Gays can get married in Iowa!

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
sketerpot
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 2004-03-06 12:40pm
Location: San Francisco

Gays can get married in Iowa!

Post by sketerpot »

I can't believe this hasn't been posted yet! (At least, the search function turned up nothing.)
The Des Moines Register wrote:A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa's law banning gay marriage.

The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered the Polk County recorder to issue marriage licenses to six gay couples.

"This is kind of the American Dream," said plaintiff Jen BarbouRoske, of Iowa City. "I'm still feeling kind of shaky. It's pure elation, I just cannot believe it."

Camilla Taylor, an attorney with Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, said the ruling requires "full equality for all Iowans including gay and lesbian Iowans and their families."

"The Iowa Constitution has lived up to its promises of equality for everyone," she said.

Gay couples from anywhere in Iowa could apply for a marriage license from Polk County. The process takes three days, however.

Polk County is expected to appeal the ruling to the Iowa S upreme Court.

County Attorney John Sarcone said the county would immediately seek a stay from Hanson, which if granted would prevent anyone from seeking a marriage license until an appeal could be heard.

The case will be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, which could refer it to the Iowa Court of Appeals, consider the case itself or decide not to hear the case.

Des Moines lawyer Dennis Johnson represented the six gay couples who filed suit after they were denied marriage licenses. He called the ruling "a moral victory for equal rights."

Johnson argued that Iowa has a long history of aggressively protecting civil rights in cases of race and gender. He said the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Legislature passed in 1998, contradicts previous court rulings regarding civil rights and should be struck down.

Johnson called the Defense of Marriage law "mean spirited" and said it was designed only to prohibit gays from marrying. He said it violates the state constitution's equal protection and due-process clauses.

Lambda Legal, which spearheaded a same-sex marriage drive across the country, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the gay and lesbian couples in Polk County District Court on Dec. 13, 2005.

Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant Polk County attorney, argued that the issue is not for a judge to decide.

Rachel Cunningham, a spokeswoman for the conservative Iowa Family Policy Center, which opposes gay marriage, said the decision will be appealed.

"We're very disappointed and will pursue to the next level of courts," she said.

In his ruling, Hanson said the state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.

"Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage... by reason of the fact that both person comprising such a couple are of the same sex," he said.

The judge said the state law banning same-sex marriage must be nullified, severed and stricken from the books and the marriage laws "must be read and applied in a gender neutral manner so as to permit same-sex couples to enter into a civil marriage..."

State Sen. Ron Wieck, R-Sioux City, said he was surprised by the ruling and promised the Legislature would take another look at the issue.

"We'll look at something we can do legislatively," Wieck said.

House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, said the judge's ruling only illustrates the need for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

"I can't believe this is happening in Iowa," he said. "I guarantee you there will a vote on this issue come January."

Sarcone, the Polk County attorney, said the arguments in the case were similar to those made in litigation around the cou ntry.

"I know Judge Hanson took a lot of time with it," Sarcone said. "He made his decision and we respectfully disagree."

Kate Varnum, another plaintiff, said she was elated but expected more legal battles.

"I don't expect this to be the last one," said Varnum, of Cedar Rapids.
Summary:

A judge in the county containing Des Moines rejected all the disingenuous reasoning behind Iowa's gay marriage ban and ordered that the county's public servants issue marriage licenses to gay couples. The wording of the ruling is quite a smackdown in places.

This only applies to the Polk County government, but people anywhere in Iowa can get a marriage license -- they just have to drive to Des Moines to do it.

This will be appealed, and I wouldn't bet on it surviving the Iowa supreme court, but marriage licenses are being issued right now. The first gay weddings will be this Wednesday.

There's talk of a constitutional amendment, but in Iowa that requires a simple majority in the house and senate in two consecutive legislative sessions followed by a majority approval in the next general election. A poll found that the majority in Iowa are against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a minority supports it, and about 7% are undecided.
User avatar
Dominus Atheos
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3903
Joined: 2005-09-15 09:41pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Post by Dominus Atheos »

Seriously? Iowa?

