Rep. Steve Howard, D-Rutland, who is gay, right, hugs Rep. Rep. Lucy Leriche, D-Hardwick, following preliminary approval of a gay marriage bill in Montpelier, Vt., Thursday, April 2, 2009.
Posted on 04/03/2009 7:10:08 AM PDT by Zakeet
The Iowa Supreme Court says the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making it the third state where gay marriage is legal.
In a unanimous ruling issued Friday, the court upheld a 2007 Polk County District Court judge's ruling that the law was unconstitutional.
The case stems from a 2005 lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization. The group filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses.
The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.
The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and the issue should be left to the Legislature.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Rep. Steve Howard, D-Rutland, who is gay, right, hugs Rep. Rep. Lucy Leriche, D-Hardwick, following preliminary approval of a gay marriage bill in Montpelier, Vt., Thursday, April 2, 2009.
We live in a Judicial Tyranny.
Iowa
Iowa?
IOWA?
This is fully expected in the nutbar places like New England and California. But Iowa? This is about as disturbing a news article as I could have ever imagined.
Prop 8...make it a constitutional change and the black robes can’t be run by the lavender mafia. California doesn’t do a lot right, but we got it correct here. (this time)
so is this saying that homo’s can get married and does this not have a way for an appeal ?
could the people of that state do a constitutional amendment like we did here in FL and would that reverse this judges ruling which is pathetic
Is everyone alarmed yet? They should be.
Was this based on the state or federal constitution?
Ergo polygamy and everything else must now be allowed, too.
There was one. The black robe mafia just ruled it unconstitutional and threw it out.
.....but I think they ruled that is was a violation of the UNITED STATES Constitutional rights.......so a local Constitutional change is irrelevant.
Prop 8 will be overturned by the end of the year. It will be overturned by boomer judges and politicians like Jerry Brown who just do what they want.
People don’t change unless they have to.
That is what happens when Iowa has governors like Vilsack and Culver appointing the Supreme Court. Iowa was the second state to have gay marriage, after Massachusetts. Both were imposed by the courts.
Can we scratch Iowa off the map ??
State Constitution. Haven’t read the whole opinion yet, but in discussing the separation of powers they do say that “the power of the constitution flows from the people, and the people of Iowa retain the ultimate power to shape it over time.”
To me that means they are saying that if the people amend the state Constitution banning gay marriage, they will be bound by that amendment.
Sorry, I misread your post. Before I am corrected, there was no admendment, just a law that was passed.
No way in hell a State Supreme Court ruled the US Constitution allows gay marriage.
Courts in middle-of-the-road states can be taken over, too.
Just means a constitutional amendment for the state.
State supreme courts rule on state constitutions, at least in most cases. Federal courts deal with the U.S. Constitution.
I have no problems with gays getting married. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like normal people. No special privileges for them!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.