Activist Judge Overturns Iowa AntiGay Marriage Law

[Matthew Best]

I just wanted to say thanks to Brown for all his excellent posts in this thread. I feel like I've had a (free!) legal education.

[gdnp]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

I just wanted to say thanks to Brown for all his excellent posts in this thread. I feel like I've had a (free!) legal education.

Seconded.

ETA: It is ironic that the posts by Brown are a superb addition to a sceptic's forum whereas the posts by Skeptic in the other thread are...well...the color is brown...

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Originally Posted by parky76

I am not a fan of same-sex marriage. I think marriage should between a man and a woman and same-sex couples should get EVERYTHING but the title of married.

That said, if the judges in Iowa feel that a ban on gay marriage violates the Iowa state constitution, then that is their job and I respect that.

I suggest the people of Iowa, if they do not like this ruling, change their constitution.

Not like you to be prejudiced sparky. I'm disappointed.

[Dr Adequate]

So ... Article IV, section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Does that mean that if you get gay-married in Iowa, you remain gay-married in Utah? If not, why not?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

So ... Article IV, section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Does that mean that if you get gay-married in Iowa, you remain gay-married in Utah? If not, why not?

The Defence of Marriage Act rejected this... Not sure why it isn't unconstitutional, but there you have it.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

The Defence of Marriage Act rejected this... Not sure why it isn't unconstitutional, but there you have it.

How do we know that it isn't unconstitutional? Has there been a case yet?

[Random]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

How do we know that it isn't unconstitutional? Has there been a case yet?

Don't think there has been a case yet, but it is only a matter of time. Once it hits the courts, it will be very difficult to argue that a law that says states may ignore contracts from other states is constitutional. On the other hand, Bush vs Gore showed that the US Supreme Court is not immune to fitting legal arguments to a preferred outcome.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

For example, a case in New Jersey showed this when a company denied health care coverage to "civil unioned" people that it would give to "married" people.

Yup, that was a big mess. The insurance company couldn't figure out how a civil union was different than a marriage in practice, but since the State of New Jersey had given them different nomenclatures the insurance company felt it had the legal right to deny the civil unioned couple heath insurance.

Similar situation if you work for the City of New York. If you're married the City will cover your spouse's health insurance. If you're in a domestic partnership (which is somehow different or the same as a civil union - I can't tell ) the employee has the partner's health insurance costs added to their income.

So much for separate but equal.

[linusrichard]

Originally Posted by Random

Don't think there has been a case yet, but it is only a matter of time. Once it hits the courts, it will be very difficult to argue that a law that says states may ignore contracts from other states is constitutional. On the other hand, Bush vs Gore showed that the US Supreme Court is not immune to fitting legal arguments to a preferred outcome.

There oughtta be a law that says that a law called the "Defense of Marriage Act" can't be used to invalidate a legal marriage. Oh well.

On a more serious note, this is one reason I hate referring to marriage as a contract. Yes, it's like a contract in some respects. Yes, it is sometimes treated like a contract. But there are several reasons why it doesn't make sense to call it a contract. And in this case, if you treat marriage as a contract, you eliminate any constitutional problem with giving full faith and credit to another state's marriage, since there is no constitutional problem in general with a state refusing to give effect to a contract or contract provision that would be valid in another state.

[gdnp]

Originally Posted by linusrichard

There oughtta be a law that says that a law called the "Defense of Marriage Act" can't be used to invalidate a legal marriage. Oh well.

On a more serious note, this is one reason I hate referring to marriage as a contract. Yes, it's like a contract in some respects. Yes, it is sometimes treated like a contract. But there are several reasons why it doesn't make sense to call it a contract. And in this case, if you treat marriage as a contract, you eliminate any constitutional problem with giving full faith and credit to another state's marriage, since there is no constitutional problem in general with a state refusing to give effect to a contract or contract provision that would be valid in another state.

Congratulations on your 1000th post.

However, there is a problem with a state refusing to honor a contract of another state. As noted by Dr. A:

Quote:

Article IV, section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

If people could change the rules by crossing state lines there would be chaos.

[linusrichard]

Originally Posted by gdnp

Congratulations on your 1000th post.

Thanks! I didn't even notice.

Quote:

However, there is a problem with a state refusing to honor a contract of another state. As noted by Dr. A:

A contract is neither a public Act, record, or judicial proceeding.

Quote:

If people could change the rules by crossing state lines there would be chaos.

Arguably, there is chaos.

