Same-sex marriage in Iowa
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7981893.stm


First, I'm going to take a moment to feel proud of what I've come to think of as my home state.

...Okay. So, the history is there in the article: this has been in the works since 2007, when Judge Hanson ruled against the gay marriage ban. The decision was immediately suspended and subject to review until yesterday, when same-sex marriage was officially given the green light. No initiatives are in works, and any legislation which would once again ban same-sex marriage can't go through until at least 2012.

My friends who are still in Iowa are pretty happy, and I kind of wish I were there to join in the popping of corks and highing of fives.

It's a funny thing, Iowa's not what most people would call especially liberal, and yet it's preceding a lot of more "progressive" states in this decision. I wouldn't have expected it either. It's not huge on demagoguery either way, though, so you've got people who may not actively support gay rights but simply don't care what two consenting adults do together. If someone actually steps up (as seems to have happened), more power to them.

Some people will resist, of course, and I don't know how this'll play out. Massachusetts actually seems proud of its distinction, and I'm not sure if Iowans will feel that protective of theirs, but I don't know. I do think that universal recognition of same-sex marriage rights is inevitable, sooner or later. Maybe that's overly optimistic, but it seems like increasingly more people don't care either way at worst and actively endorse such rights at best.

That's some good news, glad to see the trend continuing.

I think one of the biggest problems with the issue of gay marriage is the blatant denial of the constitution in it's application. Basically, the constitution gives states control of certain legal matters, marriage being one of them, and then says that state level laws must be upheld throughout all states, basically, if you're married in Michigan, you're also married in Hawaii, and you still fall under Michigan's rules for marriage.

so since at least one state in the union legalized gay marriage, if you get married there, you are legally married in every state, however the majority of states don't recognize these rights, in direct defiance of federal law written into the constitution.

There's plenty of legal room in there to force something through congress, and eventually lead the way for legalized same sex marriage in every state, but I suppose at the onset of our current shift towards a liberal government there are more pressing issues.

I hope things manage to change in the next 10 years or so.

I think a lot of people do things in this way. I am aware of many instances of Americans resident to states where gay marriage is illegal just taking a trip up to Canada and tying the knot, with the certificate being valid in the US.

Still, only 3 states out of 50 is a long way to go. Good progress to see the laws upheld, though. Here's hoping for some kind of snowball effect pulling many other states into the gay marriage laws in the near future.

Unfortunately the Defense of Marriage Act passed back in the '90s basically says the states don't have to recognize other states' marriages if said union would be illegal there. So since Arkansas has done the incredibly idiotic thing of amending the state constitution to make gay marriage illegal, my home state's resident idiot population will happily tell married gays: "They'z ain't welcome round heah".

So until DOMA is repelled or overturned, gay marriage will continue to be a state-by-state ordeal for those who want them.


As a personal note, I don't think the government should be dictating who should be able to marry whom. The government should just license civil unions (all the legal benefits/etc. of marriages) between two legally consenting adults (18yrs or over), while the various religious groups can decide for themselves what they recognize as 'marriage' (within the law- so no arranged children weddings or anything like that).

For me it's sort of like 'Ok, I'm not ok with the thing itself, and if someone wants to discuss that we can go on about it. But I've got no reason to be a jerk about it and really no right to stop people from doing what they want to do' so it's sort of nice in a way that people won't, y'know, shove their own values down people's throats, which is kind an important value in itself.

See, and then this is all a big political issue and it kind of shouldn't be? I mean yeah if someone wants to co-habitate and have the benefit of that... I mean, you could have a long-term roomate and just want that sort of security or whatever, the relationship could be totally platonic or not or whatever.

the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional, that was my basic point. sorry I didn't mention it specifically.

I'm surprised California's Prop 8 hasn't been overturned yet, considering they got a majority of the votes through clever deceptive advertising under the guise of "PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN" which just about everyone fell for.

It would be nice if marriage wasn't intimately incorporated into various institutions of greater society, but it is, at least in Canada. Having a full blown spouse comes with benefits you can't get with Common Law partners ("long term roommates"). Different country, but is it much different down there? Given the even heavier emphasis on religion, or so it would seem, I could see it being even more incorporated.

So legalize gay marriage, or make a union with equivalent perks and let everybody do it as they wish. Basically what Wigmund said.

I'm gonna be a jerk and raise the point about separate but equal facilities not working in reality.

So... there it is. In theory, a civil union with the same legal consequence as marriage should work, but that's not how it would work. People would still be discriminated against simply because it's not the same.

According to that logic then, and I mean just carrying it out to it's end result, you pretty much have to have everyone being personally 'OK' with homosexuality, and I don't think that's gonna happen.

I don't really see room for discrimination except wherein it is an person or organizations perogitive to do so under such a system.