Attorneys conclude Iowa Supreme Court arguments in gay marriage case

[Doughboy71]

Source: Des Moines Register

Arguments have ended today before the Iowa Supreme Court over a case involving gay marriage. Varnum vs. Brien involves six same-sex Iowa couples who sued Polk County Recorder and Registrar Timothy Brien in 2005, after his office denied them marriage licenses. Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson sided with the couples in a ruling last year, but suspended his decision until the high court reviews the matter.


Read more: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081209/NEWS/81209018/1001/

---

I find this interesting for a couple reasons. One, I think the Iowa Supreme Court will uphold the lower courts ruling to allow gay marriage in Iowa. And second, the county reporter happens to be my cousin who had to deny the marriage licenses becuase he was doing his job, not becuase he wanted to.

[GodlessBiker]

1. But didn't your cousin interpret the law in a way which the trial court found unconstitutional?

Your cousin declared it his job to deny those marriage licenses. He could have declared that his job was to grant them, no?

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

2. I didn't even know IA allowed gay marriage...I thought it was solely CT and MA that had it.

[MineralMan]

3. These cases use a very good strategy...

Since Supreme Courts have to decide based on the actual wording of the state Constitution. Often, the language is very broad in declaring equality of rights. I hope the IA court decides properly and allows gays to marry in that state. Another snowball rolls down the hill. Eventually the avalanche will occur.

In fact, here's what the IA Constitution has to say:

Rights of persons. SECTION 1. All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights--among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
Amended 1998, Amendment <45>

Laws uniform. SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.


Pretty straightforward and unequivocal...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

4. equal protection and privileges and immunities clause.

That's what it looks like to me.

Under the federal constituion you got full faith and credit clause, equal protection clause, privileges and immunities clause, and no ex post facto laws.