On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 16:50:48 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Bryan wrote:
>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/...a_***_marriage
>>
>> Over the next four or five years more and more folks will realize that
>> same sex marriage does not in any way degrade straight marriages.
>
> I see this taking the same path that the same-sex-marriage issue took in
> California: The voters outlawed it and the state judicial system overruled
> the voters on the grounds that the state constitution didn't support the
> prohibition. The next step that California took is already being enacted in
> Iowa, that of attempting to amend the state constitution so that marriage is
> strictly defined as being between a man and a woman.
>
> Iowa's just ten months behind, that's all.
>
> Bob
my understanding is that it's not as easy to amend the constitution in iowa
as it is in, say, california:
Judge Robert Hanson of Polk County District Court ruled in favor of
same-sex marriage on August 30, 2007. The next morning, Hanson issued a
stay of his decision pending an appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court.
On April 3, 2009, in Varnum v. Brien, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously
affirmed Hanson's original ruling, finding that the law banning same-sex
marriage was unconstitutional. Thus, Iowa joins Massachusetts and
Connecticut in legalising same-sex marriage. The ruling will take effect on
April 24, 2009.
As a result of Hanson's ruling, a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex
marriage was proposed in the state legislature but did not pass in 2008. If
approved in 2009 or 2010, the Iowa Legislature would have to approve it
again in 2011 or 2012, after which it would placed on the ballot for final
approval by the Iowa electorate.[
The issue of a constitutional amendment is not yet decided because, Senate
Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, (D-Council Bluffs) said, the Legislature
is in its closing stretch and he doesn't want to inject the volatile issue
of *** marriage into the mix.
"On this subject it is exceedingly unlikely that anything will happen on
this subject in the Senate this year," Gronstal said. He also let it be
known that it was unlikely to be brought up for a debate in 2010 either. In
a joint press release with House Speaker Pat Murphy on April 3, Gronstal
himself has welcomed the court's decision, saying "When all is said and
done, we believe the only lasting question about today˙s events will be why
it took us so long. It is a tough question to answer because treating
everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common
decency. Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.ˇ
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Iowa>
some have expressed surprise that *** marriage would be legalized in iowa
(of all places!) but has been noted that it should not be surprising:
Students of American history know that this decision is hardly surprising.
As the Court noted in its decision, Iowa has long been WAY out in front on
civil rights issues, often leading the rest of the country by years and
even decades.
In its very first decision in 1839, the Supreme Court of the Territory of
Iowa ´refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for
slaveryˇ and held that the state ´must extend equal protection to persons
of all races and conditions.ˇ In 1869, the nation˙s first female lawyer was
admitted in Iowa, decades before U.S. Supreme Court decisions that actually
upheld states˙ rights to discriminate against women. And in 1873, 91 years
before racial discrimination in public accommodations was struck down
nationwide, Iowa justices ruled that a woman could not be prevented from
entering an all-white dining room based on the color of her skin.
<http://www.privacydigest.com/2009/04/04/iowa+continues+tradition+civil+rights+pioneer>
so, shows to go you, you never know.
your pal,
blake