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 ...
The American people are so liberal now that liberalism is all they know and appreciate.
Welcome to the land of judicial tyranny. Soon to be the land of legislative and executive tyranny as well.
EXACTLY.
Gay civil unions... endorsed and enforced by the government... guarantee gay marriage.
>>The Polk County attorney’s office claimed that Judge Robert Hanson’s ruling violated the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.<<
Well that’s not gonna work because of the Loving v. Virginia federal precedent.
>>Gay marriage opponents have no other legal options to appeal the case to the state or federal level because they were not parties to the lawsuit, and there is no federal issue raised in the case, Sarcone said. <<
And that’s makes for a heck of a conundrum -
>>Todd Pettys, a University of Iowa law professor, said the state’s equal protection clause on which Friday’s ruling was based is worded slightly differently than the U.S. Constitution. But Iowa’s language means almost “exactly the same thing.”
Still, he said, it’s difficult to predict whether the U.S. Supreme Court would view the issue the same way as the Iowa justices. <<
Before today I would have said that’s what it will come to - will the U.S. supreme court apply a similar interpretation like they did in Loving.
But this is state case only and fill faith and credit is not gonna leave much choice - other states are are almost going to have to honor these gay marriages the same way they honor contracts from other states.
The folks in IA and CA do anyway.
" There was one. The black robe mafia just ruled it unconstitutional and threw it out. "
The constitution, or any element of it, can not be declared unconstitutional.
The decision usurped the elected legislature. As in MA and VT, it was based on the feelings of the judges. No legislature or people when given the chance have supported faggot marriage.
This is how revolutions get started.
Alright Iowans time to assert your power and get to work on amending the state constitution.
The original District court ruling and the first homosexual marriages predated Connecticut.
No kidding. “It should be left up to the states!” And, when the will of the people of the states can so easily be set aside by robed tyrants? It’s a nice sentiment and the way things ought to be, but it’s not where we live and won’t be until we figure out how to get the courts under control.
What the hell.
Let’em get married.
Why should they be any happier than the rest of us.
Heh heh. You said butt. Heh heh.
Its a violation of civil rights.
The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. In this case, the Court redefined the religious sacrament of marriage.
Notice that the Left which regularly supports the Separation of Church and State is delighted that the State breached the Wall and usurped the Church’s role in defining marriage.
The Wall Separating Church and State is merely an offensive launching point for the Left to attack Christianity.
The Church never wins these supposed disputes between the church and state.
Where is the Free exercise of religion at the end of the day? More limited than ever.
Nope, getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot in CA is far easier than getting one passed in Iowa. It will be quite a few years before one can possibly be adopted, and there are reasons to believe that it just won't happen.
We have thirty states with anti-gay marriage provisions in their constitutions. As for the remaining twenty, they just haven't gotten around to legalizing gay marriage yet, but their supreme courts are taking them down that path. We might even see it happen by a legislature and an executive that is not willing to veto. That almost happened in Vermont, and if they get a Dem in as governor, it most assuredly will happen.
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.