Iowa Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage: Varnum V. Brien
59 At 8:30 a.m. a press conference released the Iowa Supreme Court decision regarding same sex marriage. The case that has spurred the questioning of the state law describing marriage is Varnum v. Brien.
At the announcement of the court's decision the hopeful Plaintiffs sat in their chairs, white knuckled with nervousness and excitement. As the Plaintiff's lawyer burst from the curtains behind the podium, her face was flushed with a victorious smile. She announced that the current statute, which limits a civil marriage to the rights of only a man and woman and not those of the same sex, had been deemed unconstitutional by the Iowa Supreme Court. As gasp of aghast filled the room, and tears began to flow from the eyes of the plaintiffs. The six sets of couples could now do what they had been fighting for: getting married, and possessing the same rights as every other couple in Iowa. Each of the couples took turns speaking at the Press Conference to express their gratitude.
However, those wishing to marry must wait 21 days until auditors can license the marriage of same sex couples. The allowance of same sex marriages in Iowa may rally other states to follow in the footprints we have set. Iowa is one of the few states now allowing same sex marriages. Whether or not people realize it we have set a precedent for the rest of the nation that will have an impact on the decisions of other court cases to come. Those opposed to the decision by the Iowa Supreme court do not intend to appeal, according to KCCI.com. The gay rights movement is underway whether conservatives choose to acknowledge it or not.
The legality of same sex marriages primarily had to do with the equal protection clauses of the Iowa Constitution. The Iowa Supreme court believed that the statute expressing marriage as a union "between a man and a woman" only was conflicting with the Iowa Constitution. The statute was declared void by the courts.
The Equal Protection Clause
For the courts to consider a case regarding the Equal Protection Clause, the plaintiff must undergo the "rational basis test." The "test" requires the plaintiff is to prove the statute has an unconstitutional basis and explain every way possible why this is so. Cases regarding fundamental rights are closely examined and are required to be restricted enough to induce concern by the government.
sources:
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Constitution.html
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
The equal protection clause is meant to make sure everyone is treated equally and not discriminated against no matter what their differences are. The law is meant to be looked at from an objective standpoint not from personal biases or religious views. Law is there to protect the people. It is a civil rights issue not an issue of personal beliefs.
And honestly what does "nomal sexual relations" have to do with the law? People who are disabled cannot have "normal sexual relations" so should the laws not be applicable to them?
Also there are many people who cannot procreate naturally, aka surrogate mothers, embryonic transplants, etc. Marriage has always been the domain of the government; since the beginning of our nation. There are laws against having more than one wife, marrying a minor, etc. If we did not have laws like that we would not be protected as citizens. As time changes the law changes to keep up.
At one point interracial relationships were deemed wrong and practically illegal. Should the government not have given them equal rights as well? like i said this all points to civil rights and can be applied to the racial struggles individuals in our nation have faced and still face today. Whether race or gender people should be treated equally no matter your personal opinion. We are all human so we should treat each other as such.
If you want to bring religion into the matter. God says all sins are equal and all sins can be forgiven through him. It is not for us to judge and decide that they are worse people. We are meant to love all men equally, even our enemies. Overcome all with love not with hate. Be tolerant not intolerant.
This article was strictly informative not opinionated, however, I felt it now necessary to provide these points.
You have no understanding of the law and especially the fourteenth amendment.
Gay marriages are not marriages because it deconstructs the meaning and the purpose of a marriage. Inter-racial marriages didn't replace the one man and one woman concept. There was no rational basis to forbid that kind of marriage.
Gays just don't fit the reason for marriage. They can get the same protection that marriage bestows on a couple through civil contracts. What they can't get, nor should they get is validation of their deviance from the bonds of marriage.
The law doesn't afford equal protection, it never has and it never will. The law discriminates against people that smoke marijuana while at the same time it is legal to smoke carcinogenic cigarettes and drink mind dumb alcohol. The law also makes it a crime to pay for sex but it is no different than buying dinner and then having sex as a payback. The rich are taxed more heavily than the middle class and the lower class not only doesn't pay taxes, they receive money from the government. Some states have capital punishment while other states don't have capital punishment, Is that equal protection?
The government discriminates on how we can use our land, in a dispute over whether the land should be used for the people or not, the people lose more often than not.
The government will conscript you at the age of 18 to serve and possibly die in the military, but they won't let you vote or drink until you are 21. The courts apply the law in favor of the mother or the wife in child custody and divorce hearings. They do this even though their is no wording in the law to make such decisions. In the process, the state discriminates against men.
What is the purpose of separate gender public rest rooms?
There are many more examples of unequal protection.
You are a prime example of the sheep that this country continues to produce.
BTW, how is that God thing working out for you?
The root cause of the death and violence in the world can be attributed to a God that refuses to identify itself to the people. The people in turn then kill those that don't believe in their God. The God of the Old Testament supposedly talked to people and identified itself to them in a Godly form. The Jesus of the New Testament was not mentioned in the Old Testament and now we only have people that claim to have talked with God and he answered them. Even if you believe that Jesus died in human form to wash away our sins. It was back to normal in the sin department for humanity for the last 2000 years. So that act by Jesus didn't accomplish anything it was supposed to have done.
