Rush is running out of fingers...
...to keep this dike plugged.
Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman
The Iowa Supreme Court this morning upheld a Polk County judge’s 2007 ruling that marriage should not be limited to one man and one woman. The ruling, viewed nationally and at home as a victory for the gay rights movement and a setback for social conservatives, means Iowa’s 5,800 gay couples can legally marry in Iowa beginning April 24. There are no residency rules for marriage in Iowa, so the rule would apply to any couple who wanted to travel to Iowa.
Three states down, 47 to go. It's going to come faster than you think, I promise. As one anonymous commenter on Andrew Sullivan wrote:
"When you take a step back and look at the basic legal argument behind these cases, the correct answer is remarkably clear. So clear, in fact, that I'm quite certain that future generations of lawyers and law students will look at these cases and wonder why it took so long for the courts to reach such an obvious conclusion, particularly in light of the extensive (and directly analogous) case law dealing with miscegenation laws and segregation. Once you accept the premise that there is nothing wrong with being gay (a premise which, I think, the vast majority of people--especially educated people like judges--accept), it becomes nearly impossible to make a principled legal argument in defense of laws that prohibit gay people from being married. It's just such an obvious and straightforward violation of equal protection."
This is a good start to an otherwise wet and dreary Friday.
Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman
The Iowa Supreme Court this morning upheld a Polk County judge’s 2007 ruling that marriage should not be limited to one man and one woman. The ruling, viewed nationally and at home as a victory for the gay rights movement and a setback for social conservatives, means Iowa’s 5,800 gay couples can legally marry in Iowa beginning April 24. There are no residency rules for marriage in Iowa, so the rule would apply to any couple who wanted to travel to Iowa.
Three states down, 47 to go. It's going to come faster than you think, I promise. As one anonymous commenter on Andrew Sullivan wrote:
"When you take a step back and look at the basic legal argument behind these cases, the correct answer is remarkably clear. So clear, in fact, that I'm quite certain that future generations of lawyers and law students will look at these cases and wonder why it took so long for the courts to reach such an obvious conclusion, particularly in light of the extensive (and directly analogous) case law dealing with miscegenation laws and segregation. Once you accept the premise that there is nothing wrong with being gay (a premise which, I think, the vast majority of people--especially educated people like judges--accept), it becomes nearly impossible to make a principled legal argument in defense of laws that prohibit gay people from being married. It's just such an obvious and straightforward violation of equal protection."
This is a good start to an otherwise wet and dreary Friday.
posted by Kraig Smith at
1:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home