Iowa Supreme Court to issue gay marriage ruling

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Iowa Supreme Court to issue gay marriage ruling

(Des Moines, Iowa) The Iowa Supreme Court announced Thursday it will issue its long awaited ruling on same-sex marriage Friday morning.

The court heard arguments in December in a challenge to the state ban on same-sex marriage.
In 2007, Polk County Judge Robert Hanson struck down the state Defense of Marriage law, declaring it to be unconstitutional. Later the same day Hanson stayed the ruling, pending an appeal.

Arguing before the high court in December, Assistant Polk County Attorney Roger Kuhle told the justices that Hanson had overstepped his authority.

Kuhle also said that state support of same-sex marriage would damage traditional marriage, arguing that it would indicate to future generations that marriage is no longer about procreation.

Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor, representing the six couples who are challenging the ban on gay marriage, told the court that the law violates Iowa’s constitution.

Taylor said that the constitution protects gay people’s rights to due process and equal protection.

Meanwhile, legislation that would make marriage gender neutral in Iowa appears dead after it became one of several bills stripped from the list of measures to be taken up by lawmakers this session.

While it remains possible the bill could reemerge near the end of the session most political observers believe it has little chance of being taken up.

The bill was sponsored by Sen. Matt McCoy. It would have replaced the words that define a couple as husband and wife under Iowa’s marriage law with spouse.

Here we go again.

[Dark Flame]

We're currently arguing this topic in my English class. Hopefully that law gets overturned, it would be a good start or good progress or something like that.

[Covenant]

Kuhle also said that state support of same-sex marriage would damage traditional marriage, arguing that it would indicate to future generations that marriage is no longer about procreation.

Doesn't anyone ever get tired of making this statement? He's got a brain, he's got to see how absurd this idea is. So if a woman can't bear children, she's no longer allowed to be married? We wouldn't want to send the wrong message.

That aside, it is very interesting to see them attacking this as a state's constitution issue, which side-steps the issue of Federal protection and goes directly at the "any powers not expressly..." blah blah clause and makes the states themselves accountable for their own legal framework. That gives it a higher chance at success, and of sticking, somewhat. I'm not sure what's involved in Iowa altering its own constitution. Not much, I think. Too bad the gender neutrality bill got stripped off, it would be fun to see that in action. How suprising to see Iowa in this fight, I never figured it for a battleground in the tugging match over rights. I figured it was too rural for such a fight to last long.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

IF the constitution of Iowa requires a supermajority to amend, this might actually work out. Otherwise it's just another state which is going to have a harsh constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, by the end of next year, which will make it harder to undue when momentum finally builds in the opposite direction in the Heartland.

[Edi]

Same tired old bullshit arguments again. The whole fucking point about marriage as a social contract is about property rights and right of attorney in case of one's spouse being somehow incapacitated. It has always been that way, not about procreation. Procreation happens just fine without marriage, so the statement is fucking absurd on its face, plus the implications about post-menopausal women's right to marry.

[Duckie]

SECTION 1. Any amendment or amendments to this constitution may be proposed in either house of the general assembly; and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment shall be entered on their journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and referred to the legislature to be chosen at the next general election, and shall be published, as provided by law, for three months previous to the time of making such choice; and if, in the general assembly so next chosen as aforesaid, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to, by a majority of all the members elected to each house, then it shall be the duty of the general assembly to submit such proposed amendment or amendments 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.

Sadly it's a simple majority vote, but it can only come after a wait period since the legislature has to clear any amendment before it can be voted on by people. Thus depending upon the timing of the ruling and what the Iowa State Legislature does there could be a period of gay marriages before the inevitable backlash that makes it harder and harder for the time to actually come.

[sketerpot]

GAY MARRIAGE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY!

Press release here. (PDF).

[Gil Hamilton]

GAY MARRIAGE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY!

Press release here. (PDF).

Congratulations to Iowa. Now gay Iowans have a few months to get married like they are citizens with equal rights until conservatives drive through a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

[sketerpot]

Bullshit. Amending Iowa's constitution is a lot harder than amending California's. First, they have to get both the house and senate to pass the amendment. There are substantial Democratic majorities in both houses now (56-44 in the house, and a whopping 32-18 in the senate), and they blocked the anti-gay-marriage amendment in the last session.

Second, they need to wait for the next legislative session and pass the amendment again. Then, if it hasn't died, it goes on the ballot for a popular vote. Even in the worst-case scenario, I figure we have at least two years before gay marriage could possibly be made illegal in Iowa.

