Same-sex marriages halted in Iowa

[DuaneBidoux]

Source: AP

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- A minister married two men outside an Iowa home Friday morning, sealing the state's first legal same-sex wedding. But it also could be one of the last.

Judge Robert Hanson issues a stay less than 24 hours after he threw out Iowa's ban on gay marriage.



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/31/iowa.samesex.ap/index.html

[redqueen]

1. That didn't take long.

Wonder what the logic behind the stay is.

[Critters2]

6. The issue is going to be appealed to either the

State Supreme Court or the District Court of Appeals. The stay is issued pending appeal.

[redqueen]

8. Someone's already filed the appeal? n/t

[Critters2]

12. The County Attorney has filed a Notice of Appeal. nt

[redqueen]

14. Ah well... guess a notice is all that's required then.

*sigh*

[Warpy]

9. You KNOW what the logic is

"Gays are icky."

[redqueen]

11. Yup... that was my first guess. n/t

[northzax]

16. standard operating procedure

the question is whether the State Supreme Court will hear the case or bump it down to the District court for review first. We all know this is going to end up in front of the State Supreme Court, so they might as well take it. However, as I pointed out in a previous thread, if I was a justice of the State Court, I would delay, and let the District Court rule. the more case law in the state to consider, the better on something this potentially controversial.

[redqueen]

17. thanks...

mycritters explained how it works... it just seems so sad. only had time for one marriage. :(

[northzax]

18. suprised they got one in, actually

the DA must have figured they were going to win and not had anything prepared to appeal.

From my reading of the Constitition (last night) I don't see how the Iowa courts can make a different decision than the Mass ones did, since the effective language is basically the same. This is going to be a Constitutional Amendment issue, and I think an Amendment will have major trouble (Iowa has a constitution that is hard to amend, like Mass does, it takes passage in two legislative sessions, by both houses, and then a referendum by the voters. It can't be on the 2008 ballot, and they won't want to make it a special ballot initiative, so we are looking at 2010, I think, at the earliest. The Iowa Democratic party has a priority platform plank supporting marriage rights, and the General Assembly has a Democratic Majority in both the Senate and the House. I don't see this going anywhere, if the Court rules in favor of marriage rights eventually.)

[Newsjock]

2. Because such harm would be done

By allowing those dirty hoe-moe-sechs-uals to, ewwww, kiss on the courthouse steps.

I'll say it again: If you don't like same-sex marriage, THEN DON'T HAVE ONE.

[TheWraith]

3. Try being rational for a minute.

The judge who issued this stay was the same one who threw out the ban yesterday. Presumably, he's issuing a stay pending further litigation on the subject.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

7. Oooh good idea...

:thumbsup:

[FiveGoodMen]

10. Absolutely right!

Let the believers defend "marriage" and let the state deal with the real stuff.

Just to easy the transition, let those currently licensed to legally marry people be empowered to create the Domestic Partnership in the same process. (In other words let marriages count as Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions or whatever the official name should be.)

[ProudDad]

21. Agreed

thanks for the amendment...

The process works!

[lligrd]

5. Too Late. I Expect The Iowa Courts To Be Inundated With

divorce requests since they now have a married homosexual couple that will surely have ruined the marriages of everyone else in the State.

[demoleft]

13. "One step up and two steps back..." n/t

[LeftHander]

15. It was important that at least one ceremony occured....

That sets precedent and in AMERICA you can't allow one person rights, take them away from others and while keeping them for the original person(s).

I see it was a Unitarian Universalist Minister....

I am attending a UU gay wedding in Wisconsin Saturday. I wonder if there are legal ramifications in the works?

[northzax]

20. unlikely, alas

Wisconsin has an amendment, not simply a law. (Article XIII)

[Critters2]

22. I'll do gay weddings if asked, and I'm not UU

It's not just UUs taking this stand. In Iowa, the couple first approached a synagogue for this wedding. The rabbi was at a cemetery at the time, so they hunted up the UU. The rabbi has said he would have done the wedding, if he had been available and if either man had been Jewish.

