Iowa Supreme Court to issue gay marriage ruling

[Justforfun000]

My respect for America and it's legal system, not to mention intelligence level of their elected officials has been officially restored to favorably optimistic. After so long in Bush country, it was starting to look pretty glum. Congratulations my fellow neighbors on another major step in your fight!

[Justforfun000]

What a surprise. I'd swear the draft for this ruling could have been whipped up from some people on this board. Talk about cogently nailing it to the wall:

Similarly Situated People. Prior to proceeding to an application of the equal
protection analysis, the court addressed the County’s request that it apply a
threshold test. Under this threshold test, if the plaintiffs cannot show as a
preliminary matter that they are similarly situated, courts do not further consider
whether their different treatment under a statute is permitted under the equal
protection clause. The County asserts that plaintiffs are not similarly situated to
civilly married heterosexuals because they cannot procreate naturally.

The court rejected the County’s analysis, finding the threshold analysis
advocated by the County results in the avoidance of a full equal protection
analysis. Equal protection demands that laws treat alike all people who are
“similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purposes of the law.” “ ‘imilarly
situated’ cannot mean simply ‘similar in the possession of the classifying trait.’
All members of any class are similarly situated in this respect, and consequently,
any classification whatsoever would be reasonable by this test.” Likewise,
“similarly situated” cannot be interpreted to require plaintiffs be identical in every
way to people treated more favorably by the law. “No two people or groups of
people are the same in every way, and nearly every equal protection claim could
be run aground [under] a threshold analysis” that requires the two groups “be a
mirror image of one another.” Rather, equal protection demands that the law
itself must be equal. It requires that laws treat all those who are similarly situated
with respect to the purposes of the law alike. Thus, the purposes of the law must
be referenced for a meaningful evaluation.

The purpose of Iowa’s marriage law is to provide an institutional basis for
defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of persons in
committed relationships. It also serves to recognize the status of the parties’
committed relationship. In this case, the court concluded, plaintiffs are similarly
situated compared to heterosexual persons; they are in committed relationships
and official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining
their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities.

[sketerpot]

More good news: Iowa has no residency requirement for marriage. People from other states can come here to get hitched.

Also good news: the legislature has said that they will not try to do anything about this ruling until next year.

[Justforfun000]

That's what I get for skimming the thread before I posted....sorry. Didn't mean to be redundant as DW already pasted the entire Opinion Summary.

I agree. But the summary opinion does an excellent job of explaining the incredible intellectual deficiency of the anti-gay marriage argument. Every single one of their arguments is either utterly devoid of supporting evidence or is manifestly dishonest in its construction, due to its obvious under-inclusive and over-inclusive aspects.

And yes..I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, it's such a cogent and comprehensive dismantling of any of the major arguments made against gay marriage that I think I'll keep it on hand to throw out at any other morons I run across who whip out the same tired arguments. What makes it even better is that it is an official legal ruling and not just an opinion.

[Darth Wong]

The only thing I would have liked to see them add is to question whether the state should in fact be encouraging procreation. They addressed that one by pointing out that there is zero evidence for a gay marriage ban affecting procreation rates, which is true, but if the state truly had a compelling interest in increasing procreation, you would think that contraception bans would be logical.

[Justforfun000]

Darth Wong Wrote: The only thing I would have liked to see them add is to question whether the state should in fact be encouraging procreation. They addressed that one by pointing out that there is zero evidence for a gay marriage ban affecting procreation rates, which is true, but if the state truly had a compelling interest in increasing procreation, you would think that contraception bans would be logical.

I actually wondered about that myself, and I first assumed they ignored it so they could keep the entire summary as brief as possible..but the more I think on it, I wonder if that's a true can of worms to open up. Procreation and the sustainability of society is a major sociological issue that directly impacts the overall GDP, workforce, and a dozen other major categories. I think to comprehensively overview it would have introduced too long a diatribe. Still, I would love to see something along this line tackle the argument because it does personally piss me off that at the heart of this argument is an insult to my identity by suggesting that I'm a little less valuable as a member of society because I'm not breeding children.

Edit: Just fixed a repeating word..

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The arguments presented by the anti-same-sex marriage proponents were pretty ridiculous. During the court hearing, it would seem impossible for any sensible person to take their arguments seriously at all. Thankfully, the Iowa Supreme Court is made up of sensible people.