Didn't see that one coming. :wtf:
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

We'll see how it goes. Apparently around 20 couples were legally married before the decision was stayed and they'll resume the marriages on wednesday. Hopefully the Iowa Supreme Court will make the correct decision and then attempts to make a constitutional amendment will go the same way as those in MA.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
DrMckay
Jedi Master
Posts: 1082
Joined: 2006-02-14 12:34am

Post by DrMckay »

It is the future birthplace of one James Tiberius Kirk...
"Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. Guard your honor. Let your reputation fall where it will. And outlive the bastards."
~Count Aral Vorkosigan, A Civil Campaign
AO3 Link | FFN Link
User avatar
Wicked Pilot
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 8972
Joined: 2002-07-05 05:45pm

Post by Wicked Pilot »

From Field of Deams:

"Is this heaven?"

"No, it's Iowa."
The most basic assumption about the world is that it does not contradict itself.
User avatar
Spin Echo
Jedi Master
Posts: 1490
Joined: 2006-05-16 05:00am
Location: Land of the Midnight Sun

Post by Spin Echo »

While I'm all for gays being allowed to marry, I think this will have a backlash for Democratic presidential candidates campaigning in Iowa. As the overturn is fresh in people's minds, the topic is sure to come up in the questioning of the candidates. The Dems will have to pussyfoot around the topic while the Republicans will tell the people exactly what they want to hear.
Doom dOom doOM DOom doomity DooM doom Dooooom Doom DOOM!
User avatar
DPDarkPrimus
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18399
Joined: 2002-11-22 11:02pm
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Post by DPDarkPrimus »

Actually, his judgement was withdrawn after a few hours because of an appeal.

However, twenty-one couples managed to get married within this window, and the state has said they will still honor those marriages.

I could see if the local paper has the article online.
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest
"Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
User avatar
Darth Raptor
Red Mage
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2003-12-18 03:39am

Post by Darth Raptor »

Dominus Atheos wrote:Seriously? Iowa?

Didn't see that one coming. :wtf:
This state is really two countries in one. A (relatively) secular, well-educated and compassionate society centered around the small cities/large towns, and tribes of bigoted, ignorant, fundamentalist goobers inhabiting the rural areas. There's a world of difference between a town like Iowa City or Cedar Falls (both college towns) and the microscopic village of two hundred elderly white people where I live. It's between Minnesota and Missouri in more ways than geography.
User avatar
Darth Fanboy
DUH! WINNING!
Posts: 11182
Joined: 2002-09-20 05:25am
Location: Mars, where I am a totally bitchin' rockstar.

Post by Darth Fanboy »

Darth Raptor wrote:
This state is really two countries in one. A (relatively) secular, well-educated and compassionate society centered around the small cities/large towns, and tribes of bigoted, ignorant, fundamentalist goobers inhabiting the rural areas. There's a world of difference between a town like Iowa City or Cedar Falls (both college towns) and the microscopic village of two hundred elderly white people where I live. It's between Minnesota and Missouri in more ways than geography.
A better description of my birthplace I have never heard. Thank you.
"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little."
-George Carlin (1937-2008)

"Have some of you Americans actually seen Football? Of course there are 0-0 draws but that doesn't make them any less exciting."
-Dr Roberts, with quite possibly the dumbest thing ever said in 10 years of SDNet.
User avatar
Durandal
Bile-Driven Hate Machine
Posts: 17927
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Contact:

Post by Durandal »

The marriage licenses will no doubt be voided when the Iowa Supreme Court overrules this. Too bad. They're giving these poor people hope, and they're going to snatch it away in short order.
Damien Sorresso

"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

I'm hoping the Iowa Supreme Court at least allows the marriages already legally recorded to remain in practice. Perhaps when 21 married gay couples do not cause earthquakes and volcanoes in Iowa the state will ultimately reconsider.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Gil Hamilton
Tipsy Space Birdie
Posts: 12962
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:47pm
Contact:

Post by Gil Hamilton »

Maybe, but I'm doubting it myself. Even if the Supreme Court of Iowa doesn't void them, I'm sure the State Constitutional Amendment that comes to make sure this never happens again will.

