Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iowa Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban  
User currently offlineSY738fan From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 39 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1773 times:

Didn't see this one coming, but it will certainly shake things up a bit in middle America!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/30/iowa.samesexmarriage/index.html

It will also be interesting to see how the various presidential candidates respond, given that most of them have been camped out in Iowa for quite some time now.

Any Iowans on here have any insight on what we can expect when this gets appealed to the state Supreme Court?


False. I do not miss Jim.
33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBoeing744 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1835 posts, RR: 23
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1747 times:

Good news for Iowa! I have a friend there, and I will ask what he thinks will happen about this. I know he himself would be totally for it, and he has said people around his area (Cedar Rapids) are quite progressive.

User currently offlineCheckraiser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1743 times:

Quoting SY738fan (Thread starter):
but it will certainly shake things up a bit in middle America!

Not really. Here in WI there was a similar ban on the books. A constitutional amendment was introduced to ban gay marriage, and the governor vehemently opposed it saying there were laws already in place.

The proponents of the ban insisted it needed to pass so 'activist judges' wouldn't overturn the existing law banning it. It very easily passed a statewide referendum last November, 60%-40%.

Iowa could probably expect similar results.


User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9366 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

It's another joyous day. 6 lesbians wanna live happily ever after and walk their dogs in the park after work (and probably picking up trash while doing so) yet the whole state's gonna go to shit.

...yet more people can't seem to find the USA on a map?!?!? hmmm...



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineJohnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2592 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1693 times:

Yay for Iowa!!!!

I almost want to move there just to take advantage.

ALMOST.

John


User currently offlineSY738fan From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1677 times:

Quoting Checkraiser (Reply 2):
Iowa could probably expect similar results.

Ultimately, yes, that has been the sequence of events all over the country. The difference is that for the time being, gay couples will be able to legally marry in Polk County (unless the court grants a stay). I'm sure the gay train is already loading up applicants in ORD and MSP  Wink



False. I do not miss Jim.
User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9366 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1671 times:

Quoting SY738fan (Reply 5):

Of course Iowa did just pass a law that bans discrimination against people for being gay, too.

Talk about a fun mix.



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9366 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1656 times:

History's made!

The first same sex coupled married around 10:30 a-m this morning in Des Moines.



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1654 times:

Good for Iowa.

But left to the Republicans, it would be a moot point, since Uncle Sam knows better in their eyes.


User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9366 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1652 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8):
But left to the Republicans, it would be a moot point, since Uncle Sam knows better in their eyes

and they say they want less government...



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1645 times:

Quoting SY738fan (Reply 5):
that has been the sequence of events all over the country.

In most cases yes, though there've been glimmers of hope-- witness AZ

Quoting STLGph (Reply 9):
and they say they want less government...

Until it comes down to leveraging social issues they cannot comprehend.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26487 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1625 times:

Quoting SY738fan (Thread starter):
Didn't see this one coming

Actually, I thought the same at first but then thought again and wasn't so shocked. Iowa tends to be one of the most progressive states in the Midwest.

Quoting Checkraiser (Reply 2):

The proponents of the ban insisted it needed to pass so 'activist judges' wouldn't overturn the existing law banning it.

Your so-called "activist judges" could still overturn the laws based on the US Constitution.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11344 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1616 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11):
Your so-called "activist judges" could still overturn the laws based on the US Constitution.

Yup.

How do you define "activist judge?" An activist judge is one that deviates from what you ask him to do.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1607 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 12):
How do you define "activist judge?" An activist judge is one that deviates from what you ask him to do.

Actually, an "activist judge" is one that does the opposite of what you like. That is the modern definition.

Case in point: Mr. Bush sites "activist" judges who approve of gay marriage. But he would approve of a judge being "activist" who would completely remove gay marriage from the books. It all is in our own point of view.


User currently offlineSNCntry32 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1592 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11):
Actually, I thought the same at first but then thought again and wasn't so shocked. Iowa tends to be one of the most progressive states in the Midwest.

How so, I think Minnesota is.



Long Live Memphis!
User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1580 times:

Awesome news (at least temporarily) for Iowa...now we'll see what the Iowa Supreme Court does, it could all be a moot point. Anybody know what the composition of the Iowa SC is?

Don't go rushing to Iowa to get married though, most states won't recognize out-of-state gay marriages.