[Surlethe]

The only thing I would have liked to see them add is to question whether the state should in fact be encouraging procreation. They addressed that one by pointing out that there is zero evidence for a gay marriage ban affecting procreation rates, which is true, but if the state truly had a compelling interest in increasing procreation, you would think that contraception bans would be logical.

Didn't they also point out that there were underinclusion problems with that, too? They didn't cite anything in particular, but, among others, sterile marriage, contraception, and marriage beyond a certain age would be illegal.

[Thanas]

I think the Prop 8 guys really poked the hornet's nest. Now that most voters have seen weeks of bad press coverage and now know that the mormons financed the campaign, I would imagine that respect for anti-gay laws has sunk pretty low.

Makes one wonder if it wouldn't have been better for the idiots to just focus on the "heartland" and ignore the more liberal states.

[Crossroads Inc.]

It seems more and more that the backers of Anti Gay marriage amendents really broke the bank in California with Prop8... They called in all the old favors, blackmailed, extortred, played more dirty then ever before and all but bankrupted themslves paying for every last printed, radio and TV ad in the state...

They may have won the battle but it seems to have left thier resources extreamily thin, in the wake of Prop 8 we may see a rash of small tiny stats pass gay marriage without any organized oppistion,.

[NetKnight]

Kudos to Iowa for entering the civilized world.

Basic human rights aside, I wonder how this will affect the '12 Republican Caucuses. By forcing the 'fundamentalist candidate' to adopt a 'social values' line this early, might this further the split with effectively more moderate big business Republicans, who will primarily focus on the economy? Could it even drive these "it's the economy, stupid" ( ) Republicans to a more moderate social position? One can only hope, of course, although we'll just have to see.

[General Soontir Fel]

The only thing I would have liked to see them add is to question whether the state should in fact be encouraging procreation. They addressed that one by pointing out that there is zero evidence for a gay marriage ban affecting procreation rates, which is true, but if the state truly had a compelling interest in increasing procreation, you would think that contraception bans would be logical.

Some states probably would have these bans if the Supreme Court hadn't ruled otherwise.

[Garibaldi]

The always-informative Nate Silver put up an interesting post in which he created a model to roughly predict when each state would be likely to vote against a gay marriage ban. The truth is that even if most people in the country today are anti-gay marriage, acceptance of gay marriage is on an upwards trend. That's why it makes sense for hardcore conservatives to push as hard as they can for comprehensive bans now, because in a few years they're going to start fighting a steadily losing battle everywhere outside of the Deep South.

[Duckie]

One also has to consider that the major factor against acceptance of gay marriage isn't race or politics or even evangelicality if you examine the data- it's age.

An overwhelmingly massive amount of people over 60 voted for the gay marriage ban, while a large majority of under-25s voted against it in California. If every voter over the age of 60 dropped dead right now, you'd see a massive skewing towards socially liberal positions like supporting gay marriage.

So naturally, the longer you wait, the more crusty old people who remember fondly when homosexuality was illegal and also a mental illness die, and the more the voting base shifts towards modern people who have grown up where homosexuality is normal, ellen degeneris is out, and your best friend has two moms or the like.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I owe one of the Supreme Justices a beer next time I see him.

[Slacker]

The always-informative Nate Silver put up an interesting post in which he created a model to roughly predict when each state would be likely to vote against a gay marriage ban. The truth is that even if most people in the country today are anti-gay marriage, acceptance of gay marriage is on an upwards trend. That's why it makes sense for hardcore conservatives to push as hard as they can for comprehensive bans now, because in a few years they're going to start fighting a steadily losing battle everywhere outside of the Deep South.

His analysis is really interesting in that, if one looks, 2012-2013 is something of a tipping point year-after that, a majority of the states in the Union will likely be in *favor* of gay marriage, in varying percentages. So if Obama gets a second term, one could easily see some sort of movement on it on a national level sometime in the middle-end of his second term.

[Duckie]

The always-informative Nate Silver put up an interesting post in which he created a model to roughly predict when each state would be likely to vote against a gay marriage ban. The truth is that even if most people in the country today are anti-gay marriage, acceptance of gay marriage is on an upwards trend. That's why it makes sense for hardcore conservatives to push as hard as they can for comprehensive bans now, because in a few years they're going to start fighting a steadily losing battle everywhere outside of the Deep South.

His analysis is really interesting in that, if one looks, 2012-2013 is something of a tipping point year-after that, a majority of the states in the Union will likely be in *favor* of gay marriage, in varying percentages. So if Obama gets a second term, one could easily see some sort of movement on it on a national level sometime in the middle-end of his second term.