EDIT: it's better than I thought: the amendment needs to be passed by two consecutive general assemblies. Each one lasts for two years, and there would be an election in the middle. So I figure that gives us gay marriage at least until November 2012. That's more than three years.

[Furlong]

From Massachusetts, I want to congratulate Iowa, and wish good luck to couples in Iowa.

[Broomstick]

Ha! While the conservatards were hyperventilating over Massachusetts and California gay marriage snuck into flyover country!

Is it just me, or is the issue starting to look like whack-a-mole?

[Crossroads Inc.]

Want some real hyperventilating, check out some of the right wing blogs right now, the shrieks from posters is amazing

[Surlethe]

The ruling was announced:

WSJ

DES MOINES, Iowa -- The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday finding that the state's same-sex-marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making Iowa the third state where marriage is legal.

In its decision, the court upheld a 2007 district court judge's ruling that the law violates the state constitution. It strikes the language from Iowa code limiting marriage to only between a man a woman.

"The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.

The ruling set off celebration among the state's gay-marriage proponents.

"Iowa is about justice, and that's what happened here today," said Laura Fefchak, who was hosting a verdict party in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale with her partner of 13 years, Nancy Robinson.

Ms. Robinson added: "To tell the truth, I didn't think I'd see this day."

Des Moines attorney Dennis Johnson, who argued on behalf of the gay and lesbian couples, said "this is a great day for civil rights in Iowa."

Court rules dictate that the decision will take about 21 days to be considered final, and a request for a rehearing could be filed within that period. That means it will be at least several weeks before gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses.

But Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said the county attorney's office won't ask for a rehearing, meaning the court's decision should take effect after that three-week period.

"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Mr. Sarcone said. "This is not a personal thing. We have an obligation to the law to defend the recorder, and that's what we do."

The case has been working its way through Iowa's court system since 2005 when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. Some of their children are also listed as plaintiffs.

The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.

The state Supreme Court's ruling upheld an August 2007 decision by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson, who found that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.

The Polk County attorney's office, arguing on behalf of Mr. Brien, claimed that Judge Hanson's ruling violates the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.

Lambda Legal scheduled a news conference for Friday to comment on the ruling. A request for comment from the Polk County attorney's office wasn't immediately returned.

Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed gay marriage before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows domestic partnerships.

New Jersey and New Hampshire also offer civil unions, which provide many of the same rights that come with marriage. New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and legislators there and in New Jersey are weighing whether to offer marriage. A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont has cleared the Legislature but may be vetoed by the governor.

The ruling in Iowa's same-sex-marriage case came more quickly than many observers had anticipated, with some speculating after oral arguments that it could take a year or more for a decision.

[sketerpot]

Reading over their press release (PDF), it's amazing how strongly-worded the court's decision was. They list and rebut all the major arguments against gay marriage, say that this is a major civil-rights decision, and end with this:

We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian
people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially
further any important governmental objective. The legislature has
excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a
supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally
sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in
dispute, that can affect this determination.

We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of
the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s
marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa
Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our
constitutional duty.

This is a great day for justice.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Doubtless the constitutional amendment that will be passed will attempt to ex post facto strip everyone who has married of their marriage rights (got to learn lessons in hate from the Californians), though be written in such a way that if the US Supreme Court strikes that portion down as an Act of Attainder the rest of the bill will remain in effect, probably banning civil unions and domestic partnerships as well. Oh well, it'll still be until 2013. By then I believe all of the New England States and New York and New Jersey should have gay marriage besides, and a reasonable expectation that the Fabian Strategy of the Washington State legislature will have culminated in full marriage, as well (we're currently going from the domestic partnerships of 2007 to full civil unions). Maybe Maryland will have managed as well, but I doubt that. I still don't get the pure insanity of letting a simple majority enact constitutional change, even if they have to do it twice over two years and only after that again send it to a simple majority of voters. Why does it seem Washington is about the only state out there which runs on the same two-thirds rule as the Federal Government? I admit that's the most disconcerting thing I've learned in this entire prospect, that other states think their constitutional law is negotiable by a simple majority.

[Ender]

You know, when you think progressive, you don't think Iowa, but damn if they don't walk the walk

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You know, when you think progressive, you don't think Iowa, but damn if they don't walk the walk

The Supreme Court certainly did, but I'm just doubting we'll see that followed up upon, and in fact more likely decisively rejected by the rest of the population.

