Iowa Supreme Court to Issue Gay Marriage Decision Friday
By Michael Foust
DES MOINES, Iowa --- The Iowa Supreme Court will issue a much-anticipated "gay marriage" decision Friday morning that could make it the third state -- and easily the most conservative one yet -- to redefine marriage.
The court announced Thursday in a note on its website that the ruling would be posted by 8:30 a.m. Central Time Friday. A ruling for "gay marriage" would be a significant victory for homosexual activists but also would launch a conservative effort to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Any amendment would have to be initiated by the legislature, which is controlled by Democrats who have thus far resisted efforts to place such a proposal on the ballot. The court heard oral arguments in December.
Opponents of "gay marriage" in the state say that religious freedom would be impacted.
Meanwhile, the highest court in New York, the Court of Appeals, announced Tuesday it would accept an appeal from the Alliance Defense Fund concerning recognition of out-of-state "gay marriages." Although "gay marriage" is not legal in New York, some local and state officials in recent years have issued orders requiring the recognition of "marriages" from outside jurisdictions such as Canada and Massachusetts.
"They're acting outside their authority," ADF attorney Jim Campbell told Baptist Press.
ADF lost both cases in lower courts.
In one case the high court accepted, Westchester County Executive Andrew J. Spano in 2006 ordered county departments and officials to recognize "gay marriages" in the same manner they recognize legal marriages. In the other case taken by the court, the New York State Department of Civil Service revised its policies in 2007 to recognize outside "gay marriages" for the purpose of extending marital benefits to employee spouses.
The New York Court of Appeals in 2006 refused to legalize "gay marriage," although one of the justices who sided with the majority in that ruling no longer is on the court.
Technically, neither of the cases involves Democratic Gov. David A. Paterson's 2008 directive ordering state agencies to recognize out-of-state "gay marriages." Campbell, though, said ADF will ask the court to issue a ruling covering Paterson's order and any similar ones statewide.
"They could obviously have a more narrow ruling than that," Campbell said, "but we would be asking for them to declare that a proper interpretation of comity and conflict of law principles does not allow executive officials in New York to recognize these out-of-state same-sex marriages. Thus, it would -- if we got the relief we're requesting -- implicitly prevent the governor from issuing the directive that he did."
A date for oral arguments has not been set. The New York cases are Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Service and Godfrey v. Spano.
© Copyright 2009 Baptist Press. All Rights Reserved.
Read the Opposing Views debate, Should Same-Sex Marriage be Legal?
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/iowa_same-sex_marriage_is_legal.php
"We begin with the County's argument that the goal of the same-sex marriage ban is to ensure children will be raised only in the optimal milieu. In pursuit of this objective, the statutory exclusion of gay and lesbian people is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. The civil marriage statute is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents --such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons--that are undeniably less than optimal parents. Such under-inclusion tends to demonstrate that the sexual-orientation-based classification is grounded in prejudice or "overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences" of gay and lesbian people, rather than having a substantial relationship to some important objective."
Traditionally --Legal marriage is a public announcement to society that a man and woman will beget and nurture their children .
The Gay agenda is a bit confusing. I hear RIGHTS, RIGHTS but it ends up in narcissistic ME TOO ,ME TOO
I would like to hear the official gay definition since the former doesn't fit
"Traditionally --Legal marriage is a public announcement to society that a man and woman will beget and nurture their children ."
Actually, according to "tradition", legal marriages were a way to arrange how property is passed on. "Traditionally", women did not need consent to be married.
If you're going to follow your misinformed idea of "traditional" marriages, you're going to have to say that people who can't have/don't want children shouldn't be married.
So go ahead an say that. People who don't want children shouldn't be married.
Legal partnership seems to be the right course for heterosexual and homosexual couples wishing to fake the awesome long term responsibilities of marriage.
What exactly are "responsibilities of marriage"? And what's so awesome about them? And why are they being faked?
Quincy Quick wins May he have ten children and no responsibilities. Orphanages for all?
If you feel the need to perpetually put the words " gay marriage " in quotes, perhaps we should also put the words "Christian love," and "respect for the rights of others," and " tolerance of beliefs which differ from one's own," in quotes, hm?
You all are entitled to your own beliefs about homosexuality. By all means, avoid marrying a person of your own gender if doing so offends your sense of...(oh-oh, feel some quotes coming on)..." morality ." But my religion approves of gay people and gay marriage.
Neither your religion nor my religion should dictate the laws of the land, however, which are supposed to be based upon defending the rights of every citizen, insofar as those rights do not trample upon the rights of others. Right now, YOU are trampling upon my rights. You have the right to not marry a person of your own gender, not to force me not to be able to do so. So, by all means, go out and be as heterosexual as you are capable of being. I support your right to marry the consenting, non-related adult of your own choosing.
"Opponents of " gay marriage " in the state say that religious freedom would be impacted."
That's narrow minded. What about the religions who support same-sex marriages including some Judeo-Christian churches?