I'm actually taking a class right now on this very subject. A typical case involves A and B who make a contract in state X, and then there's a suit in state Y, and the contract, or a provision thereof, is illegal in state Y. So the Y court has to decide whether to apply X's law or Y's law, and thus whether to validate or invalidate the contract or provision. If the Constitution required Full Faith & Credit to contracts, this would be a much shorter and easier class.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Brown

Damn! I should've applied for the million dollars, because I could have predicted with 100 percent accuracy the following (from various news services):This shows that Steele (1) has not read the decision or (2) does not understand the decision, or most likely (3) both.

You forgot the other option: doesn't care what the decision says.

[pgwenthold]

My favorite part of the decision

Quote:

"If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting," Justice Cady observed, "many classifications of people would be excluded, not merely gay and lesbian people." Like who? Child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons can all be straight, can all get married and can all be really horrible parents. Besides being unable to keep unfit people for being parents, the statute also is flawed because it protects the rights of couples who have no intention or ability to have children… as long as they're opposite-sex couples.

I love this. It really hammers on the "Think of the children!!!!!" nonsense. Basically the court is saying, "You don't worry about the children when it comes to other marriages, why are you singling out gay people?" It clearly indicates the homosexual discrimination.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

My favorite part of the decision



I love this. It really hammers on the "Think of the children!!!!!" nonsense. Basically the court is saying, "You don't worry about the children when it comes to other marriages, why are you singling out gay people?" It clearly indicates the homosexual discrimination.

One I like is "They can't have childern", yet infertile women (and men) are allowed to marry--as are people who declare an intent NOT to have childern.
Shall we dissolve THEIR marriages?
Where's the popcorn?

[Alt+F4]

The argument against gay marriage basically boils down to, "I don't want gays to get married because I think it's icky." Logically, they have nothing.

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

How do we know that it isn't unconstitutional? Has there been a case yet?

And yet, you cited the reason, Dr A.

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

So ... Article IV, section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Does that mean that if you get gay-married in Iowa, you remain gay-married in Utah? If not, why not?

Lets review that again:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

It's not going to be a pretty case, shall we say. Congress has proscribed a manner (not at all) and an effect (absolutely none). This may not seem fully within the spirit of the law, and it's really just not, but it's hardly cut and dried.

Believe me, there are, at this very moment, people who in their spare time are researching the intent of every Founding father, as expressed in all letters, official communication, unofficial communication, and private writings, as to the point of that particular clause, and whether this would fall under 'their intent' or not.

[Brown]

As I have mentioned previously, Iowans in modern times resisted efforts to amend the Iowa Constitution to provide equal rights for women. In part, this resistance was grounded in mistrust of trial lawyers who would use such a constitutional amendment to upset the apple cart of Iowa's jurisprudence.

In part, the concern was that women ought to be kept in their place. No kidding. Some of the propaganda used to defeat the State ERA was premised upon maintaining "traditional" and perceived Biblical sexual roles. In other words, some people in the second half of the Twentieth Century actually argued that women should not be awarded equal rights because women were not really equal to men as human beings. God said so, they said.

There were also a few bat-spit crazy folks who said (yelled, would be more like it) that an ERA would give legal rights (gasp!) to those God-cursed sodomites. After all, the amendments said, in effect, that there should be no discrimination on account of "sex" (in one version) or "gender" (in another version). The fear was that such language in the Constitution could encompass sexual orientation.

What a conventional ERA would PROBABLY have done is to convert the Court's standard of scrutiny in gender-based discrimination cases from "intermediate" to "strict."

A few years back, Iowans adopted a more laid-back ERA, recognizing that "All men and women are, by nature, free and equal...." The words "and women" were added. That was the extent of the amendment.

Now Justice Cady quotes that very language as part of the opinion (page 19). He does not rub anyone's face in it, of course, nor does he mention any constitutional amendment to add "and women."

But oh, how the bat-spit crazies are wailing and gnashing their teeth.

Even many in the so-called "mainstream" religions are showing a stunning ignorance about the law of the State and what the opinion actually said.

According to the Des Moines Register (and other sources), Catholic leaders are upset and say that the decision will grievously harm children. From my standpoint, I don't think the Catholic Church has any moral authority to lecture anyone about hurting children.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Brown

A few years back, Iowans adopted a more laid-back ERA, recognizing that "All men and women are, by nature, free and equal...." The words "and women" were added. That was the extent of the amendment.