[Darth Wong]

Let's face it, this shit won't end until it goes to the federal level. And I can hear the "activist judges" yelping already. But I'm glad to see that somebody finally cried out "the Emperor has no clothes" on these bullshit anti-gay marriage arguments like "encourage procreation" or "optimal child-raising environment" or "preserve traditional definition". I have never heard an anti-gay marriage argument that sounded sincere, as in "I actually sincerely believe the logic of this argument and always have", as opposed to "I think I hit upon a clever argument to keep those gays out".

Here's the text of the opinion summary from http://www.iowacourts.gov/wfData/files/ ... ummary.pdf

Opinion Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court has the responsibility to determine if a law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution. The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion.

In addressing the case before it, the court found one constitutional principle was at the heart of the case—the doctrine of equal protection. Equal protection under the Iowa Constitution “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” Since territorial times, Iowa has given meaning to this constitutional provision, striking blows to slavery and segregation, and recognizing women’s rights. The court found the issue of same-sex marriage comes to it with the same importance as the landmark cases of the past.

Equal Protection Principles. Under Iowa’s tripartite system of government, courts give respect to the legislative process and presume its enactments are constitutional. The deference afforded to legislative policy-making is manifested in the level of scrutiny applied to review legislative action. In most equal protection cases, the court applies a very deferential standard known as the “rational basis test.” Under this test, “[t]he plaintiff has the heavy burden of showing the statute unconstitutional and must negate every reasonable basis upon which the classification may be sustained.” Classifications based on race, alienage, or national origin and those affecting fundamental rights are, however, evaluated under a “strict scrutiny” standard. Classifications subject to strict scrutiny are presumptively invalid and must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. The court also recognized that an intermediate tier has been applied to statutes classifying persons on the basis of gender or illegitimacy. Under this level of scrutiny, a party seeking to uphold the statute must demonstrate the challenged classification is substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental objective.

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.

Classification Undertaken in Iowa Code Section 595.2. Having determined that the plaintiffs were similarly situated for purposes of equal protection analysis, the court next addressed the classification undertaken in Iowa’s marriage statute. The plaintiffs contended the statute classifies and discriminates on the bases of gender and sexual orientation while the County argued the same-sex marriage ban does not discriminate on either basis. The court concluded that “[t]he benefit denied by the marriage statute—the status of civil marriage for same-sex couples—is so ‘closely correlated with being homosexual’ as to make it apparent the law is targeted at gay and lesbian people as a class.” Therefore, the court proceeded to analyze the statute’s constitutionality based on sexual-orientation discrimination.

Appropriate Level of Judicial Scrutiny. The next issue addressed by the court was whether sexual orientation is a suspect class entitled to a heightened level of scrutiny beyond rational basis. Four factors utilized in determining whether certain legislative classifications warrant a more demanding constitutional analysis were considered: (1) the history of invidious discrimination against the class burdened by the legislation; (2) whether the characteristics that distinguish the class indicate a typical class member’s ability to contribute to society; (3) whether the distinguishing characteristic is “immutable,” or beyond the class members’ control; and (4) the political power of the subject class.

In its analysis, the court found each factor supported a finding that classification by sexual orientation warranted a heightened scrutiny. The court, citing historical as well as present-day examples, concluded that gay and lesbian people as a group have long been the victim of purposeful and invidious discrimination because of their sexual orientation. There was no evidence that the characteristic that defines the members of this group—sexual orientation—bears any logical relationship to their ability to perform productively in society, either in familial relations or otherwise. Addressing the issue of immutability, the court found sexual orientation to be central to personal identity and that its alteration, if at all, could only be accomplished at the expense of significant damage to the individual’s sense of self. This, the court concluded, would be wholly unacceptable for the government to require anyone to do. Finally, the court found that, despite their securing of significant legal protections against discrimination in recent years, gay and lesbian people have not become so politically powerful as to overcome the unfair and severe prejudice that produces discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Intermediate Scrutiny Standard: Governmental Objectives. Based upon the above analysis, the court proceeded to examine Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban under an intermediate scrutiny standard. “To withstand intermediate scrutiny, a statutory classification must be substantially related to an important governmental objective.” In determining whether exclusion of gay and lesbian people from civil marriage is substantially related to any important governmental objective, the court considered each of the County’s proffered objectives in support of the marriage statute. The objectives asserted by the County were (1) tradition, (2) promoting the optimal environment for children, (3) promoting procreation, (4) promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships, and (5) preservation of state resources. In considering these objectives, the court examined whether the objective purportedly advanced by the classification is important and, if so, whether the governmental objective can fairly be said to be advanced by the legislative classification.

