Iowa Supreme Court Says “Yes” To Gay Marriage!

Unanimous Decision Grants Right Of Same-Sex Couples To Marry

 

First Massachusetts. Then Connecticut. Then California. Now, Iowa. The Supreme Court in the state of Iowa has declared gay marriage legal. In the landmark case of  Varnum vs. Brien, which the court heard arguments for late last year, judges decided that, based on the state constitution and under its equal protection and due process guarantees, it is unlawful to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. Lambda Legal attorneys represented the six gay and lesbian families that brought the suit. Iowa is the first mid-western state to allow gay marriage.

More, via Lambda Legal:

“Iowa’s constitution protects people’s right to marry the individual of their choice and promises equal treatment of all residents under state law. The words husband, wife or spouse or some form of the words marriage or marry appear in more than 540 sections of the state’s laws. …[N]umerous gay and lesbian couples in Iowa will be given the rights and benefits of marriage — including the important word itself.”

In August 2007 the court did agree that it was unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. The opposition appealed and a stay was granted. This was the final step in the three and a half year case.

Several lawmakers have said they need “to take a deep breath and analyze the decision.” Republicans, even before the decision was announced, chided Democrats and promised to seek a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. Lawmakers will take time to decide how this will affect the constitution and laws of the state. 

Via the Des Moines Register:

“If you’ll remember when we proposed the Iowa marriage amendment, the Democrats’ excuse for not taking it up was that it was in the hands of the Iowa Supreme Court,” said Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley of Chariton. “It was implied that should they find against traditional marriage, that the Legislature would handle that. I would certainly hope they’ll keep their promise.”

During the arguments in December, which you can read more about here, many old and invalid arguments were used by the defense. Here are a few:

The State: “By fostering same-sex marriage the state will harm and could defeat its [marriage’s] vital purpose. The state will be teaching that marriage is not necessary.” 

The Judge: “If stability is the goal then by denying same-sex couples marriage aren’t you going against your argument?” “How does including gay marriage interferes with this purpose of procreation?”

And,

The Judge: “If procreation is a primary basis for marriage, how does recognition of same-sex marriage result in less children born?” 

The State: “It doesn’t. But it could. There is a legitimate fear when the state encourages same-sex marriage, it teaches that marriage is no longer about procreation, it says procreation is not important.” 

The Judge: “How is this having a real purpose? There are more child born out of wedlock today than ever.”

 

(photo: brainchildvn)