Interesting that intersexed individuals do not have equal rights in Iowa.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Lets review that again:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Yes. Now the question is can Congress "by general Laws prescribe" that no "Faith and Credit" shall be given whatsoever, and that "the Effect thereof" should be zip?

---

Oh, and here's a puzzle. If "Full Faith and Credit" doesn't apply to gay marriage, is there anything to stop someone from marrying one man in Iowa and another man in Vermont?

It would be amusing if DOMA made gay bigamy legal ...

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Yes. Now the question is can Congress "by general Laws prescribe" that no "Faith and Credit" shall be given whatsoever, and that "the Effect thereof" should be zip?

As I already laid out, that's exactly the dilemma. It does not appear to be fitting exactly within the spirit of the wording, but it does appear to be fitting exactly within the most ambiguous interpretations of the wording.

Quote:

Oh, and here's a puzzle. If "Full Faith and Credit" doesn't apply to gay marriage, is there anything to stop someone from marrying one man in Iowa and another man in Vermont?

It would be amusing if DOMA made gay bigamy legal ...

Yes, local state laws. I'd assume that states already have statutes about recognizing marriages made in other states, and if both allow gay marriages, then both are going to recognize the potential bigamist as married.

The DOMA only said that states do not have to recognize gay marriage, not that they MUST NOT.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by parky76

I am not a fan of same-sex marriage. I think marriage should between a man and a woman and same-sex couples should get EVERYTHING but the title of married.

Sooo...

If it walks, quacks, and swims like a duck, please call it a "duck facsimile"?

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Sooo...

If it walks, quacks, and swims like a duck, please call it a "duck facsimile"?

Remember: Separate, but equal! Separate, but equal!

I've really never understood that position on the issue, since I'm really having a hard time coming up with an example from history where parallel programs instituted to deal with the thing for two different groups ended up NOT diverging significantly. Hell even male/female sports programs have issues, and there's really really good reasons to keep them separate (as opposed to really non-existent reasons to keep a gay 'not-marriage marriage' and a 'real marriage' separate (and in the language I used, I think we can see where I see THAT going).

[Cobalt]

Originally Posted by parky76

I am not a fan of same-sex marriage. I think marriage should between a man and a woman and same-sex couples should get EVERYTHING but the title of married.

What difference does the title make if you're giving them the exact same rights anyway?

It seems like you're saying, "You can be married, just not married."

[thesyntaxera]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Interesting that intersexed individuals do not have equal rights in Iowa.

HA! Well this should amuse you...maybe...

Where I work(in Iowa) we had a M to F transexual patient. He was married to a woman when he was a man, and then became a woman and is now married to a man. The thing is he is still pre-op when he got married and was still technically a man. The state however recognized him as a woman because he was in the preparation to become a fully converted male to female.

What I wonder is why the anti-gay lobby doesn't attack situations like that? Why is just the straight up homosexuals?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera

HA! Well this should amuse you...maybe...

Where I work(in Iowa) we had a M to F transexual patient. He was married to a woman when he was a man, and then became a woman and is now married to a man. The thing is he is still pre-op when he got married and was still technically a man. The state however recognized him as a woman because he was in the preparation to become a fully converted male to female.

What I wonder is why the anti-gay lobby doesn't attack situations like that? Why is just the straight up homosexuals?

I was talking about intersexed though, not transexuals. That individual always identified as only one sex though.

[linusrichard]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Interesting that intersexed individuals do not have equal rights in Iowa.

Doesn't say "only men and women," just "all men and women." Don't deny the antecedent.

[Sefarst]

My dad voted to ban gay marriage in Georgia while I voted against banning it, but his reasoning was allowing gays to marry would hurt the social security system.

Just to point out someone that doesn't seem to fit into any of the categories all ready listed.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Sefarst

My dad voted to ban gay marriage in Georgia while I voted against banning it, but his reasoning was allowing gays to marry would hurt the social security system.

A pretty poor arguement though. It is such a small percentage of the population that it will have little effect.

[thesyntaxera]

Well, the wagons are circling.

Iowa Family Policy center(send hate/love mail here)
http://www.ifpc.org/

and it's off shoot-
http://www.letusvoteiowa.com/

Gay right opponents issue warning
http://content.usatoday.net/dist/cus...30519257.story

[linusrichard]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

A pretty poor arguement though. It is such a small percentage of the population that it will have little effect.

