Yay, Iowa! I am so pleased. And yay for the Midwest! Maybe for once my parents in California will believe me when I tell them people here don’t have hay in their hair and spend their days milking cows.
Double-nipick - Iowa is the fifth state. The first state to legalise same-sex marriage was Hawaii, in 1993. The voters of Hawaii amended their constitution in 1998 to allow the Legislature to reserve marriage for opposite sex couples, which the Legislature then did.
So although Hawaii does not currently allow same-sex marriage, it was the first state to do so.
Did they ever actually perform same-sex marriages, or only domestic partnerships?
From your description, it doesn’t sound like Hawaii ever actually did allow it. The first state to create “civil unions” was Vermont.
Good on ya, Iowa! Nice that it was a unanimous Supreme Court, unlike in both Mass. and California, where the respective courts had just a one-vote majority, IIRC.
Hey now, theres a few of us redneck farmers thinking ‘about damned time’. Plenty more(like my dad) who are thinking ‘Well… can’t say I approve, but then its none of my business either’.
Still, good day for Iowa. Heres hoping the three or more year wait before the inevitable amendment attempt, giving people plenty of time to cool off and get used to the idea, prevents a kneejerk like california.
Why anyone thinks they have the right to determine how gays live their lives escapes me. Our government has no rights to abridge the rights of any sector of our society.Gays have the rights that any other group does.
It was about time! And now please return the territory to Denmark.
Seriously, congratulations to Iowa and Sweden for joining the 21st century. I wonder how it feels.
MG
Writing from 18th century-Dominican Rep.
And CNN just posted the news that traditional marriages in Iowa have begun spontaneously dissolving.
What? They didn’t?
Well a man just married his dog and a woman married a tree.
No? That didn’t happen either?
But, but…but they swore that’s what would happen if gay people could get married! Golly I am confused.
Oh wait, no I’m not. Good on ya, Iowa. It’ll be fun watching my fellow Californians trying to figure out when we started losing the “most progressive” title to Iowa and Vermont.
Didn’t one same-sex couple legally marry between the trial judge issuing his ruling and the SCI staying in back in 2007?
Hello from Des Moines!
The Supreme Court’s decision upheld a District Court ruling involving 6 cases that were filed in the District Court here (in 2005 or 2006, I believe). Not long after the District Court issued its ruling, the Judge rendering it put a stay on his own ruling, pending a Supreme Court review of the decision. There were a few marriages that took place between the ruling and the stay, but not many. One of the managers where I work is in a same-sex marriage, but I don’t know if it was performed here or not.
There are a couple of factors that give this ruling a particularly heavy impact:
- The process to overturn this ruling is cumbersome in Iowa.
The Legislature must vote on a Constitutional Amendment, and pass it. The process is started by either the House or the Senate Leadership.
The Iowa Christian Coalition, in a 2005(?) attempt to amend the Iowa Constitution to prevent gay marriages from becoming legal, the Resolution was sent to the State Government Committee, which assigned it to a subcommittee – from which it never emerged. In the year this was attempted, there was a 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, which meant a Joint Leader (1 Dem and 1 Rep), and committees were 50/50 representation as well. Presumably (I have not done the research), the House was controlled by the Democrats, or the process would have been started there.
Once the Amendment is passed in both the House and the Senate, the recorded votes are journaled and the issue set aside until after the next General Election (every 2 years). The next session of the Legislature then also votes on the Amendment. If passed in both houses in two consecutive Legislatures, the Amendment will take effect.
Right now, the Democrats control both the House and the Senate in Iowa. Leaders in both have said there are more important issues facing the legislative agenda for the remainder of this session, and it will not be brought up this session. It could conceivably be brought up following the summer recess, but it’s unlikly in my view, as the Leadership will not change, and the majority is not at risk, at not under any normal circumstances.
That would put it at January 2011 before it could likely come to a vote in the legislature, and 2 years later, after the next General Election, before it could be ratified by majorities in both parties.
Not an easy process when it involves two successive Legislatures.
