Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Iowa orders clerks to comply with marriage ruling
04.17.2009 4:28pm EDT
(Des Moines, Iowa) Iowa state officials have told county clerks they must comply with the state Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.
In an e-mail to all 99 county clerks, the Department of Public Health which registers marriages in Iowa said that clerks must “issue marriage licenses to same sex couples in the same manner as licenses issued to opposite gender applicants.”A spokesperson for the department said that it had received an inquiry from at least one clerk asking if the ruling applied throughout the state or just in Polk County, where the original court challenge to the Iowa law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was filed.
The Attorney General’s office also said it would monitor compliance.
On April 3 in a unanimous ruling, the Iowa Supreme Court said that the state law banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional – upholding a lower court ruling.
“The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” the justices said in the ruling.
The court also discounted civil unions as an alternative to marriage.
“A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution,” the ruling said.
The ruling goes into effect on April 27.
Republicans have mounted a number of attempts in the Legislature to move a proposed constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, but without success.
Gay marriage opponents are now counting on a Constitutional Convention to overturn the ruling.
Once every decade, Iowa voters can decide whether to hold a convention. The question is scheduled to go on the ballot in November 2010 and needs only a simple majority.
Conservatives believe that if a Constitutional Convention is approved they can convince delegates to vote for an amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
If voters approve holding a convention, and if enough delegates can be convinced to amend the constitution, the question could be put to voters in a special election, possibly in 2011.
That ‘at least one clerk’ should be fired immediately!
What a putz………… no wonder folks don’t trust ‘government’ employees.. not if they are THAT dumb!
They lost! They need to just get over it. They had 1000+ years of privilege and now it’s time to share. Suck it up.
The republicans want to allow for a ‘consciencious objector’ status for recorders to be able to deny applications. BUT – the “CO” designation would apply only to us, not other undesirables such as interfaith, interracial, or other faiths than the recorders. Not only is it immoral, it’s completely unbalanced in it’s bigotry! We will be applying for a marriage license ASAP!
My understanding is that during this constitutional free-for-all time, anything could be brought up, such as legalizing assisted suicide, and medical marijuana, and all sorts of things that opponents of gay marriage probably do not want to occur, but may have popular support these days. Will LGBT groups be supporting these others, so that the question won’t just be on marriage equality, but on a whole group of personal freedom issues as well?
My suggestion to all the gay couples, and gay supporters out there in Iowa would be to organize yourselves. This needs to remain law, this could set the tone for all other states to follow. Get out there in your communities and be active in supporting and keeping this law on the books. I am not gay, my daughter however is. I want her to live in a world where she has the same choices as anyone else.
I like the analogy of the Muslim meat-cutter: if you don’t want to handle pork, don’t become a butcher.
No, they DON’T get to decide who (in their narrow, bigoted, kraven kowardly konservative kristianist krazy kultist view) is “worthy” of having a marriage license issued by the State of Iowa.
The Iowa Supreme Court decided that.
They are officers of the Court.
Comply, or resign.
Preferably the latter, so they don’t spoil anyone’s wedding day.
“God told me to do it” is NO defense before the LAW.
I feel sympathy for clerks in this situation. The other week they were on the right side of the law, and now suddenly their objections are suddenly illegal. Most people who are against equal marriage aren’t bigots; they’re just uncomfortable, and often this feeling has something to do with their heartfelt faith. It’s not fair to demonize them.
Obviously it is my wish that someday there will be no objections to equal marriage, but if we force everyone to comply to this ruling now, then the conscientious objectors will stay uncomfortable, instead of growing to see that gays who want marriage are not out to take anything away from them and are not damaging to families or society. We have to rise above the Us vs. Them mentality and instead cultivate an Us _and_ Them mentality. There’s room in the world for all different viewpoints. Besides, didn’t you see that commercial? “I’m a California Doctor, forced to choose between my faith and my job”. Soon in will be, “I’m an Iowa clerk…”
As long as there’s a conveniant alternative clerk who can do the job, I see no problem with giving these people the chance to opt out. Doing this will show people that gays are not out to take their rights away, and will lead to more equality and acceptance in the long run.
Jews are not allowed to eat pork; it is against their religion. However, they can sell it (as long as they don’t touch it) to gentiles.
These people are acting as agents of the state, not themselves. They are in the situation of a Jewish vendor of pork. It only goes against their religion if they themselves marry someone of the same sex.
Someone hasn’t been reading their BIble. See Ezekiel 16:53-54 (NRSV):
“I will restore their fortunes, the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and the fortunes of Samaria and her daughters, and I will restore your own fortunes along with theirs, in order that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all that you have done, becoming a consolation to them.”
The entire 16th chapter really drives it home.
If Sodom has anything to do with gay people, this passage means that the gay rights movement is God’s intervention into the world today!
Ask your friendly neighborhood “evangelical” why they are working against God.
Ken needs to get off his Bible pounding soap box. A) we are talking about CIVIL marriage, not religiously condoned marriage, and B) he needs to direct his religious fervor against same-gender people who are violating the majority of the abominations against God in his little black book.
In other words, heal thine own before condemning others–reread the story of Jesus and the casting of stones about a hundred times until THAT message sinks in. (Not that I believe that gays are sinners. They are not.)
Yagov98, you are absolutely right. We are in violent agreement.
I’m banging my Bible AT the anti-gay bigots. They invoke it, but they haven’t read it.
A) I agree. This is about a civil contract that coincidentally has the same name as a ceremony in a church. Churches have no legal business being in this fight. Churches can marry or not marry whomever they please.
B) My intent is to turn the firehose of bigotry against the bigots. In my experience (28 years of doing this), this is an extremely effective tactic.
You are absolutely right in everything you say. You were just mistaken about my target.
Caitlyn said,”I feel sympathy for clerks in this situation. The other week they were on the right side of the law, and now suddenly their objections are suddenly illegal. Most people who are against equal marriage aren’t bigots; they’re just uncomfortable, and often this feeling has something to do with their heartfelt faith. It’s not fair to demonize them”
I agree that it is sad that some religious leaders choose to inculcate hatred in their followers.
I have two questions for Caitlyn.
What evidence do you have that most who oppose same sex couples getting married in civil ceremonies are not bigoted?
Will you give me the same options to refuse to issue permits to someone because I claim it’s against my religion, or deny medical treatment because of my religion?
Somehow I don’t think I would get Caitlyn’s approval.
They can always quit if being a bigot is more important.
Jerry –
Like I said, as long as you’re not the only doctor in the house when I need to get treated, there’s no reason why you should be forced to do it instead of someone else.
Most people on the right aren’t bigots. The people/opinions you hear about on the news are just the people that are so crazy that it’s impossible to ignore them. But you don’t hear about the people who yes, go to these churches and think that homosexuality is a sin and whatnot, but still are in most ways decent people.
For example, if the only knowledge you had of African Americans was from the news, you would think they were all gun-wielding gang members who sell/are addicted to drugs. Certainly some are, but the majority are not. Similarly, if the only knowledge of religious people you had was from the news, you would think they were all cousin-marrying hillbillies who only care about stoning gays. Once again, some are, but most are not. Classifying these people as bigots just because of their opinions on a few issues would be like saying that because I’m gay, that’s the only part of my identity that matters. In reality, it’s one of the least important things.
So let’s remember that both equality AND religious freedom are protected in the Constitution. Showing social conservatives that we understand and respect them will lead to them understanding and respecting us.
In their capacity as public servants, they have to serve all members of the public equally, full stop. If they cannot do that, they need to resign and find another job.