Can't have gay people married, even 42 of them. After all, that will cause God to abandon them and let Nazi Riding Dinosaurs to roam the Earth once more.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet

"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert

"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
User avatar
The Grim Squeaker
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10315
Joined: 2005-06-01 01:44am
Location: A different time-space Continuum
Contact:

Post by The Grim Squeaker »

Gil Hamilton wrote: Can't have gay people married, even 42 of them. After all, that will cause God to abandon them and let Nazi Riding Dinosaurs to roam the Earth once more.
If you have a solution for 42, then the "Earth" won't be a problem anymore :P
Photography
Genius is always allowed some leeway, once the hammer has been pried from its hands and the blood has been cleaned up.
To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.
User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Post by CmdrWilkens »

Durandal wrote:The marriage licenses will no doubt be voided when the Iowa Supreme Court overrules this. Too bad. They're giving these poor people hope, and they're going to snatch it away in short order.
I doubt they'll do that because THEN the plantiffs can take action again based upont he ruling enabling, in effect, an ex post facto law. I doubt that many would agree and it would be a damn sight hard to prove but I somehow don't think that the Iowa Courts want to really get tangled up with letting the whole buisness run longer. Either they just won't hear it (so it never goes statewide and you have to travel to Des Moines) or they'll strike it down but let the 21 couples who got married keep their marriages. At least that's my bet they could still defy all logic and actually hear the case and rule in favor of the plantiffs making the decision statewide.
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Even if they left the existing marriages in place, they could still slam the door shut quite conclusively on future gay marriages, and the religious backlash to the existing marriages might lead them to slam it that much harder, with more oppressive language in whatever amendment they end up approving. After all, now they can do even more "family values" fearmongering, which is their stock in trade, by warning everybody of how sneaky the gays are and how they will pounce on any weakness, any opportunity to strike.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
Duckie
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3980
Joined: 2003-08-28 08:16pm

Post by Duckie »

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't there an inability of state or federal government to pass ex post facto laws? If they're married now, I don't think it can be taken away from them, right?
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I'm hoping the Iowa Supreme Court at least allows the marriages already legally recorded to remain in practice. Perhaps when 21 married gay couples do not cause earthquakes and volcanoes in Iowa the state will ultimately reconsider.
Either that or the fundies will be able to use those 21 marriages to fuel their "if you give those damned gays an inch, they'll take a mile" rhetoric.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

MRDOD wrote:Excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't there an inability of state or federal government to pass ex post facto laws? If they're married now, I don't think it can be taken away from them, right?
You are correct, it would have to go to the US Supreme Court all the way, quite possibly, if they dared ex post facto deny a legal contract. There's actually like 7 gay couples who are married in Colorado from the 1970s when a single county registrar there briefly registered gay couples when there was no law on the books clarifying it one way or another in that state. Despite Colorado passing a gay marriage ban as a constitutional amendment, even then those marriages remain grandfathered in.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Durandal
Bile-Driven Hate Machine
Posts: 17927
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Contact:

Post by Durandal »

CmdrWilkens wrote:
Durandal wrote:The marriage licenses will no doubt be voided when the Iowa Supreme Court overrules this. Too bad. They're giving these poor people hope, and they're going to snatch it away in short order.
I doubt they'll do that because THEN the plantiffs can take action again based upont he ruling enabling, in effect, an ex post facto law.
Except that court rulings are not law, so the argument would be that (a) they're not subject to ex post facto restrictions and (b) that the judge who made the ruling in the first place was wrong, and the reversion of that ruling constitutes a voiding, thus any contracts made under the purview of that ruling are also void.

It's not a matter of law at this point. It's a matter of how reactionary the Iowa Supreme Court chooses to be, and I'll bet they'll go all-out.
Damien Sorresso

"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Post by CmdrWilkens »

Durandal wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:
Durandal wrote:The marriage licenses will no doubt be voided when the Iowa Supreme Court overrules this. Too bad. They're giving these poor people hope, and they're going to snatch it away in short order.
I doubt they'll do that because THEN the plantiffs can take action again based upont he ruling enabling, in effect, an ex post facto law.
Except that court rulings are not law, so the argument would be that (a) they're not subject to ex post facto restrictions and (b) that the judge who made the ruling in the first place was wrong, and the reversion of that ruling constitutes a voiding, thus any contracts made under the purview of that ruling are also void.

