Don't really care. it happened several months ago. Thisis where the country is heading anyway.

Iowa?! Didn't know gay's like farming. You learn something everyday.

Significant but it really isn't that big of a deal. . .

. . .because homos pay taxes and want the (ya know) rights of any couple with legal standing because (ya know) it's their moral and Constitutional right.

Rednecks have tried to flood the states with fag-hating shite knowing that any court challenge is a loser. (You want to explain to the Supreme Court why a couple has legal rights here and not in Nebraska? Good luck.) The queer haters hate the courts because they're (ya know) right on the legal front. Thus, the courts are not giving 'memorable' or 'shocking' decisions but moral and correct ones. This isn't much of a story. It's the system working.

I'd rank it lower because it is a Midwest state and it's somewhat of an interesting domino to fall.

Quite significant, not because of the creeping inevitableness of the victory by the pitchers and catchers or the lickety split crowd, but who would have thought that in a relatively conservative state like the Hoosier State, the entire Appeals Court could be populated by magellan, canadasucks, fitman and frankswildyears? Hey, the Peoples Republik of New York, the Massachusetss combine, 9th Circuit in California, maybe, even Illinois, but Indiana? I knew they walked among us, But I thought they walked among us. They own the whole Appeals Court? I'm just surprised.

In Vermont, equal rights have been achieved through legislation.

In more backward states, it's through the courts that equal rights will eventually be enforced, given the unconstitutionality of arbitrarily discriminatory legislation.

http://tinyurl.com/EqualRightsForGay-People


http://tinyurl.com/ProgressInVermont

Passes? They can do that? The wording here seems amiss. Either way, I suppose where the rubber meets the road is that the voting public hates to see judges pull the rug out from under them and both sides of this argument are thoroughly convinced that they are standing upon the moral high ground. I suppose the best thing would be for everyone to back off of the issue for a time and let things play out a tad more naturally, but I just don't see that happening as long as the parties in question want things absolutely their way and want it that way NOW.

As much as some like to think that the constitution and the law of a particular jurisdiction are cast in stone for eternity, a quick review of the history books will reveal that the field of jurisprudence is relatively speaking dynamic and flexible in reflecting societal change, over the long term. It may not flip laws on whim, thankfully, but its pretty clear that we are not living under entrenched laws dating back to the Victorian era either. This is just another step in the law inching forward to reflect the view of society.

Marriage the Definition. (Webster's.)

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.

Taken from the Webster Dictionary (They split Marriage from Union.)

A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

Now before anyone says that I'm this or that way please read!!!
I'm not concerned if two males want to be together or two females. (Each to their own.) But to name the bringing together of same sex partners under the legal law as Marriage in my opinion goes against the very core meaning of the word MARRIAGE!!
Government should name it what it is; a union of two people! They should make parallel rights for same sex partners to distinguish this union as being different. (Not in a bad way.) I'm not opposed to same sex unions; just disagree with same sex partners being put under the name as marriage, when the word marriage doesn’t describe same sex.
The wording should be Significant to what the act is!

I hope people DON"T take this the wrong way but I'm sure people will ;)

Iowa isn't a radical place. For the supreme court there to strike down a law forbidding same-sex marriage is significant. The fact that they did it unanimously is even more impressive. The judicial decision cited basic fairness and equal protection granted under the Iowa constitution. They affirmed the district court opinion on this matter.

I'm not an expert on Iowa, but it seems like the Judicial branch of government is coequal of the other two branches, at least if their constitution is anything like the U.S. Constitution.

The full opinion is a fascinating read, you can find it here:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D213209 243.PDF

Since there is no appeal to the decision, the obvious move for people who hate this ruling would be to try and amend the constitution of Iowa, which would put it up for a vote as early as 2012, since their approach to changing the state constitution is more deliberate and measured than say, California's.

I encourage everyone to read the review of caphillsea77 again.
From morons with closed minds I expect only Disagrees and Funnys here. For the rest, consider this:
Let’s say that a state- any state- held a referendum on gay marriage, and that the people were overwhelmingly in favor of it. Yet, at the end of the day, here come a small handful of conservative judges who conveniently say that it violates the constitution. Case closed.
Those of you who agree with cap on this would be enraged, screaming about the separation of powers and how the people had spoken.
Funny how that works.

I live in the state that pioneered gay marriage; Massachusetts. It seems nationally we are viewed as the bleeding liberal, but lets not forget where Mitt Romney came from. Also in 2004 when gay marriage became legal here opponents petitioned for a ballot to put the issue to a vote. They got the 100,000 signatures required but fortunately the current governor and the legislature were able to put a roadblock on it. If gay marriage were to be put on a voters ballot in ANY state, surely it would not pass as clearly stated in California with proposition 8. That being said if civil rights issues regarding race were voted on in the 60's and 70's they would have had an unfortunate outcome then as well. Some people may not like the decisions of supreme court justices deciding on these issues, but that seems to be what it takes. In Vermont the state house and senate passed gay marriage last week yet the Republican governor promises to veto it, the law being passed lies in the hands of one man in Vermont.

Honestly I never thought much about Iowa. I veiwed it as just another heartland state. I've been to Missouri before so I know the character of the people in the heartland is quite nice. No pretentiosness, just friendly and seemingly honest hardworking folk. Iowa first got my attention when Obama won the caucuses in early 2008 which no doubt set the tone for his succesful presidential campaign. I thought, wow they are more progressive than I thought. Gay marriage in Massachusetts and Connecticut seemed almost predictable in those seemingly deep Blue states. I'm pleasantly surprised with the Iowa supreme court decision and I think it sends a message to the rest of the country that many other states can do just the same.

Clearly there are opponents to gay marriage just as they strongly voiced their opinions here in Massachusetts back in 2004. Well the sky hasn't fallen here in Mass, nor has it had any impact on heterosexual marriage by any stretch of the imagination and we are all doing just fine here with legal gay marriage. If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't get one, but don't impose on my civil rights. I'm very proud of Iowa and I view the state and it's people very positively. Way to go Iowa!

I do not agree with this decision, I am rating this four stars because of it's significance.

I have always been proud of being an Iowan, but this last week I have been somewhat ashamed to call myself an Iowan. Not only did it pass, it was a unanimous decision. So not only do we have a few bad judges, but an entire state Supreme Court worth of judges lacking in moral fiber who feel the need to go against what the majority of the state wants and legislate from the bench. There's nothing in the U.S. or Iowa Constitutions that says that two people of the opposite sex have the right to be "married". Iowa's ELECTED officials who REPRESENT the people of this state passed a Defense of Marriage Act, and the APPOINTED court justices who feel they are above the law struck it down without justification.