Maintaining Traditional Marriage. Initially, the court considered the County’s argument the same-sex marriage ban promotes the “integrity of traditional marriage” by “maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one between a man and a woman).” The court noted that, when tradition is offered as a justification for preserving a statutory scheme challenged on equal protection grounds, the court must determine whether the reasons underlying the tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements. These reasons, the court found, must be something other than the preservation of tradition by itself. “When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.” Here, the County offered no governmental reason underlying the tradition of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, so the court proceeded to consider the other reasons advanced by the County for the legislative classification.

Promotion of Optimal Environment to Raise Children. The second of the County’s proffered governmental objectives involves promoting child rearing by a father and a mother in a marital relationship, the optimal milieu according to some social scientists. Although the court found support for the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents, it acknowledged the existence of reasoned opinions that dualgender parenting is the optimal environment for children. Nonetheless, the court concluded the classification employed to further that goal— sexual orientation— did not pass intermediate scrutiny because it is significantly under-inclusive and over-inclusive.

The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents. If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not merely gay and lesbian people. The statute is also under-inclusive because it does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children in Iowa. The statute is over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. The court further noted that the County failed to show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban, or how the ban benefits the interests of children of heterosexual parents. Thus, the court concluded a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal environment to raise children.

Promotion of Procreation. Next, the court addressed the County’s argument that endorsement of traditional civil marriage will result in more procreation. The court concluded the County’s argument is flawed because it fails to address the required analysis of the objective: whether exclusion of gay and lesbian individuals from the institution of civil marriage will result in more procreation. The court found no argument to support the conclusion that a goal of additional procreation would be substantially furthered by the exclusion of gays and lesbians from civil marriage.

Promoting Stability in Opposite-Sex Relationships. The County also asserted that the statute promoted stability in opposite-sex relationships. The court acknowledged that, while the institution of civil marriage likely encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships, there was no evidence to support that excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage makes opposite-sex marriage more stable.

Conservation of Resources. Finally, the court rejected the County’s argument that banning same-sex marriages in a constitutional fashion conserves state resources. The argument in support of the same-sex marriage ban is based on a simple premise: civilly married couples enjoy numerous governmental benefits, so the state’s fiscal burden associated with civil marriage is reduced if less people are allowed to marry. While the ban on same-sex marriage may conserve some state resources, so would excluding any number of identifiable groups. However, under intermediate scrutiny the sexual-orientation-based classification must substantially further the conservation-of-resources objective. Here again, the court found it was over- and under-inclusive and did not substantially further the suggested governmental interest.

Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage. Having addressed and rejected each specific interest articulated by the County, the court addressed one final ground believed to underlie the same-sex marriage debate—religious opposition. Recognizing the sincere religious belief held by some that the “sanctity of marriage” would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples, the court nevertheless noted that such views are not the only religious views of marriage. Other, equally sincere groups have espoused strong religious views yielding the opposite conclusion. These contrasting opinions, the court finds, explain the absence of any religious-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage statute. “Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them . . . . The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute, declares, ‘Marriage is a civil contract’ and then regulates that civil contract . . . . Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with marriage.”

Constitutional Infirmity. In concluding the marriage statute is constitutionally infirm, the court stated:

We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination.

We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2 denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by the Iowa Constitution.

(orange-coloured emphasis added; orange seems to have good visibility in every theme)

Bam!

[Crossroads Inc.]

Personally I have new illusions about this being any sort of "victory" This is a short erm win at best... It is bound to either be ignored by the general public, or baned the next time the get to pass an amendment to the state constitution...

The gay Marriage situation IS very much like Wack-a-mole... However... The religious wing nuts have become VERY good at Wacking down gay marriage when it does pass.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Oh shit! This is just fucking awesome news! I don't care short-term this victory will be (though from what I understand, it will have a much longer life expectancy than California's). It will require those religious right assholes to divert resources to expand their front.

[Darth Wong]

Personally I have new illusions about this being any sort of "victory" This is a short erm win at best... It is bound to either be ignored by the general public, or baned the next time the get to pass an amendment to the state constitution...