Alternatively, every 10 years, a Constitutional Convention is put to the voters. The following is placed on the ballot: “Shall there be a convention to revise the constitution, and propose amendment or amendments to same?”
If the majority of the voters cast a “Yes” to this ballot measure, “the general assembly, at its next session, shall provide by law for the election of delegates to such convention, and for submitting the results of said convention to the people, in such manner and at such time as the general assembly shall provide; and if the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments, by a majority of the electors qualified to vote for members of the general assembly, voting thereon, such amendment or amendments shall become a part of the constitution of this state.” <ARTICLE X. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. Constitution of the State of Iowa>
So, if the 2010 General Election finds the VOTERS requesting a Constitutional Convention, that Convention would likely be called sometime in 2011. That would likely be the earliest possible time that the decision could be overturned, and the only way to do it in Iowa is with a Constitutional Amendment.
- The 2nd factor that makes this a really important ruling is that Iowa does not (at present) have domesticity requirements. Simply put, you don’t have to be a resident of Iowa to get married in Iowa. I can see a lot of out-of-state couples making the pilgrimage to get married here. But wouldn’t be surprised to see if this gets gunned at hard and fast.
Frightening part? There is already significant activity on BOTH sides to protect/overturn the ruling. There are resources pouring into Iowa from all over the country attempting to take away same sex marriage before the weekend glow of the victory is even dimmed.
I volunteered at the offices of One Iowa today, calling voters and asking them to call their Representatives voicing their support for the Supreme Court’s decision and their opposition to a Constitutional Amendment.
The fight is going to continue. Quieter, and as a backdrop to who knows how many FABULOUS Showers, Weddings, Receptions and Honeymoons that will, no doubt, make it easier for the opposition to go unnoticed. If we can get past the 2012 General Election, we will have lived with it for four years, and many many of those who are more frighted about it than angry, will have found that their fears were unfounded.
Go Iowa!!! Yeah!!
Hear hear. I moved back from Greater Neeew Yawk Ceeeity?! and as yet have no regrets.
Well, one. Iowa women with any education and desire to marry do so early, and stay married. So the singles scene past 30 or so is one great big country song cliché. It might actually *help *if I turned gay, tho I don’t see that happening outside of a total personality change.
Two couples, Sean Fritz & Tim McQuillan, of Ames (students at Iowa State University) and Terry Lowman & Mark Kassis, also of Ames. Both couples applied for a license, got a judge to waive the 3-day waiting period, and got married at the Ames Unitarian Universalist Church.
Lowman & Kassis did not get their signed marriage certificate filed with the Story County Clerk before the original Judge issued a stay of his order, but most lawyers agree that they are still legally married. Presumably, the County Clerk will proceed to record that marriage, now that the Iowa Supreme Court has dissolved the stay.
Ames? Both of 'em? Good Ogamighty, maybe I will have to turn gay. :eek:
Yay Iowa! The politically-conservative-born-again-Christian-Evangelical branch of my family lives in Waterloo. While we’re on good terms for the most part (as long as we avoid certain conversational topics) it makes me extra happy that this ruling is going to piss them off.
And the “No good deed goes unpunished” award goes to:
Sigh. 
Turfing a Justice out won’t do anything. Essentially it frees the ex-Justice up to make oodles more money in the private sector. I don’t think anyone who is likely to be appointed to the Supreme Court of a state would change their decision in any matter, especially not one of such deep import, based on the chance of being voted out later.
It’s an assclown-ish thing to do, mind you, but that’s why I’m not a fan of electing judges.
According to Archive Guy’s link, the judges that are potentially getting kicked out isn’t in an elected position. It’s an appointed one.
I’m reasonably sure that Sweden doesn’t follow the Iowan Constitution, which I reckon would make Sweden unconstitutional in Iowa. Then again, how do you move Sweden to Iowa?
Any new judges elected now can’t overturn the decision originally linked, can they? Sounds like those people from NOM and AFA are trying to close the barn after the horse ran away…