Test 2

Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

登入

记住我

初到 Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement
Highlights

More About Us

新闻&特写

« 较新的 | 较旧的 »
6 Apr 2009

Iowa becomes third US state to legalise same-sex marriage

Iowa became the third state in the country to legalise same-sex marriage on Friday while Vermont's bill - although passed - is short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised veto by Republican Gov. Jim Douglas.

Last Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court in a unanimous decision ruled in favour of same-sex marriages - the third state after Massachusetts and Connecticut on the East coast. More often debated on both coasts, the decision makes Iowa the first state in the American Midwest, an area often referred to as the "American Heartland," to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples. For five months last year, California's high court allowed gay marriage until November's election, when residents rejected the idea in a voter initiative. A ruling on the validity of that initiative is expected soon from California's Supreme Court.

Couples in Iowa are expected to be able to exchange vows as soon as April 24 and reports say the only recourse for opponents appears to be a constitutional amendment, which couldn't get on the ballot until 2012 at the earliest.

The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman. It wrote in its 69-page decision: "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 state's lawmakers "excluded a historically disfavoured class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

The Associated Press quoted Justice Mark S. Cady, a Republican appointee to the court, who said that excluding a group from marriage merely because of long-standing custom, can "allow discrimination to become acceptable as tradition."

Reports say same-sex marriage opponents may try to enact residency requirements for marriage so that gays and lesbians from across the country could not travel to Iowa to wed.

US Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, urged the Legislature to do so, saying he feared without residency requirements Iowa would "become the gay marriage mecca."

Meanwhile, in Vermont, the state House of Representatives approved a bill last Friday legalising same-sex marriage. The bill passed the state Senate on a 94-52 roll call vote, just short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised veto by Republican Gov. Jim Douglas. Gay marriage supporters hoped to convince a few Vermont legislators to switch when it comes to the override vote, which could be taken as soon as Tuesday.


Iowa State Senator Matt McCoy, the first openly gay member of the Iowa Legislature, describes why he thinks Iowa won't go backwards on marriage rights.




In the media:

Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman (desmoinesregister.com): Basic fairness and constitutional equal protection were the linchpins of Friday's historic Iowa Supreme Court ruling that overturned a 10-year-old ban on same-sex marriage and puts Iowa squarely in the center of the nation's debate over gay rights

The landmark ruling is guaranteed to send shock waves through politics in Iowa and beyond. With no appeal as an option, opponents say their only hope to overturn Friday's decision is an almost-certain bid to amend the state constitution. But that path, which would eventually require a public vote, would not yield results until 2012 at the earliest.

The Meaning of Iowa's Gay Marriage Decision (time.com): When the Iowa Supreme Court ruled on Friday that gays can marry in the Hawkeye State, gay marriage became not just a coastal thing. Deep in the rural heartland, a straightforward opinion - written by a justice appointed by a conservative Republican governor - methodically eviscerates one argument after another that for decades has been used to keep marriage the sole preserve of straight couples. "This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage?" Justice Mark S. Cady asked.

The answer? It can't.

Marriage in the heartland (sfgate.com): Still, it's obvious that Friday's decisions represent a leap forward, not just a step. Vermont's bill recognizes that only marriage represents true equality. And Iowa isn't Connecticut or Massachusetts or even California - it's the heart of the heartland, the country's classic swing state.

The next few years will give both Iowans and the rest of the country the opportunity to witness how same-sex marriage can bring greater fairness for everyone.

Justice Mark S. Cady, appointed by a conservative Republican governor, wrote in the majority opinion that "the constitutional principle of equal protection" forbids the "exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage."

The ruling "does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union," Cady wrote. But the majority must nonetheless provide equal protection. "We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more."

