That’s right, just a few days ago Iowa became the third state where same-sex couples can legally marry.
Who would have thought it? Certainly not me, but then I live in the northeast, about two hours from NYC. And I think those of us who live close to either coast can sometimes be a bit clueless regarding the vast midsection of our country and what goes on there.
From the HRC web site,
“This is a truly historic day for Iowa and a proud day for every American who believes in the promise of equal rights and fairness for all,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “The Iowa Supreme Court did its job by recognizing that gay and lesbian couples who form committed relationships and loving families deserve the same level of respect afforded to heterosexual couples. The unanimous court made forcefully clear that the state constitution guarantees the same rights and protections for all Iowans. This decision strengthens Iowa families and makes a strong statement for equality all across the nation.”
The unanimous decision was handed down on April 3, in the case Varnum v. Brien and makes Iowa the third state in the nation and the first midwestern state to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry.
“Speaking for the unanimous court, Justice Mark S. Cady wrote that “[w]e are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective.” The court rejected the possibility that civil unions—or any institution other than civil marriage—could satisfy the guarantees of the state constitution.”
“The court’s decision does not entitle gay and lesbian couples in Iowa to receive the federal rights and benefits extended to married couples. The so-called federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) discriminates against gay and lesbian married couples by denying them over 1,000 federal rights, benefits, and responsibilities including social security benefits, the ability to file a joint federal tax return, and the right to petition for a spouse to immigrate. A lawsuit filed in federal court in Massachusetts last month challenges a portion of DOMA.”
So although this ruling is a reason for celebration, there is still a long way to go before gay and lesbian couples can enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Still, let’s high-five Iowa for coming over to the right side of the issue.
You can read the HRC article in its entirety at the following link.
http://www.hrc.org/12434.htm
Written by Kimberly Gardner
As early as the seventh grade, Kimberly remembers slashing her favorite rockstars and reading romance. So it’s not surprising that her two passions, romance and putting pretty boys with other pretty boys, should come together in her writing. Moliere said, “Writing is like prostitution. First you do it for love, then for a few close friends, then for money.” Kimberly is delighted to finally be doing it for money.
Visit The Author's Website
Katie wrote,
Sometimes I wonder if this is a deeper issue than just descrimination and half the reason they dont want to hand over all rights is a money thing. I dont get recognizing something but not giving all the benefits towards it. And Iowa is rather random you’d think they’d be one of the last states to do this. But thats America for you weird on their concepts of sexuality, drinking, family, what constitutes as patriotism,etc.
Link | April 5th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Sage wrote,
My buddies over at Vanhansis.net were celibrating big time!
After our big rally we had in support of proposal 8, (and the disappointment with CA) – Iowa was like a breath of fresh air.
On the same front… Conneticut and Vermont have passed in one house each and gaining support in the other house — but both of those state goveners say they are going to veto it when it gets to them… however, if 2/3 go in favor of , the veto can be denied…
Conneticut is so close, (like a 10 persons) that all they need is a few to change their mind and the vote would go our way…
Like you said — this passing in Iowa was like…whoa! Dude! Where’d you come from? All corn fields and farms there… (I alway liked me a gay farmer!)
Let’s hope that Iowa’s openmindedness will open the doors and get other states (like Michigan) off their arse and do what it right — letting gays marry.
Link | April 5th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Ally Blue wrote,
This is such a no-brainer to me. I mean HELLO! Separation of church and state, anyone??? Hello, Our Government, anybody remember that???? Come on! My daughter’s class in high school couldn’t even hold a debate on gay marriage because they aren’t allowed to use arguments based on religion and there ARE NO ARGUMENTS AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE THAT AREN’T BASED ON RELIGION!
Thank you Iowa for having GOOD SENSE! Of course this is something the Midwest is kind of known for so maybe no one should really be surprised. Especially since we all know that homophobes and fucktards are everywhere, even in ever-so-enlightened places like California and New England. But we are moving forward as a society, slowly but surely. I truly believe that legal equality is inevitable as we evolve and mature as a society, and more and more people realize that personal beliefs are one thing and the law is something else entirely. The law must protect all equally. Thus that famous blindfold, you know…
**climbs off soapbox**
Link | April 5th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Zot wrote,
Um, what? Connecticut’s had full marriage rights since October 2008. We were also the first state to do the whole “civil unions that’re identical to civil marriage” thing without the courts pointing out how doing it otherwise violated the state constitution.
I’ll grant that the right to marry ultimately came about because of a state supreme court ruling, but that was all political gamesmanship. Pretty much everyone at the top levels of government were fine with it but enough of them weren’t willing to stand up and say that, so instead they engineered the civil unions law and the appeals to the challenges to it in such a way that they were guaranteed to lose and anyone could marry. Kinda weasely, but it worked.
At this point the rights’ll stand. People only vaguely cared, and the deep-seated yankee need to not think about sex (thanks, puritan ancestors!) means anyone who tries to knock it down will lose. (Since to work up the support to kill the rights requires bringing our sex lives up, and we disapprove of that sort of thing here)
Link | April 5th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Jess wrote,
congratulations Iowa :)
Link | April 6th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Louisa Edwards wrote,
It’s not just you. I live in the midwest (at the moment) and I could hardly believe it either. Yay Iowa!
Link | April 6th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Jules wrote,
There’s a link to the full text on my mjaedin.livejournal.com LJ, and it is a thing of beauty. When you read between the lines of the high legal language, what you hear is Justice Cady telling the opposition, “You’re being petty and bigoted, and your arguments are lame.” The trouble he went to to spell out *every single reason* why the opposition was wrong was just hilarious. (Especially when he scathingly told them their reasons for forbidding gays to marry could just as logically apply to keeping red-haired people from marrying, and nobody was trying to make THAT happen.)
Link | April 6th, 2009 at 9:10 pm