[Yet Another Goat]

DES MOINES, Iowa - The Iowa Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state — and first in the nation's heartland — to allow same-sex couples to wed.

Iowa joins only Massachusetts and Connecticut in permitting same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California's high court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.

The Iowa justices upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman.

The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which could take years to ratify.

"We 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 Supreme Court wrote.

Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

To issue any other decision, the justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."

The Iowa attorney general's office said gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses starting April 24, once the ruling is considered final.

"Iowa is about justice, and that's what happened here today," said Laura Fefchak, who awaited the decision at a party in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale.

Her partner of 13 years, Nancy Robinson, added: "To tell the truth, I didn't think I'd see this day."

Des Moines attorney Dennis Johnson, who argued on behalf of gay and lesbian couples, said "this is a great day for civil rights in Iowa."

At a news conference announcing the decision, he thanked the plaintiffs and said, "Go get married, live happily ever after, live the American dream."

Plaintiff Kate Varnum, 34, introduced her partner, Trish Varnum, as "my fiance."

"I never thought I'd be able to say that," she said, fighting back tears.

Jason Morgan, 38, said he and his partner, Chuck Swaggerty, adopted two sons, confronted the death of Swaggerty's mother and endured a four-year legal battle as plaintiffs.

"If being together though all of that isn't love and commitment or isn't family or marriage, then I don't know what is," Morgan said. "We are very happy with the decision today and very proud to live in Iowa."

In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.

The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Judge Robert Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.

Separation of powers
The case had been working its way through the courts since 2005, when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples in Iowa.

The Supreme Court noted that any new distinction based on sexual orientation "would be equally suspect and difficult to square" with the state's constitution.

John Logan, a sociology professor at Brown University, said Iowa's status as a largely rural, Midwest state could enforce an argument that gay marriage is no longer a fringe issue.

"When it was only California and Massachusetts, it could be perceived as extremism on the coasts and not related to core American values.

"But as it extends to states like Iowa, and as attitudes toward gay marriage have evidently changed, then people will look at it as an example of broad acceptance," Logan said.

Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said his office will not ask for the case to be reconsidered.

"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is, and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said.

Gay-marriage opponents have no other legal options to appeal the case to the state or federal level because they were not parties to the lawsuit, and there is no federal issue raised in the case, Sarcone said.

Bryan English, spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage, said many Iowans are disappointed with the ruling and do not want courts to decide the issue.

"I would say the mood is one of mourning right now in a lot of ways," English said. He said the group immediately began lobbying legislators "to let the people of Iowa vote" on a constitutional amendment.

"This is an issue that will define (lawmakers') leadership. This is not a side issue."

Iowa has a history of being in the forefront on social issues. It was among the first states to legalize interracial marriage and to allow married women to own property. It was also the first state to admit a woman to the bar to practice law and was a leader in school desegregation.

Todd Pettys, a University of Iowa law professor, said the state's equal protection clause on which Friday's ruling was based is worded slightly differently than the U.S. Constitution. But Iowa's language means almost "exactly the same thing."

Still, he said, it's difficult to predict whether the U.S. Supreme Court would view the issue the same way as the Iowa justices.

Linda McClain, professor at Boston University School of Law, said she doubted Iowa's ruling would be "a realistic blueprint" for the U.S. Supreme Court," particularly considering the court's conservative leadership.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat, said state lawmakers were unlikely to consider gay marriage legislation in this legislative session, which is expected to end within weeks.

Gronstal also said he's "not inclined" to propose a constitutional amendment during next year's session.

Iowa's Democratic governor, Chet Culver, said he would review the decision before announcing his views.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30027685/

[corporationpaintball]

Good for them.

Here in VT a bill has passed through both the Senate and the House and will be on the governors desk by early this coming week.

[militia15]

pretty soon well just be one big gay country.

[mypresidentiswack]

Originally Posted by militia15

pretty soon well just be one big gay country.

i think your tractor is sexy

[corporationpaintball]

Originally Posted by militia15

pretty soon well just be one big gay country.

Or one big EQUAL country.


Equality is scary, ain't it?

[corporationpaintball]

Originally Posted by militia15

hah yea well just wait till they all enlist, were gonna be super scary when we send the 5th platoon rainbow rangers into battle wavin their american flag with unicorns on it.

Not having gay marriage doesn't make it magically disappear...

And plus they are already in the military... perhaps 'don't ask, don't tell' rings a bell?

[militia15]

Originally Posted by corporationpaintball

Not having gay marriage doesn't make it magically disappear...

And plus they are already in the military... perhaps 'don't ask, don't tell' rings a bell?

thats just gay.

[corporationpaintball]

Originally Posted by militia15

thats just gay.

Thank you for proving you're ignorant for me, you just saved me some time and work. I appreciate it.

[Tha-Italian-Stallion]

If enough people partake in depraved, looked down upon behavior, eventually it becomes a regularity in everyday life, at which point it becomes accepted. Soon, those people will not only want the right to act in this way, they no longer want to feel bad about it. Ahhh, equality.

In this society, I don't see any reason to keep gay marriage illegal. Personally, I think it's a betrayal of our humanity to act out such feelings. America isn't the country it was. I feel overwhelming sorrow for those few who still adhere to what is right, who turn a blind eye to such low human drama and strive to do better.