California ruling helped Iowa OK gay marriage (sfgate.com): Frequently citing the California ruling, the Iowa justices said any law that denies equal treatment to a historically persecuted group, like homosexuals, is valid under the state Constitution only if it promotes an important, legitimate government goal. They said none of the goals cited in defense of the marriage law - tradition, protecting children, encouraging procreation - met that test

Claims that children are better off with opposite-sex parents are scientifically unproven, he said, and, even if true, would not be served by denying marriage to same-sex couples who are already raising children (Justice Mark) Cady said, neither evidence nor common sense supports the notion that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples would encourage those couples to have more children or make their unions more stable.

读者回应

1. 2009-04-06 16:39  
Anything intesting about the graphic.. it's only the coasts and only all of the west that has at least domestic partnerships and now, Iowa, in the middle of nowhere, alllows gay marriage. Boom, thought ya knew.. only the strong survive.
2. 2009-04-06 19:08  
Congrats to every gay and lesbian in Iowa!

This is such an important political statement! Stop discriminating against us just and only becoz we are different in taste of sexual preferences!

What makes the hetro more human than us?

we love, we cry and we pay taxes too!

3. 2009-04-06 23:42  
This is a VERY important legal precedent, not because it permits marriage, but because it declares an attempted BAN as an unconstitional form of discrimination. By taking this VIA NEGATIVA route, the pathway now lies open for other states to strike down anti-marriage amendments already on the books. California's PROPOSITION 8 springs readily to mind.
4. 2009-04-07 00:26  
There are some great passages in that judgement. It's good to see judges who don't let politics get in the way of common sense and humanity.

It begins:

"This lawsuit is a civil rights action by twelve individuals who reside in six communities across Iowa. Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities.
They include a nurse, business manager, insurance analyst, bank agent, stay-at-home parent, church organist and piano teacher, museum director, federal employee, social worker, teacher, and two retired teachers. Like many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some are foster parents. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protecteda belief embraced by our state motto."
回应#5於被作者删除。
6. 2009-04-07 01:55  
This decision did not come out of nowhere. While often associated with corn fields and being in the middle of nowhere, Iowa, in fact, has a history of pioneering equal protection for discriminated classes of people.

It refused to treat black people as property nearly two decades before the Supreme Court ruled in 1873 that black people were property. It was the first American state to allow women to practice law (1869). And 8 decades before Brown v. Board of Education was handed down in 1954, Iowa had already struck out at segregation laws.

Make no mistake, there is a strong libertarian streak in Iowa that brings it closer to New England than to Nebraska.
7. 2009-04-07 02:17  
This is great news! :)
8. 2009-04-07 05:08  
I'm very happy for Iowa !! Hope it could be the same here in FR. ;)
9. 2009-04-07 05:22  
sad..very sad..to see such an abuse of power by an activist judiciary.

Courts are not supposed to make or change a law, but to uphold a law.
10. 2009-04-07 06:45  
Oh come on Kuman10127 don't be so miserable. I'm not an american but I understood that one of the roles of a supreme court is to examine whether new laws are consitutional, to guard against partisan and undemocratic attitudes. In this case they did a very honourable job - good for them.
11. 2009-04-07 09:26  
good article...refreshing to be subject to logic and intelligence applied to fairness: except in the case of US Rep Steve King's "fears" which brought a smile to my face this Monday morning as I sipped my coffee...he "fears" Iowa could become the "gay marriage mecca"? (oh come on!) Did that happen in Massachusetts and Connecticutt? Would it be so terrible if it DID happen? Would he also "fear" the MILLIONS of dollars that could flow into the state from tourism, marriage ceremonies, parties, and taxes from new gay residents? (who might actually like that state and decide to stay). In the United States of America, we do not want or need "gay meccas". We want and need a world that is fair in which all countries treat, protect, and govern every human being equally.
12. 2009-04-07 09:29  
Post #8 Kuman10127 says (Posted : 07 April 2009 5:22) :

sad..very sad ..to see such an abuse of power by an activist judiciary.
Courts are not supposed to make or change a law, but to uphold a law.
--------

If say for a split second, just to patronise you on wat u said on the Supreme Court upholding a law, then Prop 8 in California can & should never have happened, but it did and caused such anguish and pain to so many decent people. Such a waste of precious money that could have been spent on needy issues instead of promoting hate and regressing as civilised human beings.

