1) In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, (1950), the University of Oklahoma had admitted McLaurin, an African-American, but had restricted his activities there: he had to sit apart from the rest of the students in the classrooms and library, and could eat in the cafeteria only at a designated table. A unanimous Court, through Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, said that Oklahoma had deprived McLaurin of the equal protection of the laws:
There is a vast difference—a Constitutional difference—between restrictions imposed by the state which prohibit the intellectual commingling of students, and the refusal of individuals to commingle where the state presents no such bar.
What it means: People can choose their own restrictions, but Governments cannot choose restrictions for people.
How it applies to gay marriage: Gays can choose whom they want to marry; governments cannot make that choice for them.

2) In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Chief Justice Earl Warren (a Republican, who represents what true, honorable Republicans are capable of, absent the Religious Right) convinced all eight associate justices to join his opinion declaring school segregation unconstitutional. In that opinion, Warren wrote:
To separate [children in grade and high schools] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone…. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
What it means: Separate is not equal.
How it applies to gay marriage: Civil Unions are not the same as Marriage – they are inherently unequal. It’s marriage equality for all, or marriage for none.

3) The U.S. Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans (1996), which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment aimed at denying homosexuals “minority status, quota preferences, protected status or [a] claim of discrimination.”

What it means: Constitutional amendments aimed at restricting gay rights are unfair, because of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
How it applies to gay marriage: With this case, the U.S. Supreme court has shown it has the power to negate any constitutional amendment which restricts the rights of homosexuals to marry. This ruling can be used to reverse Prop 8, any Iowa Constitutional Amendment, or any state amendment for that matter.

4) In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute prohibiting homosexual sodomy on substantive due process grounds. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurring opinion argued that by prohibiting only homosexual sodomy, and not heterosexual sodomy as well, Texas’s statute did not meet rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause.

What it means: Sexual orientation is a normal class that doesn’t impact the government in a significant manner (therefore it didn’t need a higher level of scrutiny than ‘rational-basis’).
How it applies to gay marriage: States can create laws limiting gay marriage, but they are likely to be struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme court. Rational-basis Review (an actual court categorization) is the least restrictive category of classification for Equal Protection. If, based on the least restrictive classification of review, Lawrence can strike down a state law which restricts one class of citizens but not another, then this case sets jurisprudence for the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down any state law that regulates one class of citizens (heterosexuals) which restricts another class (homosexuals) from the same activity (marriage). If a more strict categorization is applied, the chances of the law getting struck down is higher, and there is discussion that sexual orientation cases should be examined under Intermediate Review, which is the class used for cases which involve sex (male treatment vs. female treatment).

I have been partnered forover 17 years.I beleive in obama.

This makes so much sense from a branding/influence standpoint to win over the middle.

I recently came across some of the most ridiculous banter I think I’ve ever read in my entire life on another blog, regarding this issue. It was penned by some so-called pastor, Eric Schumacher, who apparently writes for a rag called “The Baptist Press.” Get a load of what this character had to say….

“The Flood of 2008 is arguably the most destructive disaster that the state of Iowa has seen — at least, that is, until last Friday. On April 3, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a state law limiting marriage to one man and one woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. Licenses will be issued to homosexual couples April 27.

“It is not hyperbole to say that this ruling has the potential to be the worst disaster to strike the state of Iowa. Flood waters destroy houses, ruin offices buildings and displace families. Yet, recovery happens. Houses are rebuilt. Businesses relocate. Families eventually find housing.

“Legalized “homosexual marriage,” on the other hand, does far more pervasive and irrecoverable damage. Civilization itself is eroded as marriage, the central building block of culture and society, is redefined. Soon, our sons and daughters are confused about what it means to be male and female, as “homosexual marriage” gains both legal status and visibility in neighborhoods and the classroom.

“Far worse, the Gospel message is confused. Marriage is established by God to be a living picture of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the husband representing Christ and the wife representing his church. “Homosexual marriage” presents a distorted picture, a false Gospel, promoting a blasphemous message.

“Flood waters erode the soil. “Gay marriage” erodes the soul. A flood impacts for a decade. “Same-sex marriage” destroys generations. A flood draws a community together. “Homosexual marriage” tears the family apart. Communities recover from floods. The promotion of un-natural unions has an eternal consequence.” – Pastor Eric Schumacher, writing for the Baptist Press.

…..Yup, all that nonsensical prattling came from the mouth of a fully grown man in 21st Century Modern-Day America! This is the sort of unbalanced and outdated mindset we’re dealing with, gang. And the sad fact of the matter is, there’s STILL hordes of brainwashed zombies in our society who actually believe this bogus propaganda!

While I do think the victory in Iowa should be celebrated, I must also speak on what still remains a valid fear. We all know that equal marriage was legalized in California last year. Everybody assumed it would stand but, several months later, it was overturned by a vote of the people. We can all agree that 2011 may not be just around the corner. But I also don’t think we can afford to assume that a countermeasure, like California’s PROP 8, will simply lose steam or die once it goes before Iowa’s voters. Our community scored a major victory. But, if we don’t fight to keep that victory, it will all have been for nothing.