Only in such a gorged society as America or other western powers could we justify extending such a behavior as homosexuality government support. If we're all comfortable enough in our little bubbles where we no longer need to make our society better, and better in the long term sense.

tl;dr : It's a ****ing shame the world is fully populated. If only we could leave this forsaken continent and emerge as what we were meant to. Leave every last freak and fruit this country, cut and run. They'd be happy, and we wouldn't feel guilt in the future when we return, clad in Iron and Blood, to exterminate such heresy.

[Smart Parts Player12]

Originally Posted by militia15

aww thanks!


hah yea well just wait till they all enlist, were gonna be super scary when we send the 5th platoon rainbow rangers into battle wavin their american flag with unicorns on it.

Originally Posted by mypresidentiswack

hell yea, now two burly blokes can get a nice wedding before they cornhole each other.

Wow, just wow.

Originally Posted by Tha-Italian-Stallion

If enough people partake in depraved, looked down upon behavior, eventually it becomes a regularity in everyday life, at which point it becomes accepted. Soon, those people will not only want the right to act in this way, they no longer want to feel bad about it. Ahhh, equality.

Is homosexuality really depraved? I consider depraved raping kids, not simply having relations with someone of your own sex. Get past it man.

[AlphaNeo36]

Originally Posted by mypresidentiswack

hell yea, now two burly blokes can get a nice wedding before they cornhole each other.

Dibs on pitcher.

[bigk]

Personally I don't think marriage should have ever been regulated to begin with. You know the whole separation of church and state thing. Personally I don't see how anyone can have anything against gay marriage barring citing religous reasons which have no place in gov't whatsoever. How does it harm anyone honestly?

[mypresidentiswack]

Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36

Dibs on pitcher.

That's cool, i love to catch. now if only we can get overbear's sexy *** in on this.

[mypresidentiswack]

Originally Posted by Smart Parts Player12

Wow, just wow.

that's what i was thinking right before i blew a load thinking about that situation.

oh hell yeah.

[corporationpaintball]

Originally Posted by bigk

Personally I don't think marriage should have ever been regulated to begin with. You know the whole separation of church and state thing. Personally I don't see how anyone can have anything against gay marriage barring citing religous reasons which have no place in gov't whatsoever. How does it harm anyone honestly?

[Tha-Italian-Stallion]

Originally Posted by Smart Parts Player12

Is homosexuality really depraved? I consider depraved raping kids, not simply having relations with someone of your own sex. Get past it man.

This is where I realize the left doesn't follow their own ****ing prescribed bull****.
So I not only have to vote to help legalize something I'm against, but I also have to change my opinion on it? I have to adhere to your uniform idea that somehow homosexuality is not the act of 2 men or women coming together to preform completely gratuitous sex? Sex which nothing can come from, sex that is the equivalent to 2 teenagers with dimmed minds forcing their adolescent bodies onto one another? Except with the latter there is the chance of life being created.

My argument is, in a society which champions ripping a human life from the womb of a woman, and calls it "women's rights", why can't 2 homosexuals enter into the union of marriage?

Oh that's right... because of people like you. Because the moment it's legal, any opposition to it is somehow unfounded. We not only have to adhere to the law in practice, but have to agree with it even if we know it's wrong.

All that bull**** about being a proponent for civil rights and equality, is really just a cover for you to feel good about forcing an evil upon good people, and evil that makes you feel good to champion.

[Yet Another Goat]

Originally Posted by Tha-Italian-Stallion

This is where I realize the left doesn't follow their own ****ing prescribed bull****.
So I not only have to vote to help legalize something I'm against, but I also have to change my opinion on it? I have to adhere to your uniform idea that somehow homosexuality is not the act of 2 men or women coming together to preform completely gratuitous sex? Sex which nothing can come from, sex that is the equivalent to 2 teenagers with dimmed minds forcing their adolescent bodies onto one another? Except with the latter there is the chance of life being created.

My argument is, in a society which champions ripping a human life from the womb of a woman, and calls it "women's rights", why can't 2 homosexuals enter into the union of marriage?

Oh that's right... because of people like you. Because the moment it's legal, any opposition to it is somehow unfounded. We not only have to adhere to the law in practice, but have to agree with it even if we know it's wrong.

All that bull**** about being a proponent for civil rights and equality, is really just a cover for you to feel good about forcing an evil upon good people, and evil that makes you feel good to champion.

What the hell are you talking about?

[corporationpaintball]

Originally Posted by Yet Another Goat

What the hell are you talking about?

He's rambling about nothing at all...

[Tha-Italian-Stallion]

Sure am.....

Thanks for letting me know I'm on the wrong side of an issue.

[militia15]

Originally Posted by corporationpaintball

Thank you for proving you're ignorant for me, you just saved me some time and work. I appreciate it.

id rather be ignorant than gay.

[corporationpaintball]

Originally Posted by Tha-Italian-Stallion

Sure am.....

Thanks for letting me know I'm on the wrong side of an issue.

What makes being a heterosexual so great? Sure it continues the species, but there are already over 6 billion of us and rising... fast.

Personally I don't view it as any of my business to poke my nose into other peoples lives, if they want to get married then they should be able too... and you don't have any real argument to counter that fact. Relgion shouldn't have any say in the matter.

Originally Posted by militia15

id rather be ignorant than gay.

Homophobia isn't flattering.