It's not a matter of law at this point. It's a matter of how reactionary the Iowa Supreme Court chooses to be, and I'll bet they'll go all-out.
Court rulings are law, the are simply common law rather than legislated articles. My point in this being that since you can make both arguments (that the ruling was law and thus voiding them is ex post facto and that the ruling was incorrect thus there was never legitimate basis to being with) you create a situaiton which MUST be resolved by a higher court ruling which would mean a direct appeal to the US Supreme Court. I'm not certain if the fundies are secure enough in their packing of the court to want to take that all the way. Moreover i don' know how the Iowa court leans so it would be a tough call for me to make. Pessimism which seems to be the wisest course in recent years would hold to the idea that the court is super fundies who will strike down the bill aggresively but I just don't know. My bet was for some middle ground which shuts down future gay marriages but prevents any further arguments on the issue.
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

There is an old saying: "the cynic is right 90% of the time, and pleasantly surprised the other 10%". Never has it been more true in my lifetime than during the Bush administration, and I can't bring myself to be even mildly optimistic about any aspect of this situation.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Spin Echo
Jedi Master
Posts: 1490
Joined: 2006-05-16 05:00am
Location: Land of the Midnight Sun

Post by Spin Echo »

Darth Wong wrote:There is an old saying: "the cynic is right 90% of the time, and pleasantly surprised the other 10%". Never has it been more true in my lifetime than during the Bush administration, and I can't bring myself to be even mildly optimistic about any aspect of this situation.
This is a battle I'd rather had not been won at the moment. Iowa is a swing state, and I fear the likes of Mitt Romney wooing the voters with rhetoric of "stopping those activist judges bent on overthrowing the will of the people."
Doom dOom doOM DOom doomity DooM doom Dooooom Doom DOOM!
User avatar
Darth Holbytlan
Padawan Learner
Posts: 405
Joined: 2007-01-18 12:20am
Location: Portland, Oregon

Post by Darth Holbytlan »

CmdrWilkens wrote:Court rulings are law, the are simply common law rather than legislated articles. My point in this being that since you can make both arguments (that the ruling was law and thus voiding them is ex post facto and that the ruling was incorrect thus there was never legitimate basis to being with) you create a situaiton which MUST be resolved by a higher court ruling which would mean a direct appeal to the US Supreme Court.
You're assuming that this has never come up before and is therefore not settled law, but it's unbelievable that the courts haven't already figured out whether ex post facto applies to common law. A court's standard mode of operation is to make a ruling on the law w.r.t. a specific case, then shove that ruling up the loser's ass. It's impossible for ex post facto to apply to common law without breaking this.

In this case there was a specific law banning gay marriage overturned. Unlike the Colorado case The Duchess mentioned, it's unlikely that the marriages will stand if the ruling is reversed—they would never have been valid in the first place if that law is reinstated. OTOH, if the ruling holds, a constitutional amendment would not be able to void the marriages. Whether they could cancel the marriages (that is, instantly divorce them while acknowledging that they were married) I don't know, but the Colorado situation makes it sound unlikely.
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

Spin Echo wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:There is an old saying: "the cynic is right 90% of the time, and pleasantly surprised the other 10%". Never has it been more true in my lifetime than during the Bush administration, and I can't bring myself to be even mildly optimistic about any aspect of this situation.
This is a battle I'd rather had not been won at the moment. Iowa is a swing state, and I fear the likes of Mitt Romney wooing the voters with rhetoric of "stopping those activist judges bent on overthrowing the will of the people."
If you read the OP, most people in the state oppose a constitutional amendment.

I will be honest. I cant think of a way that the SCOTUS legally could deny an equal protection claim to gay marriage. I know the probably will, but legally I just dont know how they can. The 14th amendment is pretty damn clear in the matter. And not just on marriage.

Marriage is but one of the many rights which we as gay people are systematically denied in this country. Everyone is protected by state and federal hate crime legislation. Everyone is protected by anti-discrimination laws. Everyone can get married and obtain the legal protections that marriage provides. Everyone but us. This flies in the face of the american ideal that everyone is equal. Not only that. It flies in the face of the Constitution.