There's a difference actually. Gay marriage bans are a lot easier to defeat than gay marriage is to pass. Civil Union bans are a lot easier to defeat than civil unions are to pass. I'm not sure why, I think it's because a lot of people are okay with gay people as long as they don't think too hard about it or get shouted at it by republicans on the television.

Don't expect much progress until like 2020 in my pessimistic opinion.

[CmdrWilkens]

There's a difference actually. Gay marriage bans are a lot easier to defeat than gay marriage is to pass. Civil Union bans are a lot easier to defeat than civil unions are to pass. I'm not sure why, I think it's because a lot of people are okay with gay people as long as they don't think too hard about it or get shouted at it by republicans on the television.

Don't expect much progress until like 2020 in my pessimistic opinion.

Part of it is that permitting gay marriage is an affirmative action whereas voting against such a ban is a negative action. For almost any vote of this kind (alterations to state constitutions) it is MUCH easier to get a "No" vote than a "Yes" vote. Its sort of inline with the status quo mindset: things are fine now so why change them. If gay marriage in a state exists you simply have to have enough people who just don't care to keep a ban from passing. However, if gay marraige doesn't exist and you want to pass a amendment to allow for it (or overturn an existing ban) then you have to get enough people actively concerned enough to want to change the law. The former is much easier to acheive than the later.

[Broomstick]

Still, I would love to see something along this line tackle the argument because it does personally piss me off that at the heart of this argument is an insult to my identity by suggesting that I'm a little less valuable as a member of society because I'm not breeding children.

... And that's another point not restricted to gays - my Other Half and I are a heterosexual but non-breeding couple. It's pretty fucking insulting for some asstard to spout off about "the purpose of marriage is procreation" in front of people who can't have children, but yes we've heard it.

Seriously, do this people intend to stamp "VOID" on a marriage certificate when a woman hits menopause? No? Guess that point of theirs is bullshit, too.

Granted, Iowa is traditionally a more conservative state than California, but I think there's a good chance that this could stick.

What people forget about California is that, socially speaking, it's two states, not one. Southern California is very liberal, Northern California is as conservative as anywhere in the deep south. I don't know how rigid the dividing line is, but from south to north opinions definitely change.

[General Soontir Fel]

What people forget about California is that, socially speaking, it's two states, not one. Southern California is very liberal, Northern California is as conservative as anywhere in the deep south. I don't know how rigid the dividing line is, but from south to north opinions definitely change.

It's not north and south, it's east and west (and even more accurately, rural and urban). The liberal areas are the densely populated urban areas around San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Sacramento (and a smaller enclave around Fresno). Southern California may seem more liberal because the LA and San Diego Metropolitan areas have about twice the population of the SF Bay Area.

Anecdote: last fall, I took a bike trip into the Inland Empire. On its western edge are two towns called Claremont (still in LA County) and Montclair (in San Bernardino County, which extends all the way to California's eastern border). And I paid some attention to the yard signs as I was passing through. In Claremont, there was a mix, but the majority were for Obama. In Montclair, the yard signs were overwhelmingly for McCain.

This is, by the way, why anyone--pundit, sci-fi writer, or someone with a website who talks about California, as a whole, seceding or otherwise going its separate way, is a double idiot--first for the idea of secession itself, and second for thinking that, for instance, Riverside and San Bernardino counties of the Inland Empire have more in common with San Francisco than with the neighboring regions in Nevada and Arizona.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Been cruising some Conservative blogs and thought the following shrieks might amuse those here

Until the government run schools are eliminated, the children will continue to grow up unable to use logic in their thought processes. The public schools promote feelings as a basis for decision making. Feelings are ephemeral and rarely produce sound decisions.

The same-sex sodomites brag continuously that the generations growing up are being taught to lose their ability to reason and will in the future see same-sex sodomy as equal to human coitus.

If you are serious about America's future you will vote to eliminate government run schools.

The government run schools used to have as their purpose the education of the young. Now their purpose is to indoctrinate the young into serving a perverse and evil agenda. Their main tactic is to deny the young the ability to reason.

committed same-sex sodomites is going to balloon as more and more lawyers legislate from the bench.

Hate crime laws will do nothing to stop the slaughter of same-sex sodomites that will increase as the lawyers try to force their stupidity on the population as a whole.

You do not have to be a genius to know that sodomy is destructive and evil. If the law is going to promote destructive and evil behaviors, it will be held so far in contempt as to threaten the safety of all who seek to uphold the evil laws.

