Iowa Court: Same Sex Couples can Marry!

My thoughts? TEN!!! About time and I wish the rest of the states would follow along.

w00t! Let's hope that the rest of the states wake up and get this done!

You do not want to know my thoughts on this!!!

especially since there is no red writing across the top of this article.



No wonder I'm an ex-Iowan!!!

I think Iowa will end run around this by altering their constitution. The issue that was decided was that to decline marriage to same sex couples violated the Iowa state constitution. If they alter the constition to redefine marriage to be only between one man and one woman, then this is no longer an issue--and gay folks still won't be able to get married.

I am with you Randee, sorry Arielle, I just can't

To the folks that don't have anything to say, or are choosing not to an express an opinion, I'd rather not see a comment. There is no point to it and you are gaining Gather points for not really saying much of anything. I'd rather see an opinion and a debate happening rather than nothing at all and people not stating what they want to.

Okay, I think it S&%$S!!!!

Haha. OK Randee! We will agree to disagree but thank you for stating your opinion :-)

turn that heart upside down randee :)

My thoughts are that government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Its a hold-over from the days of the Ancien Regime when the Church was considered an arm of the state. Its, to my knowledge, the only governmental act left in America where religious ministers are authorized to perform or confirm an act having legal significance enforceable by the coercive power of the state. Given the fact that marriage is so much a part of various religions, what needs to be done is that we abolish marriage licenses altogether and replace them with contracts of civil union or domestic partnerships. Marriages would then continue to be declared or soleminized by the various Churches, fraternal organizations, covens, whatever -- but the marriage vows would have no legal significance and would be enforceable solely by excommunication, disfellowshipment, shunning, whatever. The government would only be enforcing the consequences attendant civil unions and domestic partnerships. Then we would not be offending anyone's religious beliefs, we would get marriage out of the legal arena, and we could hopefully get our politicians to concentrate on matters that are adversely affecting everyone rather than these sex related issues.

Arielle:

Each state has the right to make its own laws right? But you know what's going to happen. The same thing as with abortion aka Roe vs. Wade and it's going to fall into the lap of the Supremes.

The key is that people had better stop paying as much attention to Vick, Paris H, whether or not Nicole Richie is pregnant, and what's up on One Life to Live and start getting a "life to Live" or the Supremes will decide how their life will be lived for them.

Not into politics? Politics will be IN to you and your business and whether or not LGBT will or will not have the right to marry or NO.

Your next president may be the deciding factor on which Supremes are appointed to make that decision.

I say kudos!

I say live and let live. People need to be able to do what they want, especially when they are minding their own business and not hurting anyone else. The government needs to back up and leave folks alone! Good for Iowa!

By the way, I'm a happily heterosexual female.

Didn't Iowa have a referendum on gay marriage a couple of years ago?
How did that go? Is the Iowa Supreme Court going to go against the wishes of the people who voted?

That doesn't seem very democratic, does it?

The marraiges have been stopped for now. The judge at the request of the gov has ordered a stay of his order until the supreme court of Iowa can hear the case. about 20 couple got marriage certificates in that time.

Bret, they did pass a defense of marriage act, but it was ruled unconstitutional. if they can get a constitutional amendment, then it's not an issue.

Bret, when it comes to any decision by the judiciary as to an individual or a group's civil rights its not up to a vote of a majority -- that's the whole point. Individual liberty is dependent upon the Court's to protect the right of an individual who belongs to a minority or which the majority is prejudiced against. If liberty were solely dependent upon the votes of a majority we would still have blacks sitting at the back of the bus down South. It is simply irrelevant what a referendum decided when it comes to individual liberty.

I think they should call it something other than marriage. Same sex couples are not the same as a man and woman couple no matter how much they try or want to be.

I agree with George the fact that marriage is considered a sacrement by some religions confuses the issue and the state getting out of the marriage business and dealing only with civil unions and domestic partnerships is the easiest and fairest way to resolve that problem.

On another but somewhat related point, having read the details of the Iowa couple who did get married, I think they may have rushed into a contract that they may later regret having rushed into. The proposal, acceptance, obtaining of a license and marriage cermony all happened in a 24 hour period. Terminating a contract (divorce) is much messier than simply breaking up.

MPMS i don't think they want to be "the same as a man and woman couple," in fact, if that's what they wanted, that's the relationship they'd be in. It's that by virtue of the fact that you have a va-j-j and the person you fell in love with has a wee wee you get to have a tacky party and receive over a thousand benefits from the federal government while people with the same parts who fall in love can still have the tacky party but don't get the benefits.

I agree Carol, but it just goes to show you that gay folks aren't all that different from straight folks, they do stupid things they'll regret later when it comes to love (Brittney Spears anyone?)

I am glad to hear it. I am surprised it is Iowa though. I'm surprised some of the more liberal or neutral states (California, New York) haven't done this first.

I was going to say great...until I saw there was a stay if order to put a stop to the good news. Prejudice remains alive and well in America. So much for freedom. Maybe some day our country will join the 21st century and allow all people to be treated equal as human beings and enjoy the pursuit of happiness. If two people love one another and want to commit to a lifetime together through marraige; who's it hurting if those two people happen to be of the same sex? They let people fo the same race as well as different races marry. Different sexes are already allowed to marry, so same sex couples should be given the same right.

State referendums are the way to handle this question. Just let the people of each state decide.