Yes, sad..very sad indeed...not about the victory progress of Iowa and what it stands for, for the world at large on equality, but for YOU as a sad pathetic regressive excuse for existence. With hidden brain-dead "larry craigs" like you striking against our own kind, who needs enemies. Pure disgrace! Shame on you.
13. 2009-04-07 09:30  
Very inspiring and significant ruling. I salute you Iowa and thank you for bringing equality back. Like your evolved sister states in Massachusetts and Connecticut ( & those like countries around the world), you are what love and respect to basic human dignity are all about . God Bless.
14. 2009-04-07 12:03  
I've decided that I'm going to be completely unabashed about being a newly converted SDP supporter.

If gay Singaporeans want the same type of legal and political advances that continue to be made elsewhere, then their best chances lie with the political party that is the closest ally to the gay community in Singapore.

That party is the SDP.

Don't just live vicariously off the successes of people in other parts of the world; they had to fight for and so do we.

But we do have the support of the SDP in this fight; we cannot do this without the help of our understanding allies.

Think about it.
回应#15於被作者删除。
回应#16於被作者删除。
17. 2009-04-07 12:05  
Post #11 jammyboi - GUTSO!!!!!!!!!! ;))

I too was appalled at how such parasites can leech on their very own community at a rate faster than global warming stripping resources dry - thought human beings are supposedly several notches above bloodthirsty worms??? :p
Thank God the Iowa Supreme Court has individuals the very opposite of leeches & for them I'd like to shout out...IDAHO BRAAAAAAAAAVO!!!!!
*KISS* ;))
18. 2009-04-07 14:12  
For those engaged in similar legal struggles around the world: there is a messaage and a model here. Instead of explicitly seeking to enact certain RIGHTS, cut the opposition off by demonstrating that their acts for the DENIAL of rights is unlawful discrimination. We are not ASKING PERMISSION for marriage, we are saying that you cannot LEGALLY DENY us the same rights you already have!!! This avoids the whole TRAP of so-called "re-defining" marriage.
19. 2009-04-08 01:18  
I just read that Vermont has now voted to legalise gay marriage, after voting down an attempted veto by the governor by a two thirds majority.
20. 2009-04-08 01:46  
Post #8 Kuman10127 says (Posted : 07 April 2009 5:22) :

sad..very sad..to see such an abuse of power by an activist judiciary.

Courts are not supposed to make or change a law, but to uphold a law.
_________________________________________

the Iowa court did not change or make the law. in fact, they upheld the law of non-discrimination. there is no law in Iowa that forbids gay marriages. however, there is a law, as in the whole of the united states, that forbids discrimination. therefore, the court is correct to remind the people that they cannot change the law to define marriage between men and women, as it will be in violation of the non-discrimination law.
21. 2009-04-08 01:47  
in fact, the people who want to change the laws are those evangelical loonies
回应#22於被作者删除。
回应#23於被作者删除。
回应#24於被作者删除。
25. 2009-04-08 11:20  
Looks like Vermont finally did manage to get admitted into the
Civilised Club. Congratulations.

The news reads:

BOSTON: Vermont lawmakers on Tuesday overrode a veto from the governor in passing a bill that would allow same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the state to become the fourth in the nation where gay marriage is legal.

The Vermont House of Representatives passed the bill by a 100-49 vote after it cleared the state Senate 23-5 earlier in the day. In Vermont, a bill needs two-thirds support in each chamber to override a veto.
26. 2009-04-08 15:20  
WAAAAAH gear up....there will be many very HAPPY divorce lawyers popping up there...to handle messy divorce cases.....$$$$$$$$$
27. 2009-04-08 15:20  
WAAAAAH gear up....there will be many very HAPPY divorce lawyers popping up there...to handle messy divorce cases.....$$$$$$$$$

请先登入再使用此功能。

Social


请选择新闻及专栏版本

精选个人档案

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

赞好

合作伙伴

 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia

Advertisement