That's not even the reason why it's a terrible argument. You could achieve a comparable result by not allowing redheads to marry, or Muslims, or people whose last names start with "W," or people born in February. That it will (allegedly) save some money doesn't make it okay.

The second reason it's a terrible argument is that people spend a ton of money on weddings, and that is ultimately going to mean more tax revenues, which includes putting money into social security.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Brown

According to the Des Moines Register (and other sources), Catholic leaders are upset and say that the decision will grievously harm children. From my standpoint, I don't think the Catholic Church has any moral authority to lecture anyone about hurting children.

The obvious reference aside, I will argue that no homosexual marriage would do more harm to children than did Sister Claire Marie Meyer, the big fat nun I (and hundreds of others) had as our second grade teacher.

So don't think this is just about "priests molesting alter boys." The extent of abuse went a lot further than that.

[Brown]

There are still rumblings about the Iowa Supreme Court's decision, but (as of this writing) the Earth has not opened up and swallowed the State. There has been at least one death threat made against a gay legislator, and some politicians have put forth pig-ignorant approaches, such as "overruling" the Court with an executive order or simply saying that the Court's decision is "only an opinion" and not legally binding in any sense.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Brown

...or simply saying that the Court's decision is "only an opinion" and not legally binding in any sense.

...


What?

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Brown

There are still rumblings about the Iowa Supreme Court's decision, but (as of this writing) the Earth has not opened up and swallowed the State. There has been at least one death threat made against a gay legislator, and some politicians have put forth pig-ignorant approaches, such as "overruling" the Court with an executive order or simply saying that the Court's decision is "only an opinion" and not legally binding in any sense.

Ah, conservatives. They're all for law & order, except when they don't like it.

[Brown]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

...


What?

From the Des Moines Register:

Quote:

"If I have the opportunity to serve as your next governor," Bob Vander Plaats told about 350 people at a rally, "and if no leadership has been taken to that point, on my first day of office I will issue an executive order that puts a stay on same-sex marriages until the people of Iowa vote, and when we vote we can affirm and amend the Constitution."
...
Bill Salier, co-founder of Everyday America, told the crowd that state lawmakers need to thank the Supreme Court justices for their opinion but say that it is merely opinion and that the law is still on the books.

Being bat-spit crazy and being pig-ignorant would ordinarily be two strikes against someone, but for publicity hounds, they are an absolute boon.


One wonders: what WILL these folks do if the machinery to amend the Iowa Constitution is engaged and the citizens decide that they don't want to amend the State Constitution to take a giant step backward?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

What?

From the same people who brought you: "Evolution is just a theory".

[pgwenthold]

I'm trying to understand the Lt Gov's comments. They make absolutely no sense. At least, they show no indication that he has any clue about how the government works.

"The courts rule that the legislation is unconstitutional. So the governor should issue an executive decree."

Welcome to the world of a dictatorship. Or am I missing something?

My initial thought was, "He wants the Governor to pull a George Wallace?" Recall, Wallace later regretted his actions.

[Cobalt]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Ah, conservatives. They're all for law & order, except when they don't like it.

Kids, you can play this game too!

Ah, (insert political group). They're all for (blank), except for when they don't like it.

[pgwenthold]

I'm wondering if someone closer to the action in Iowa can explain the whole "Let us vote" thing to me. What do they want, a direct referendum for the majority to squash the rights of a minority group? I mean, does Iowa even have state-wide referenda? I remember seeing local initiatives that were sent up, but generally regarding funding issues (to float a bond to pay for schools, or such). I don't remember laws being made by referendum at all.

So what are the "let us vote" people going on about (aside from ignorance of the government)? Mob rule? When can we vote to prevent lefties from getting driver's licenses? I mean, cars in the US are made for right footed people - lefties have to use their weaker foot to accelerate and brake; that makes them a bigger risk on the road; besides, driving is a PRIVELIDGE, not a right.

(ok, I realize that is BS, but it makes about as much sense as the anti-gay arguments)

[Shalamar]

I know some conservatives that think that it is ok for the majority to impose their will on the minority, simply because they don't like the ruling/law/whatever. Its really quite unfortunate, and I really really want to find the reasoning for it.

I am quite in favor of Gay Marriage. I don't see any problems, and it certainly does NOT diminish the marriage I currently have. if that makes me an evil godless heathen liberal out to destroy the United States, then so be it. better that then a true god-fearing american conservative who want to use the constitution of the States/country to QUASH the rights of another group.

And some people wonder why I refuse to become an American Citizen.