Lots of us traditional theist types are willing to do these ceremonies. Just ask!

[KarenRei]

19. Pretty depressed

When we heard the news that they were *finally* letting same sex couples get married, my partner of nearly eight years took a bus to my workplace, and we caught busses back to our house, made all the arrangements, packed lunch, called the courthouse (2 hour drive away), found out what we needed (one of those things being a witness), called a few friends, found someone to go with us as a witness, finished making our preparations while waiting for that person to arrive... and then we got a call from her, telling us that someone who lived with her had just seen on the news that the judge had stayed his own ruling. I was in disbelief, and went to google news. And confirmed it.

Now I'm back at work. Hoping, but not hopeful, that we'll somehow get a ruling in our favor. Eventually.
Some day.
Back to waiting.

[Critters2]

23. I'm sorry.

If a window of opportunity opens again, don't wait for a witness. Most judges have someone on hand to serve as a witness in these cases--a secretary, a clerk, a bailiff. You don't need to bring your own witness to a courthouse wedding, though it's nice to have a friend stand with you.

Two hours from Des Moines? Where are you? I was two hours from Des Moines, in Wright County. I still miss it!

I hope you get the chance again, soon.

[KarenRei]

24. Feeling a bit better.

The witness was only a minor delay. We called the courthouse, and their automated service stated that it had to be a witness who knew both of us, so a secretary, clerk, or bailiff wouldn't count.

We live in Iowa City -- Johnson County.

One thing I just read did help cheer me up -- the judge's arguments:

http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18768968&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=6

My first impression when I heard about the case was that we better get married immediately, because it would be stayed next week and then overturned on appeal. My assumption was that it was a judge who was operating under a "consequences be damned; this is the right thing to do" attitude. But, wow -- this judge put together a really solid ruling that should be hard for even a reluctant supreme court to overturn.

Here's one of my favorite parts from the article:

"The heart of the opinion for many will be the extensive summary of factual findings, based almost entirely on factual assertions about which both sides were in total agreement. Hanson noted that some of the plaintiffs' factual assertions were not effectively countered by the defendants, leaving them essentially unchallenged. As a result, in total, the factual summary reads like a friend-of-the-court brief submitted by a gay rights organization."

Polk apparently put forth a really poor defense, relying on old, easily counterable arguments for keeping the DOMA: promoting procreation, child rearing by a mother and father in a marriage relationship, promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships, conservation of state and private resources, and promoting traditional marriage. On the other hand, the plaintiffs put forward peer-reviewed scientific studies, which the judge was essentially forced to admit, which trashed all of those claims. The result was a completely lopsided case. The judge then went above and beyond -- essentially preparing the case for supreme court review by showing that the DOMA doesn't hold up to even the most lenient standard of judicial review -- the "rational basis". He basically tossed the last of Polk's pro-DOMA arguments, pointing out that "promoting traditional marriage" basically equates to "that is the way things have always been done", an argument so transparent and weak that even Scalia' dissent on the Texas sodomy ruling dispensed with it. He then showed that, given the peer-reviewed studies entered into evidence, none of the claimed interests of the DOMA was advanced by having it around, so it fails the rational basis. Then he went on to cite rulings from other parts of the country, and on, and on... I was quite impressed.

Any clue if, on appeal, the fundamental arguments being made to defend the DOMA will be able to be changed, or if they're going to have to keep defending the DOMA along the same basic line of arguments that they did this time?

[Critters2]

25. I'm so glad to read this! I was afraid the judge's decision

would be based on some feel-good "liberal" basis that could easily be overturned if vigorously challenged. But it sounds like the plaintiffs offered a strong case, and that the judge was both careful and objective. This makes me feel much better about the appeal!! I really don't know what arguments will be made to defend DOMA on appeal. They need to really do their homework and come up with better arguments than they've made so far, if they want to win the appeal. The question is whether they can do that...and it's looking good for our side at this point!!

Hope you're married soon!! :hi: