April 3rd, 2009
|10:56 am - Same-sex marriage in the Midwest? Yep.|
It is astounding how happy an Iowa court case can make me.
"The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution." And, "All justices concur."
The best part of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling? They don't amend their constitution via majority rule at the polls. It would also need to pass the Iowa House and Senate twice before going to voters. "Such an amendment requires the votes of a simple majority in both the Iowa House and Iowa Senate in two consecutive sessions, followed by a passing vote of the people of Iowa."
2012 is the earliest this decision could be overturned, and that's only if this current session were to vote on an amendment and pass it.
Current Location: Southeast of Disorder
Current Mood: ecstatic
Current Music: "I Love the Now", -JB
|Date:||April 3rd, 2009 04:37 pm (UTC)|| |
I'm sure they are, and I'm sure that they've already been waiting to be mobilised.
That's why it's ESSENTIAL that if there are folks who have been waiting to be married that they do it ASAP.
The more people who are potentially and then later actually affected by these laws, the harder it will be to undo.
If these marriages are performed now, the longer that these folks have to become normalised and integrated into the society. The more FACES that there are for ordinary folks to think about, the more likely that ordinary folks will not pass these travesties.
Yes, the Mormons and others will put up a fight. That's why it's essential to make this fight as difficult as possible as complicated as possible, whereever possible.
Annulling legal marriages is likely to be costly and unpleasant. Someone has to pay and if the case is made that the taxpayers will foot the bill for undoing this, well, then, there's a *conservative* reason to oppose the opposition.
Yes, the Mormon church pumped millions of dollars into opposing this in CA, and they won, but not by a very large margin. Do they have enough millions of dollars to do this 49 more times, and is that narrow margin enough to actually *sustain* their agenda?
And the more blatantly *mormon* the opposition becomes, the more likely it is that anything they propose legally can be undone as Unconstitutional as it will put the state in the position of favoring one religious agenda over another.
The gay population in the world is about 10% of the whole. If the Mormon population is smaller than 10%, then they can't win in a fair election without help. And even if it's larger they still can't win without spending a lot of time, energy, and money.
It's time to start fighting over that middle ground and the first and best way to do it is for there to be as many legal marriages as possible that will be *victims* of any proposed new regulation.
Well, their system seems to be set up the same way Massachusetts is. I lived there when gay marriage was first legalized and if the voters could have taken it away immediately like with Prop. 8 they would have. But by the time it got down to the last vote that would have put it on the ballot, we had been living with gay marriage for years and everyone got to see for themselves that it changes nothing and doesn't impact your life at all, so no one cared anymore. There is always the hope that will happen here as well.