steps further saying, “(1) And, while you’re at it, bring to us, Iowa, your gay/lesbian tired, poor, whatever . . . . so they can get married; and (2) Let’s dispense with all that clap trap distinguishing between ‘marriage’ and ‘civil unions.’ The Iowa legislature chose to throw into its marriage requirements the provision that marriage is between a man and a woman only. Once we strike that why, so long as you’re 18 and older, not related to the third line of consenquinity, and aren’t already married why, it’s ‘marriage,’ pure and simple. Anything less is unconstitutional.”

    Please feel free to read and discuss. The site (and Jackie, check this out before you post it to ensure you get to it) is:

    (note: your link to the .pdf didn’t work. Please send again or send the actual file. I am referring people to the main website. ZhaK)

    Read, review, and discuss. Get back to me if you so-choose.

    From my vantage point, I think it’s a comprehensive decision, taking into consideration the political ramifications. At the outset, the court discusses its role in the legal process (in effect, the legislature drafts the laws, the executive branch enforces them, but then the judicial branch gets to decide whether they laws are constitutional (and they decided this one sure isn’t) which addresses, head long, the whole ‘judicial activism’ criticism). At the end, the court addresses the religious issue (which had not been briefed by either side, but which it knew would capture the public’s imagination), to the effect, “Well, so what happens if some litigious gay person says the church did something wrong by not marrying us?” The court said, “Hey, that’s not really our problem. The government can’t interfere in the sovereign aspects of your religious leaders’ doctrinal responsibilities. You’re free to get a justice of the peace to marry you. If that’s not good enough, call the Bishop and complain. If you try to sue, though, your religious denomination can feel free to cite to the last few pages of this decision and say, ‘go away.’”

    In the middle is a constitutional analysis worthy of a full semester of constitutional law. I’m very impressed with the simplicity with which the court lays out various doctrines that actually took two semesters to ferret out. Justice Cady has a good law clerk.

    Anyhow, having practiced here for going on 15 years, I was amazed this decision wasn’t closer and I’m very anxious to see how it all plays out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: