Some 20 couples managed to get marriage licenses issued before the stay was granted, and at least one of them actually were married before the stay was issued.
I think that’s an unfair comparison – you can’t say that Iowa’s Supreme Court won’t overturn this because Vermont’s didn’t. The better analysis is to consider the Iowa Supreme Court’s jurisprudence generally; how do they normally analyze equal protection/due process issues?
Don’t know the answer to that; don’t really care, because I agree it will be resolved in the political process, not the judicial one. But here’s hoping that all the other states will go, “Dude, Iowa? We can’t let Iowa be more progressive than we are!”
Me too. Ordinarily, I would be proud. However, my family left the Ames Fellowship in 1973 after it was basically hijacked by spouse-swappers (talk about yer lay-led congregation :rolleyes: ). I presume things are different these days.
Oh good god, I’m not saying that just because some other courts acted one way that Iowa’s court will too. All I was saying was that the assumption that of course the court will overturn it might be a little unwarranted. I’m sure there were people who said “any bets on how long it’ll take the Vermont/New Jersey/Massachusetts supreme court to overturn it?” when each of those states’ lower courts issued their rulings.
Sorry I said anything now.
Uh, well I went there a few years ago and I never heard anything about that. Not that they would have judged people that chose to do so, but it was never mentioned.
I hear that a couple got the waiting period waived so they got through before the stay, but I don’t have a source on it.
Hee. You should be. 
(Didn’t mean to be snarky. You’re right. And so am I.)
That would be the link in the OP:
Fortunately they seem to be a happy gay couple and not a couple of wiseacre straight roommates.*
*Yes, seven and a half years later and that column still annoys me.
Did they actually get their license though? I would imagine anyone could be married in a religious ceremony, but it’s the legal status that’s changed.
If 20 licenses were issued, I assume that the religious ceremonies can take place whenever. The important thing here is that the licenses were issued; that license allows the couple to assert their legal rights, and I believe takes effect as soon as the license is issued.
Yes, they got the license and are legally married.
The latest that I’ve heard has been that while several licenses were issued, the ones that had not been acted upon (that is, those couples who were not officially married while the lifting of the ban was in effect) are no longer considered valid.
For now.
What’s interesting to me is why the same judge that handed down the lifting of the ban also handed down the stay on the lifting the next day. No one that I’ve found has reported on the reason for his change of opinion, to my knowlege.
Personally, I don’t see the problem with gay marriage. I’m not gay myself, so if it was mandatory for everyone, I would be against it.
But it’s not.
So I’m not.
I hope the reversal gets reversed.
It’s certainly an interesting development, that’s for sure.
Sorry for double post(s):
I don’t know whether he was asked to issue a stay immediately following the issuance of his ruling or not. It’s not at all unusual for judges who issue decisions which will absolutely be appealed to issue a stay. In a similar case, the Hawaii lower court judge struck down that state’s ban and immediately issued a stay, stating that should he be reversed any couple who married between his ruling and the supremes’ would be in a legally untenable position (which is a polite way of saying “a huge honking mess”). The delay in issuing the stay is the unusual thing, not the stay itself. The stay does not indicate in any way that the judge has changed his mind on the issue.
Ah, well that makes more sense, then.
When you say “mandatory for everyone,” do you mean that straight people would have to marry someone of their own gender? Well yeah, I’d be against that too. 
Yep, that’s exactly what I mean. That’s the only reason that makes sense to me for straight people to be against gay marriage: if they were going to be forced to marry their own gender against their will.
But straight people are not going to be forced to marry ANYONE. So why do they care who someone else marries? If they believe that gay marriage is wrong, they certainly don’t have to do it. I don’t see how that obligates other people who believe differently, however.
Sure, I wouldn’t want to have to marry a man (nothing personal, mind you…I’m a guy myself…some of my best friends are men…we’re by and large a fairly tolerable demographic), but legalizing gay marriage doesn’t require me to marry anyone that I don’t wish to, so why should I be against it?
I shouldn’t. So I’m not. I was all about saying “Good for this judge!” until I heard of the stay, and then it was “WTF?!?” If (as Otto claims) this is standard procedure, then I’ll keep holding my breath and crossing my fingers that the stay will be lifted. This seems kind of cruel; rather like showing food to starving people, but not letting them eat.
But hey, it’s Iowa. We’re good people, mostly. I’m optimistic.
The latest, in case you’re interested:
http://www.kwwl.com/News/index.php?ID=15560
I’d quote more, but there’s barely anything there. Evidently, some self-proclaimed “Christians and citizens” feel that their families are “threatened” by the legalization of gay marriage, and are vowing to do what they can to stop it (I’m “quoting” from the local news broadcasts, incidentally; not the link).
How exactly they are threatened is a mystery to me. As I mentioned in previous posts, if someone was proposing mandatory gay marriage, then I’D feel threatened…but they aren’t.
I really don’t get this. If I had a family (which I don’t, but if I did), how in the world would two gay people living 100 miles away getting married threaten ME (or mine)?
What am I missing here?
Breakdown of moral fabric, decline of western civilization, turning our backs on God and nazis riding dinosaurs. At least I think that’s the gist of the argument.
Hey, look what happened to Canada since it went gay.
It’s an unusual place for it sure, but it isn’t truly shocking until it happens in Utah.
I hope it doesn’t get overturned. It would be nice to see some proper equality begin to spread in this matter. Even if it does stem from Iowa.