The first section of the 14th amendment reads as follows (if a tad abridged).

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens of the United States.... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

There are only three ways our current second class status can be justified. 1) That we are not human beings 2) we are not citizens. or 3) there is a section of the 14th amendment I am missing. The part after "nor deny to any person... the equal protection of the laws" where it says "except for faggots"

I will be blunt. I am fucking sick of it. I am so god damn sick, and tired of looking at breeders flaunting rights that I dont have. Just the other day I was reading the University paper, and saw a story about an ASU couple who won the contest to get married on the Tonight Show. Was I happy for them? No. I couldn't help but cringe and mutter "So this is the sanctity of marriage that my rights are trampled to protect? Fuck them"

These two breeders take it as their natural right to get married. They probably never thought of the possibility that the option could ever be closed to them. He probably did something like propose to her in a nice restaraunt, and when they were making their wedding plans they probably thought something innocent like "Hey, let's send in an application. It would be really cool if we won, probably wont happen though"

Note: I am 21, and not in a relationship, any references to such are hypothetical
I cant get married on the tonight show. I cant have the massive marriage celebration with a white gown and too many sequenz. I cant even quietly go down to the courthouse with my beloved and have a nice ceremony with friends and family in a little gazebo at the park. Nope. None of that. I wont be able to visit my lover in the hospital, it wont matter that we were together for 30 years. If my Power of Attourney gets challenged in court by his homophobic parents, I will lose. And wont even have that if we are outside our state of residence. Same goes for any other document that would offer us some smidgen of protection. We wont get the social recognition of being in a committed relationship. And when asked if I am married, I wont simply be able to say "yes" I will have to explain that I have been with a man for 30 years, or use embarassing euphamisms if I want to be honest and not out myself. For fuck's sake. This past election year Arizona my home state was the first to defeat the Abomination known as prop 107, which was a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and anything that looks like marriage (which could nullify things like Power of Attourney if you get an asshole judge). Want to know how it was defeated? The Human Rights Campaign had to play down how it was an abomination that cruely targeted gay people for second class citizenship and play up how the second clause (the one that banned that which looks like marriage) hurt straight people and call it "over-reaching"

Yeah. You read that right. Our own lobby group, was forced to put people on television to say (and I paraphrase) "I dont care about gay people's rights as human beings. But I am straight and Sally and I couldnt be bothered to get married, and instead took advantage of the pittance of protection that gay people have managed to secure for themselves in our municipality, and this amendment would hurt us. This law is over-reaching and too broad"

And it still failed by a measely 30 thousand votes. Half of ASU's undergrad population.

Even if we get civil unions, we are still inferior because we are apart. What support for civil unions tells me is "I pity you that you dont have the same legal protections that I take for granted. But you still are not good enough for marriage"

But of course I still have to vote for one of those politicians, because it is either them, or people who think they can find that missing part of the 14th amendment with a bit of lemon juice and some light heat.

ANd that doesnt even go into hate crime legislation (My friend Brent got beaten up last weak for being gay) and anti-discrimination laws (where getting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act through committee was considered a victory a couple years ago, something it had never done in the DECADES it has been introduced regularly for)

Sorry for the rant... but this sort of stuff sets me off. I am going to go to sleep now.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
Spin Echo
Jedi Master
Posts: 1490
Joined: 2006-05-16 05:00am
Location: Land of the Midnight Sun

Post by Spin Echo »

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Spin Echo wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:There is an old saying: "the cynic is right 90% of the time, and pleasantly surprised the other 10%". Never has it been more true in my lifetime than during the Bush administration, and I can't bring myself to be even mildly optimistic about any aspect of this situation.
This is a battle I'd rather had not been won at the moment. Iowa is a swing state, and I fear the likes of Mitt Romney wooing the voters with rhetoric of "stopping those activist judges bent on overthrowing the will of the people."
If you read the OP, most people in the state oppose a constitutional amendment.
I thought the Iowa gay marriage ban was brought about by voter referendum, or am I confusing it with another state?
Doom dOom doOM DOom doomity DooM doom Dooooom Doom DOOM!
Post Reply