As far as the race aspect of the 14th Amendment, it clearly didn't work as a state's issue. Giving the power to the states was ineffective and the cause of continued discrimination. Now it is a federal issue and it works much better.
Homosexuality, is no different than choosing to gamble, have sex for money, smoke cigarettes, marijuana, drink alcohol, take drugs, or engage in activities labeled pornographic. All of these things are discriminated by the government.
If Gays had a right, it should be under the Bill of Rights and not state action of the 14th Amendment. If there are basic rights that need to be enjoyed by everyone in the country then you can't have the states re-interpret them. Under the Supremacy Clause the federal law trumps any state laws.
Don't add lying to your comment, you definitely had an opinion and you wanted your hub to provoke that opinion.
I will not be coming back your hub or any of your hubs, as they are not anything more than a back door for homosexuality dominance and pseudo wisdom for a God that treats people worse than any government This hub was not informative, it was just BS.
How tolerant are you with sex offenders and drug dealers?
Does going nude really make you a sex offender, the law thinks it does?
30
i am talking about the IOWA CONSTITUTION not the constitution for our nation. It is a matter at the state level not the national level and i do understand law and the point of the amendments. I am a political science major. I believe you have a personal bias and will not look at this issue with an objective mind. It is good you have your opinions, but you should be open to others. If you have such strong feelings on this matter, write your own hub.
The meaning of marriage is combining two people who are in love, but the meaning can also be different for everyone. A couple is a couple is a couple. They are acting exactly the same as regular couples. I just dont fully see a rational base for your reasoning, it seems largely based on religion. We have a separation of church and state.
I believe we will not agree concerning this matter, but that is what America is all about. Eqaual say and a sharing of opinions with no persecution.
look up the equal protection clause for iowa. The Bill of Rights is at the Federal level, and yes applies to state, but i am strictly talking about a state constitution. Iowa's. I never brought in the National Constitution.
you say the states shouldnt have that much power, and the fed should have power, but then you say the fed has too much power. That contradicts.
I think you have your wording wrong as well, the government does not discriminate it regulates. We have the power to talk to the congressmen/women of our own states, petition, free speech, and so on. If you disagree with same sex marriage go to the gov. and tell them. That is what they are there for. SERVING THE PEOPLE. yes, it is not perfect, changes take time. There is no such thing as instant gratification, even though the current generations seem to believe so.
government is not perfect that is why it is constantly changing. Yes, there are issues but it works. We do not have radical uprisings or genocides and so on.
you are arrogant and believe your opinions are superior to others, its a shame . I am not a sheep i have my own opinions. Me happening to agree with something the government has done is acceptable, it does not make me a mindless drone. I have my own disagreements, but i do feel strongly that government is necessary for a people to be considered a civilization.
I was not trying to bash on you before. It is sad that you decided to bring it to this. I merely wanted a trade of opinions not an attack on character.
Everyone can have their own beliefs on religion, that is what is great about our nation. We are free to practice whatever religion we choose. However, it is wrong on a moral standpoint to bash other peoples belief. TOLERANCE is good. INTOLERENCE is bad= all negative issues.
Yes, we cannot see God that is what FAITH is. CAnnot be attributed to God. He gave us free will. We are in control of our own decisions, he gives us guidelines, aka the ten commandments.
There are more recordings/copies of the bible than any other documentation of historical nature in history, yet we choose not to believe that any of it is true.
In terms of washing away are sins. It is so that we may be forgiven so we may enter heaven. John 3:16 "for God so loved the world he gave his only son so that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Through him sins are forgiven, you just have to ask. It does not mean humans will not sin, again free will, only that they can and will be forgiven. Jesus was never meant to erase sin.
"I will not be coming back your hub or any of your hubs, as they are not anything more than a back door for homosexuality dominance and pseudo wisdom for a God that treats people worse than any government This hub was not informative, it was just BS."
that statement you gave, dominance? what! A bit of a reach i'd say. Everthing is at an extemist level concerning your points. It is just not rational thought. You are closed off and defensive against others having personal thoughts of their own and not the same thoughts as you. I am thouroughly exuberant that you will not be returing to my hubs, i would rather communicate with those who possess an open mind concerning the thoughts of others. We all have different belief, and ethical systems. We are a diverse people. Logic like yours is what creates such turmoil.
Sex offenders: Nude in public in front of a child is wrong. Any sexual offense is wrong. It is sick and twisted for you to make that comment. I, myself, have had issues concerning a sex offender. You are ignorant.
That's my girl! nice job. watch the typo's. I am especially proud you site the bible as it is important to me you keep a strong relationship with GOD! It keeps us all in check and really makes us more happy! we can all use that right! nice job on this piece and responses.:) love you! mom
issues veritas says:
9 months ago
Same sex marriage is definitely not applicable to any version of equal protection.
There is no rational basis for applying it to same sex partners.
Same sex partners cannot have normal sexual relations nor can they procreate naturally.
I don't believe that marriage should be in the domain of the government.
I don't believe that gays and lesbians should try to validate their lifestyle by forcing the system to included their union.
There is no purpose to having same sex marriages, anything that they need from marriage except for validation can be accomplished through other means, such as contracts, etc.
You can put a dress on a rooster but it is still a chicken.