The gay Marriage situation IS very much like Wack-a-mole... However... The religious wing nuts have become VERY good at Wacking down gay marriage when it does pass.

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.

[Crossroads Inc.]

On that I will agree, and after reading thier opinions I think it should be sent on to be read by as many pro gay people as possible, The opinion indeed does a Fantastic job of laying bare the trivial and empty arguments poeple use in oppistion o gay Marriage.

Which is one of the things the gets to me most about the whole deal.. Its that at this point it is painfully clear that there IS no justifcation for banning gay marriage aside from people who "Don't like it" there is no leagle or offical reason what so ever for banning it.. and the more that information gets around the better...

It needs to be repeated that any and every argument by anti-gay marriage people simply boils down to either:
"God says its wrong"
or
"It makes me feel uncomfortable"

[Darth Wong]

On that I will agree, and after reading thier opinions I think it should be sent on to be read by as many pro gay people as possible, The opinion indeed does a Fantastic job of laying bare the trivial and empty arguments poeple use in oppistion o gay Marriage.

Which is one of the things the gets to me most about the whole deal.. Its that at this point it is painfully clear that there IS no justifcation for banning gay marriage aside from people who "Don't like it" there is no leagle or offical reason what so ever for banning it.. and the more that information gets around the better...

It needs to be repeated that any and every argument by anti-gay marriage people simply boils down to either:
"God says its wrong"
or
"It makes me feel uncomfortable"

The real source of their feeling is more like this: "I'm OK with gay people ... as long as they are segregated from real people."

Let's be honest here: if the Nazis didn't do it first and poison the well against the idea, I'm sure all of these homophobes would be calling for laws to force gays to wear public identification.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

On somewhat related news:

Vermont House OKs gay marriage
By 365gay Newscenter Staff
04.03.2009 8:32am EDT
(Montpelier, Vermont) The Vermont House on Thursday passed marriage equality legislation but not by enough of a margin to override a threatened veto by Gov. Jim Douglas (R) .

The bill passed the House on a 95-52 preliminary vote. A final vote will be held on Friday. It would need 100 votes to overturn a veto.
The Senate overwhelmingly passed its version of the legislation earlier.

The two versions still need to be harmonized before going to Douglas’ desk.

The House bill would guarantee that churches would not be obligated to marry same-sex couples. Another preserves the words husband and wife on marriage licenses while affirming same-sex couples can marry, and a third allows private church-based organizations to refuse facilities and membership to gay couples.

House leaders now must try to sway the five votes to ensure it is veto-proof.

Vermont was the first state in the country to legalize civil unions in 2000. Since then, LGBT groups have criticized the law for creating a “two tiered” system - marriage for opposite-sex couples and civil unions for gays.

Under the Senate version, the civil unions law would allow marriage of same-sex partners beginning Sept. 1. Civil unions, which confer some rights similar to marriage, would still be recognized but no longer granted after Sept. 1.

Hundreds of supporters and opponents of the legislation turned out at the State House for Thursday night’s debate.

Earlier in the day, about 200 opponents staged a rally and then went into the building, jamming a hallway outside a news conference where Douglas was reiterating his opposition to the bill.

Supporters cast the debate as a civil rights issue, saying a civil unions law enacted by the state in 2000 has fallen short of the equality it promised same-sex couples. Its appeal has declined, too: In 2001, the state granted 1,876 civil unions, compared with only 262 last year.

An impact study released earlier this month suggests there is a link between the economy and gay marriage.

The study, by the Williams Institute at UCLA, found that approval of gay marriage in Vermont could generate $31 million in new spending and $3.3 million in state taxes over three years.

Last November, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based LGBT rights group that brought the successful legal challenges leading to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and Connecticut launched the “Six by Twelve” campaign to legalize gay marriage throughout all six New England states by 2012

I can foresee another close voting coming around. I'm surprised how much progress we've made considering how everyone was predicting that Prop 8 passing would embolden the religious right and further their cause. In every single instance where an amendment was introduced to some state to ban same-sex marriage since Nov 4th, 2008, it has failed to gain traction.

[Drooling Iguana]

I'm not so sure on how short-term this is going to be. Remember that Proposition 8 was voted on very soon after the initial court decision legalising gay marriage in California, so that the outrage was still fresh. The Iowa constitution can't be amended for nearly 4 years, during which gay people will be getting married, the world will (presumably) not end and the whole thing will become a more and more normal part of everyday life, making it harder to mobilise the voters to enact a constitutional amendment to overturn it.

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