One of these days this issue is going to make it to the US Supreme Court--I attended a luncheon this year with Sandra Day O'Connor and she said she thought the issue will eventually be heard by the Court, but of course she wouldn't say how she thought it would be decided. I think it would be a close call, but I think there are 5 votes for legalizing gay marriage (Kennedy (the big question mark), Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter).


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26487 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1569 times:

Quoting SNCntry32 (Reply 14):

How so, I think Minnesota is.

Minnesota is a bit different in that it is so far north as to not be affected by the more conservative southern thought. Iowa is a true culture clash but tends to maintain a surprisingly progressive stance.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 15):

Don't go rushing to Iowa to get married though, most states won't recognize out-of-state gay marriages.

Which, of course, violates full faith and credit.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 15):
but I think there are 5 votes for legalizing gay marriage (Kennedy (the big question mark), Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter).

I wouldn't be totally shocked if Roberts voted on that side as well.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 15):
I attended a luncheon this year with Sandra Day O'Connor and she said she thought the issue will eventually be heard by the Court, but of course she wouldn't say how she thought it would be decided.

Based on her concurrence (which should have been the opinion of the court) in Lawrence, it is pretty obvious how she would vote.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1558 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 16):
Which, of course, violates full faith and credit.

Although I agree that states should recognize those marriages, Congress passed DOMA in 1996 which says states don't have to recognize them. Full faith and credit doesnt necessarily apply here--it primarily refers to states respecting other states' judicial proceedings and judgments and there is a public policy exception wide enough to drive a truck through as determined by the Supreme Court in Pac. Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident (1939).

Quoting N1120A (Reply 16):
Based on her concurrence (which should have been the opinion of the court) in Lawrence, it is pretty obvious how she would vote.

Well O'Connor no longer sits on the Court so her vote wouldn't matter much.  Silly

Her concurrence in Lawrence was fairly well-reasoned under equal protection grounds, but I think Kennedy's majority opinion really left the door open on the issue by not explicitly stating the level of scrutiny that would be used under the substantive due process. Most lawsuits filed in support of gay marriage have used both the due process and equal protection arguments, so it could come out in favor of gays under one or both.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11344 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1548 times:

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 17):
Although I agree that states should recognize those marriages, Congress passed DOMA in 1996 which says states don't have to recognize them.

DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates Full Faith and Credit.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 17):
it primarily refers to states respecting other states' judicial proceedings and judgments

A marriage IS a state judicial proceeding and judgment though. The public policy exception is there, but for a state to execute that exception, they have to have a constitutional reason to do it. "We don't like gays" is not constitutional, and choosing which genders can marry whom is not constitutional either (as will eventually be determined).



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1536 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
A marriage IS a state judicial proceeding and judgment though.

I disagree with that. Marriage is a creature of statute now, not a judicial proceeding. Therefore, I don't think DOMA is unconstitutional on those grounds because the public policy exception for state statutes is much wider than for judicial proceedings. Besides, isn't matrimonial law in general covered by state choice-of-law rules? States don't have to recognize out-of-state common law marriages if they choose not to.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11344 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1531 times:

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 19):
Marriage is a creature of statute now, not a judicial proceeding.

I don't agree with that. When you get married, you go to a Justice of the Peace (judge) or the state delegates to an Officiant. You get your marriage registered with the state, just like if you buy a house. These are all judicial proceedings, and these are exactly the types of things that the Full Faith and Credit Clause was meant to protect, and that's exactly why the Loving case went down the way it did. (The Lovings got married in DC and wanted to live in Virginia.)



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1528 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
I don't agree with that. When you get married, you go to a Justice of the Peace (judge) or the state delegates to an Officiant. You get your marriage registered with the state, just like if you buy a house. These are all judicial proceedings, and these are exactly the types of things that the Full Faith and Credit Clause was meant to protect, and that's exactly why the Loving case went down the way it did. (The Lovings got married in DC and wanted to live in Virginia.)

The state action required is a marriage license usually issued by the town/county clerk. How is that a judicial proceeding? The state sets certain parameters that the couple must meet in order to be married (age being one of the primary factors, blood test, perhaps man/woman, etc.) and thereafter the clerk cannot deny the couple a marriage license. There is no proceeding--if anything, it would be considered an administrative proceeding. That would be akin to saying getting a driver's license is a judicial proceeding just because your name is registered with the issuing state.

