http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/04iowa.html

April 4, 2009
Iowa Court Says Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional
By MONICA DAVEY and LIZ ROBBINS

DES MOINES — Iowa became the first state in the Midwest to approve same-sex marriage on Friday, after the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously decided that a 1998 law limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional.

The decision was the culmination of a four-year legal battle that began in the lower courts. The Supreme Court said same-sex marriages could begin in Iowa in as soon as 21 days.

The case here was being closely followed by advocates on both sides of the issue. While the same-sex marriage debate has played out on both coasts, the Midwest — where no states had permitted same-sex marriage — was seen as entirely different. In the past, at least six states in the Midwest were among those around the country that adopted amendments to their state constitutions banning same-sex marriage.

“The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” the justices said in a summary of their decision.

And later in the ruling, they said: “Equal protection under the Iowa Constitution is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. Since territorial times, Iowa has given meaning to this constitutional provision, striking blows to slavery and segregation, and recognizing women’s rights. The court found the issue of same-sex marriage comes to it with the same importance as the landmark cases of the past.”

In a hotel in Des Moines, several of the same-sex couples who were involved in the suit wept, teared up and embraced as they learned about the decision from their lawyers. “I’d like to introduce you to my fiancee,” said Kate Varnum, 34, reaching over to Trish Varnum. “Today I am proud to be a lifelong Iowan.”

“We are blessed to live in Iowa,” she added.

Opponents of same-sex marriage criticized the ruling.

“The decision made by the Iowa Supreme Court today to allow gay marriage in Iowa is disappointing on many levels," State Senator Paul McKinley, the Republican leader, said in a statement on The Des Moines Register’s Web site. "I believe marriage should only be between one man and one woman and I am confident the majority of Iowans want traditional marriage to be legally recognized in this state."

He added: "Though the court has made their decision, I believe every Iowan should have a voice on this matter and that is why the Iowa Legislature should immediately act to pass a Constitutional Amendment that protects traditional marriage, keeps it as a sacred bond only between one man and one woman and gives every Iowan a chance to have their say through a vote of the people."

Advocates of same-sex marriage said they did not believe opponents had any immediate way to overturn the decision. A constitutional amendment would require the state legislature to approve a ban on same-sex marriage in two consecutive sessions after which voters would have a chance to weigh in.

Iowa has no residency requirement for getting a marriage license, which some suggest may mean a flurry of people from other states.

Two states — Connecticut and Massachusetts — currently allow same-sex marriages. Several other states on the East coast allow civil unions, lawmakers in Vermont are considering gay marriage, and California allowed it until November’s election, when residents rejected the idea in a voter initiative.

A change in Iowa’s take on marriage, advocates for gay marriage said before Friday’s ruling, would signal a broader shift in public thinking, even in the nation’s more conservative middle. Opponents of same-sex marriage, meanwhile, had said any legal decision in support of same-sex marriage in Iowa would certainly trigger a prompt and sharp response among residents and, surely, state lawmakers.

The legal case here began in 2005, when six same-sex couples filed suit against the county recorder here in Polk County because he would not accept their marriage license applications.

Two years later, a local judge here, Robert B. Hanson, ruled in that case that a state law defining marriage as only between a man and woman was unconstitutional. The ruling, in 2007, set off a flurry of same-sex couples from all over the state, racing for the courthouse in Polk County.

The rush lasted less than a day in August of 2007. Although Judge Hanson had ruled against the state law, he quickly decided to delay any additional granting of licenses, saying that the Iowa Supreme Court should have an opportunity to weigh in first. In the end, about 20 couples applied before the stay was issued. Just one couple, Timothy McQuillan, then 21, and Sean Fritz, 24, managed to obtain their license and also to marry.

It is: Yea for them.

Kat

This was already posted, but if your happy, I am happy for you, but not happy about the fight to the finish that is about to come.

Sorry, I missed the other thread.

Well this is the first time, I seen it on the threads!

*claps hands* YAY for Iowa!

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/216065 this is the first one that I noticed.

More of us posted to this one so far so, no biggie.

Yup, there is a fight to come. We have to fight always to achieve what is important to us. Right? The point is; the time is coming sooner or later...that gays and lesbians and trans gendered will be recognized as are heterosexuals. Human rights are human rights. All that should be required is being human.

Kat

i have been saying it was unconstitutional for years

if you base a law on religious argument it thus estaablishes that religion which is unconstitutional

till someone has a non religious argument it remains unconstitutional

and aids does not cut it unless you make blood transfusions and needle injections illegal as well

there have been many threads about gay marriage keep posting without a search option there will always be multiple posts on the same subject even with search it happens on occasion

Yeah, I just scanned the topics and didn't see anything about Iowa. However, the other thread didn't mention Iowa in the topic. Oh well!

At least Iowa has taken a big step in the right direction. Perhaps other states will follow.

it is a shame the supreme court does not have the guts to do its job

I'm not against gay's being toghether and being able to have the same benefits of heterosexuals. The only thing I dont like is changing the meaning of the word marriage. Whats wrong with calling it a civil union if they hae the same benefits?

ask those that are banning it

They would be financially more viable to not be married nor claim the other as a dependant.

The secondary income of a married couple has an outrageous taxation rate.....

It is what it is. My uncle Becky might get married for the old school principals of marriage......but it would be to a chick who is built like me.....(kinda creepy)

The Gov't condoneing something is not really a good sign...

It only means that you will pay for it.

Well the only problem with allowing only heterosexuals to marry isn't just that it violates the establishment clause. This is a murky point. It clearly violates equal protection provisions which is point of law that I understand the courts in Iowa looked at in reaching this decision.

As for the reaction of some opponents that "the majority" object to this decision I have this to say. In all likelihood had slavery been placed on the ballot it too would have been supported by the majority at the time.

It should be pointed out that marriage is the only place that the state and the church merge. After all, we don't get a license when children are baptized or confirmed and there is none either for bar mitzvah.

Let's get the state out of the business of marriage and make all unions civil unions. Should you wish to be married in the eyes of your favorite deity then please do!

I don't know why sharing the word marriage is such a problem for some people, it's just a word. Even if all people only had civil union tomorrow, they wouldn't go around saying oh ya by the way we got civil unioned yesterday..

They would say they got married, so why not just get over it already. Why? Because the church still wants some kind of wall between what they perceive to be righteous and not. Period.

Krupa has a good point anyway, getting married legally is just going to complicate taxes... My partner and I have covered our bases legally, and have decided whether legal or not we aren't interested.

Of course for those who are I stand behind them.