What are the fruits of same-sex sodomy?

Sicknesses, physical, mental and emotional sicknesses, despair, lack of respect for oneself, the desire to draw others into your perversions.

Does anything positive come from the practices of same-sex sodomy? NO, NOTHING GOOD COMES FROM THE PRACTICES OF SAME-SEX SODOMY.

So why does the Iowa Supreme Court declare the practice of same-sex sodomy a constitutional right? Because they have either sold out to Maobama's master or they were made completely stupid by their legal education. How can they not know the damage same-sex sodomy does to a society?

Just thought these would be a good "know thy enemy", or at last, know exactly how battshit crazy some of these guys are

[Justforfun000]

Broomstick Wrote:

... And that's another point not restricted to gays - my Other Half and I are a heterosexual but non-breeding couple. It's pretty fucking insulting for some asstard to spout off about "the purpose of marriage is procreation" in front of people who can't have children, but yes we've heard it.

Yeah I forget that other people like yourselves would be hit by the same judgment. I'd love to be present at some of the cases where some religious asshole just finished making a comment like that in front of some hetero person or couple that couldn't reproduce and then hear them say something mollifying when they realize it. What exactly would they say I wonder..."Oh you know what I mean...it doesn't really apply to YOU!"...or "but in your case it's not because you have a choice..it's acceptable because it's God's will your infertile.."...or Christ knows what.. I want to see the big hole they'd be digging deeper & deeper with each comment as it's ultimately impossible to alter the logic including them in that category.

"Seriously, do this people intend to stamp "VOID" on a marriage certificate when a woman hits menopause? No? Guess that point of theirs is bullshit, too.
"

The only semi-logical argument they could try to push through in that regard is that it's expected to STAY married after a procreative phase has passed...Still they can't very well ignore the part about people becoming married after they cannot breed. Not if they want a logical point anyway.

What people forget about California is that, socially speaking, it's two states, not one. Southern California is very liberal, Northern California is as conservative as anywhere in the deep south. I don't know how rigid the dividing line is, but from south to north opinions definitely change.

I would never have known this before and automatically I would have also assumed the entire State of California was liberal, but this issue certainly demonstrated the dichotomy pretty fast....

[Darth Wong]

Actually, there is ample evidence that society does place greater value on people who have children; this is why they warrant a greater share of government services, and extra allowances in other ways. There's no point getting whiny and butt-hurt about it; it would be a piss-poor society indeed which did not do so.

The problem with applying this logic to marriage is that it is not relevant to marriage; the valuation society places upon child-raising is based on the presence of children with or without the arrangement of marriage.

[Atlan]

Been cruising some Conservative blogs and thought the following shrieks might amuse those here
-SNIP-

Just thought these would be a good "know thy enemy", or at last, know exactly how battshit crazy some of these guys are

True enough. And yet even on rightwing loonie sites like AR15.com sanity occassionally rears it's head. Taken from their thread on this topic:

If you want to live in a country where religious morality and the government system are closely intwined, I invite you to move to Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Oh, but you say, it would be different if MY religious morality was intwined with the government! Ah yes, I'm sure it would be.

+1

People would have all sorts of issues if it was a different religious viewpoint being enforced.

ETA: I don't think the state should be able to force any religion to have to marry anyone they don't want to.

Government should stay the hell out of "marriage" - if a church wants to "marry" anyone they want, why should the government regulate that.

That being said, government should only establish legal rules and financial sharing arrangements (i.e. Civil Contract) for whomever of legal age and consent wishes to enter into it.

This would solve SO many problems.

That last one, of course, perfectly illustrates that a lot of loonies simply do not recognise the difference between a government marriage and a religous marriage. The government marriage already establishes legal rules and financial sharing arrangements. It has no say about religon at all. Whereas the relgous one does the exact opposite. A lot of people simply get hung up on a name.

[Justforfun000]

Actually, there is ample evidence that society does place greater value on people who have children; this is why they warrant a greater share of government services, and extra allowances in other ways. There's no point getting whiny and butt-hurt about it; it would be a piss-poor society indeed which did not do so.

Well yes, you're right of course. But it's not the advantages or benefits they would encourage towards child-rearers that bother me, it's the negative insinuation that instead of being simply neutral, I'm actually edging towards immoral because I'm not with the hetero norm willingly and enthusiastically.

As you said, it's irrelevant to marriage, but they are trying to use it as a slur against people like me for choosing to 'withhold' my breeding ability.