IIRC, Loving was decided on equal protection grounds of invidious racial discrimination, not full faith and credit. Race classifications receive strict scrutiny, which the SC has already said that sexual orientation classifications receive rational basis review.


User currently offlineSNCntry32 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1520 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 16):
Minnesota is a bit different in that it is so far north as to not be affected by the more conservative southern thought. Iowa is a true culture clash but tends to maintain a surprisingly progressive stance.

And thats why Minnesota is constantly a swing state come election time?



Long Live Memphis!
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11344 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 21):
IIRC, Loving was decided on equal protection grounds of invidious racial discrimination, not full faith and credit.

That is correct, but the reason why it was a big deal was because it was the enforcement of another jurisdiction's marriage. Virginia had to give full faith and credit to the judgment of DC -- they couldn't just say "yall ain't married." Instead, they tried them for having a criminal marriage. Obviously, it was against Virginia's public policy at the time to allow the interracial marriages accepted by other jurisdictions, but that wasn't enough for them to get out of giving full faith and credit to the marriage from the other jurisdiction.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 21):
The state action required is a marriage license usually issued by the town/county clerk.

But you hit the nail on the head with the first 3 words -- "state action." Judgments do not have to be courtroom proceedings.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1496 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 23):
But you hit the nail on the head with the first 3 words -- "state action." Judgments do not have to be courtroom proceedings.

I don't agree with your assertion that all state action is considered to be a "judgment." If that were the case there would be no differences in state law. If there is no controversy, there can be no judgment.

If the Loving case had been decided purely on full faith and credit terms, then the Court would not have invalidated the Virginia statute as such; it merely would have forced Virginia to recognize the legal DC marriage. By deciding the case on equal protection grounds it invalidated the Virginia statute on its face, which is a significant difference.


25 N1120A : And DOMA clearly violates FFC Well, this is a judgment, now isn't it? Further, it is the courts that license and officially sanction marriages, which
26 HuskyAviation : Would you care to expand on that very broad statement? That is also a judgment--one you haven't bothered to back up with anything except an opinion.
27 N1120A : It is plain in the language. "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other
28 HuskyAviation : The Court has long interpreted differentiations within this clause, it isn't enough to just quote the language. The Court has explicitly adopted a pu
29 Post contains images HuskyAviation : Just as an aside it's not as though I don't want the SC to legalize same-sex marriage. My partner of 6 years and I would love to get married in our st
30 N1120A : Pacific Employers Insurance applied to specific statutory application, not to public records like here. That case was about choice of law and enforce
31 D L X : Loving wasn't decided on FFC grounds at all. That wasn't the point. The point was that *because* of FFC, Virginia had to accept the marriage issued b
32 Post contains images HuskyAviation : I totally agree with you, I said that Loving wasn't decided on FFC grounds. The public policy exception in that case wouldn't apply anyway because it
33 N1120A : Well, it was Hillary's husband who signed DOMA into law in the first place.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Mass. Legislature Rejects Gay Marriage Ban... posted Wed Sep 14 2005 22:04:55 by TWFirst
House Votes Down Gay Marriage Amendment posted Fri Oct 1 2004 19:00:37 by Rjpieces
Judge Strikes Down Nebraska Ban On Gay Marriage posted Fri May 13 2005 03:48:30 by Travelin man
NY Judge Strikes Down Ban On Same-Sex Marriage posted Fri Feb 4 2005 21:13:57 by RJpieces
Court Rules Ban On Gay Marriage Unconstitutional posted Tue Nov 18 2003 17:36:03 by Delta777-XXX
Highest Court In New York Tanks Gay Marriage posted Thu Jul 6 2006 15:59:09 by Dougloid
Gay Marriage Safe In Massachusetts posted Fri Jun 15 2007 05:29:42 by Johnboy
Nominee In Limbo Over Gay Marriage Issue posted Mon Nov 27 2006 15:15:48 by Dtwclipper
Gay Marriage -- What's So Wrong About That? posted Wed Nov 15 2006 15:13:17 by Boeing757/767
AZ First State Not To Pass Gay Marriage Ammendment posted Wed Nov 8 2006 20:28:58 by Bridogger6