Activist courts should never be deciding something like this. This is a citizen's issue and should be decided as such.

Rob Appell -

Its not so much an issue of people getting married and skipping off to enjoy their lives. There's a lot of insurance money and health coverage issues that go hand-in-glove with this decision. If we can't even get health care for biological offspring, our children, then gays and their lovers have to wait in line.

The Adam Sandler movie "Chuck & Larry" dealt with this exact issue......lol.

Bret...Bull! The reason you can't get health care for your biological children is because you can't afford it. That reason goes out the window. No more 'waiting in line'. There's no legitimate reason whatsoever gays shouldn't be afforded the same basic rights as other human being. Gays are equals and deserve all the rights of anyone else including health insurance coverage, whether on their own or through their partner if offered. Most gays can afford their own coverage. Gays should be excluded why?

Rob -

Let me tell you a little story :
I worked for a company a few years ago, a very liberal company. Not that huge, but big enough to offer health care and all the amenities. They had a policy of handing out coverage to gay couples as well as hetero- couples. Pooled insurance through an HMO......a normal arrangement. One of the gay guys had a lover who piggybacked onto our insurance, and we picked him up too - because, as the founder stated "it was the right thing to do" - essentially your argument, no?
Well, the gay guy's lover had AIDS. The treatments were expensive. Our health care costs skyrocketed because of one person. Within a year, my personal costs were double what they were a year earlier. Within 18 months, health coverage was so expensive that the company had to cut health care altogether. My kids lost all coverage, and I had to move along to another company because of it, even though I loved working there.

Now I don't have any problems with civil unions as long as they aren't legally inclusive...........you know, like on health care issues, etc.

That's why gays should be excluded. Any more questions?

but if you were married bret and your kid had some tragic form of juvenile leukemia, that would be fine, right? Or would it be best to cut off your kid so other normal kids don't get cut?

Thank you, John.

John M. -

In your scenario, if my child contracted leukemia, that would not drive up the price of insurance very much because catastrophic illnesses were covered for biological dependents. We had insurance for that - per the insurance company, not because I asked for it. They covered our asses the best they could, but nobody covered AIDS........so it came right out of the company fund, which was drained by the gay guy's lover.

At the end of this little exercise, the company became less and less liberal as the bills piled up. So did the employees paying the bills.

Bret - Just so you are aware, there are thousands of straight people living with HIV/AIDS as well so to exclude a gay couple from health insurance is absurd. If you feel that it was the disease that drove up your health care costs then simply put (although I don't believe this) you should start campaining to health care companies to exclude certain diseases from thier care, instead of excluding people. We all come down with the same sicknesses and we are all at risk for those illnesses whether we like to believe it or not, so to exclude a group of people from having health insurance would never work.

i still don't think your analogy holds. and honestly i'm not sure i understand your story; with every counter there's a new wrinkle to it, it seems.

so let's say it was your kid that was in an accidnet and got aids from a blood transfusion, then it would be fair to drop you from the health plan b/c aids wasn't covered?

John - It definitely isn't fair unless every group and every disease is covered. But Bret is assuming that only gay people get AIDS which we all know is not true. So in his way of thinking, then technically anyone with the disease should be dropped from health care. Although I don't believe that to be the right thing to do, Bret cannot just assume that gay people have AIDS. I hate health insurance companies. My moms best friend had breast cancer and they wouldn't pay for an experimental treatment. Without the treatment, she'd die within a few weeks. She wanted the treatment so she'd be alive for her daughter's Bat Mitzvah. She threatened to go to the media and they ended up covering her. She died a week after her daughter's BAt Mitzvah. Although very sad, this is how health insurance companies are and that's why we need reform. But I completely; disagree with Bret in that he doesn't think that gay people should be allowed health insurance because of premiums!

The reality is, no one know exactly why premiums gp up because health insurers don't tell us. So we can't really assume either that Bret's premiums went up because of this one person in his office.

Well all I can say....as an Iowan I am glad that my state the people and government aren't as judgmental as most. We are a progressive lot and maybe we realize that NO ONE should be able to tell another person who they can and cannot fall in love with.

ONE VERY PROUD IOWAN!!!

YAY Lori! I wish all states were like that!

John M./Arielle -

I wish I were making this up, but unfortunately this situation is true. Blame the big, bad insurance company if you'd like............or blame me for paying the bill and not fighting an uphill battle for the next 10 years. Either way, it won't change what happened.

This was very straightforward. I'm not sure that you understand that. A gay guy's lover contracted AIDS and caused our insurance to become immensely expensive. So expensive that no one else in the company could continue their coverage.

In the end, this horrible situation ended up causing me and a few others to leave the company. Believe it or don't - I'm just telling you the way it is. I'm sorry you don't like it, but some things in life just go that way.

Bret, it's one story however, many people at that company could have contracted AIDS or come down with any number of very expensive diseases. You're drawing a conclusion from your single example that is not warranted. Sure you can be angry about it, but what you're doing with that anger is not rational. By extension, anyone that gets cancer should be dropped from their companies insurance program, anyone with heart disease, anyone with a rare disorder that requires extreme care, anyone with AIDS, anyone who might cost the system more than they put into it. Sometimes doing the right thing is costly; I'm sorry that you had to leave your company, but I don't think that means that gay people shouldn't get married, it's a ridiculous argument.