Neo Art
31-08-2007, 23:12
A district court in Iowa ruled that the state's law banning same sex marriage and defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman is unconstitutional under the Iowa State Constitution.
This ruling is similar to a 2004 massachussets ruling that defined gay marriage as legal in MA.
The 63-page ruling, written by Judge Robert Hanson states: "Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex."
The law describing marriage as between a man and a woman, "constitutes the most intrusive means by the state to regulate marriage. This statute is an absolute prohibition on the ability of gay and lesbian individuals to marry a person of their choosing," Hanson wrote.
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/30/iowa.samesexmarriage/index.html)
It should be noted that this is only at the lower court level and may be overturned at the appeals level. The decision, of course, has been appealed.
Thoughts?
This ruling is similar to a 2004 massachussets ruling that defined gay marriage as legal in MA.
The 63-page ruling, written by Judge Robert Hanson states: "Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex."
The law describing marriage as between a man and a woman, "constitutes the most intrusive means by the state to regulate marriage. This statute is an absolute prohibition on the ability of gay and lesbian individuals to marry a person of their choosing," Hanson wrote.
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/30/iowa.samesexmarriage/index.html)
It should be noted that this is only at the lower court level and may be overturned at the appeals level. The decision, of course, has been appealed.
Thoughts?