Iowa Supreme Court Rules Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[LoveIsNow]

Here's the ruling:

<http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20090403/07-1499.pdf>

Highlights include:

"Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has
been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding
plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on
sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the
fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution.
This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection
analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative
classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective.
Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil
marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the
remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner
allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil
marriage."

"The district court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiffs.
Iowa Code section 595.2 violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa
Constitution. Our decision becomes effective upon issuance of
procedendo.33
AFFIRMED.
All justices concur."

[saltpoint]

1. The burden of proof on those opposing gay marriage has loomed over

their argument since the beginning of these "family values" issues, and to this hour, they have been unable to produce one reason anywhere anyhow why two same-sex people who love each other should not have the same range of privileges and rights and opportunities as two opposite-sex people.

The fundies et al have had decades to produce evidence for prohibition of same-sex marriage and that evidence has not been forthcoming, very likely because it does not exist.

Go, Iowa.

[bluedawg12]

2. "All justices concur." Excellent!

Note to rabbid rw ESAD.

[keepCAblue]

4. Unanimous decision!

IA's Supremes can tell a thing or two to CA's Supremes, who barely managed a majority in their 2008 decision.

How long before the Mormons, Catholics and wingnuts invade IA and put a Prop 8-like initiative on the ballot?

[mtnester]

7. Not in Iowa

They would have to try for a constitutional ammendment, which takes about 6 years in Iowa...not the same as an inititative.

[keepCAblue]

8. According to Lambda Legal

Any constitutional amendment must be approved by the Senate and twice by the Assembly. The soonest an amendment could be passed (if one is), according to One Iowa's political director, would be 2012. That is good news...perhaps by 2012 the social tide will have changed enough that people will just let it be.

According to this morning's press conference:

Same-sex couples can begin getting married in 21 days -- 21 days is the amount of time the court has given the county recorders to amend the necessary paperwork to accommodate for same-sex couples.

You do not have to be a resident of Iowa to marry there.

[Debi]

9. At least three years...

From the Des Moines Register (from 2008 I think):

====================================... Read More
Q. What is the process for an amendment to the Iowa Constitution?

A. Amendments need to be approved by simple majorities in both the House and Senate in two consecutive general assemblies, then must be approved by a simple majority of voters in the next general election. Each general assembly lasts for two years. This year is the second year of the current general assembly. That means if an amendment is approved this year and in the 2009 or 2010 legislative session, it can be on the general election ballot in November 2010. If lawmakers wait until 2009 to start the amendment process, the earliest that a proposed amendment could reach voters is November 2012.

[zulchzulu]

3. Live stream of event

http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=1

Amazing!

[Maven]

5. HOLY SHIT!!!!!!

:woohoo:

[bigwillq]

6. Great news!

:bounce:

[patriotvoice]

10. Repeat it loudly, folks: no justification exists.

"This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection
analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative
classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective."

[Aloha Spirit]

11. I don't think Iowa has a residency requirement to marry, either. thanks for posting! nt

[Zuiderelle]

13. Yep, you're right. Looks like we'll be going to Iowa soon to get married!

:bounce:

[Aloha Spirit]

14. That's AWESOME!

Congratulations!

[Duncan Grant]

12. Thank you, Iowa! Talk about ripples in a pond -- this is wonderful!

:wow: