Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Today, I am proud to be an Iowan. Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
2009-04-03 9:40 AM

User image

Champion
5868
50005001001001002525
Urbandale, IA
Subject: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.

 

Homosexual marrriage is now legal in Iowa - or at least it will be in three weeks.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010

Iowa has no rules about statehood being needed to get married, so others from surrounding states are allowed to come here and get marrried, if they so wish.  Congratulations to my friends that have been waiting for this for so long. 



2009-04-03 9:43 AM
in reply to: #2060350

Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.
WOW, that's impressive! Esp. in the midwest! Go Iowa
2009-04-03 9:52 AM
in reply to: #2060350

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.

That's awesome!

And, to celebrate, I'm gonna completely refrain from any corn state/cornhole comparisons.

2009-04-03 9:55 AM
in reply to: #2060350

User image

Champion
4942
2000200050010010010010025
Richmond, VA
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.

I saw this and was sort of surprised.  Having grown up in Iowa (Eastern Iowa), my thinking is that you will now have a rush of business in Iowa City and Des Moines (a la Grinnell) - but otherwise the state tends to be a very Lutheran / Catholic "Bridges of Madison County" environment.

 

2009-04-03 10:02 AM
in reply to: #2060392

User image

Champion
4942
2000200050010010010010025
Richmond, VA
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.
run4yrlif - 2009-04-03 10:52 AM

That's awesome!

And, to celebrate, I'm gonna completely refrain from any corn state/cornhole comparisons.

if you want, I can start a thread about Kansas or Nebraska as an outlet for any corn humor...

2009-04-03 10:06 AM
in reply to: #2060350

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.


2009-04-03 10:19 AM
in reply to: #2060350

Champion
5868
50005001001001002525
Urbandale, IA
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.

Funny that you should mention Grinnell.  I have a friend that is an administrator at Grinnelll College and the phones have been exploding all day about booking the chapel on campus for weddings.  He said the poor lady that is in charge of it is caught between pulling her hair out and being thrilled that so many of the former students are getting what they wanted. 

Spokesy, you are right.  This should have happened lomg ago and they conservative republican side of the state is already moving towards a constitutional amendment, which isn't really that hard to do in Iowa.  You need a simple majority in both houses of the legislature in two consecutive sesssions and then a simple majority vote by the citizens.  Soonest that could happen is 2012, unless they rush it to a vote this session - which the leader of the house - a democrat - says that he will not do.  No vote this session, period. 

For those of you not familiar with the layout of our state, there is a "major" town that is on the border of Iowa/Illinois/Wisconsin and almost Minnesota (Up in the Northeast corner) called Dubuque.  Dubuque is an almost purely Catholic town.  You could imagine that there would be a lot of inbound traffic from out of state to get married in Dubuque at the courthouse or another willing chapel.  It sets up for some ugliness, I am afraid. 

2009-04-03 10:22 AM
in reply to: #2060439

Roswell, Georgia
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.
condorman - 2009-04-03 10:02 AM
run4yrlif - 2009-04-03 10:52 AM

That's awesome!

And, to celebrate, I'm gonna completely refrain from any corn state/cornhole comparisons.

if you want, I can start a thread about Kansas or Nebraska as an outlet for any corn humor...

HEY!

Kansas has come a long way. We just recently passed a law where we can buy beer on... Sundays. Still can't get liquor anywhere but a liquor store though.

Baby steps!

 

2009-04-03 10:24 AM
in reply to: #2060350

Master
2006
2000
Portland, ME
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.

Congrats to whomever lives in Iowa. It's a great day when an oppressed group in our society is finally given their full rights.

Question though on the judgement. I didn't see anything in the judgement address section 595.19 of the Iowa law which refers to voided marraiges. Here is the law:

595.19  VOID MARRIAGES.
         1.  Marriages between the following persons who are related by
      blood are void:
         a.  Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
      daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
      daughter, or sister's daughter.
         b.  Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
      brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
      sister's son.
         c.  Between first cousins.
         2.  Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
      living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
      the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
      shall be valid. 

I'm assuming that this law is in place due to basis in the law that marraige was once for the purpose of procreating and that it wasn't neccessarily healthy for the child or that childs gene pool to have a mother and a father that were also a brother and sister.

But the law currently allows brothers to marry or sisters to marry? Since the court has decided that marraige is about love between two individuals and not for the purpose of procreation is there any reason to re-write this portion of the law? 

I'm just thinking it through and not judging Iowan as I have not plans to live there so whatever Iowa wants to do is perfectly ok with me.

2009-04-03 10:27 AM
in reply to: #2060516

Champion
5868
50005001001001002525
Urbandale, IA
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.
Jackemy - 2009-04-03 10:24 AM

Congrats to whomever lives in Iowa. It's a great day when an oppressed group in our society is finally given their full rights.

Question though on the judgement. I didn't see anything in the judgement address section 595.19 of the Iowa law which refers to voided marraiges. Here is the law:

595.19  VOID MARRIAGES.
         1.  Marriages between the following persons who are related by
      blood are void:
         a.  Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
      daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
      daughter, or sister's daughter.
         b.  Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
      brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
      sister's son.
         c.  Between first cousins.
         2.  Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
      living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
      the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
      shall be valid. 

I'm assuming that this law is in place due to basis in the law that marraige was once for the purpose of procreating and that it wasn't neccessarily healthy for the child or that childs gene pool to have a mother and a father that were also a brother and sister.

But the law currently allows brothers to marry or sisters to marry? Since the court has decided that marraige is about love between two individuals and not for the purpose of procreation is there any reason to re-write this portion of the law? 

I'm just thinking it through and not judging Iowan as I have not plans to live there so whatever Iowa wants to do is perfectly ok with me.

Just a clarification - are you asking if the new law allows bros and sisters to marry or the old one?  I am confused by the syntax used - the great problem with electronic communication.

2009-04-03 10:30 AM
in reply to: #2060500

Champion
4942
2000200050010010010010025
Richmond, VA
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.

jdwright56 - 2009-04-03 11:19 AM

...

For those of you not familiar with the layout of our state, there is a "major" town that is on the border of Iowa/Illinois/Wisconsin and almost Minnesota (Up in the Northeast corner) called Dubuque.  Dubuque is an almost purely Catholic town.  You could imagine that there would be a lot of inbound traffic from out of state to get married in Dubuque at the courthouse or another willing chapel.  It sets up for some ugliness, I am afraid. 

As I grew up Catholic in Dubuque, I can definitely see potential ugliness.  I have no issue with gay marriage, but I do have a sense of the religious compass of the town.

Then again, I also know that there a lot of people in Dubuque with a "live and let live" attitude.  We were raised to believe that ones religion is between them and God and let others live how they want to live - so who knows.

See how this plays out...

 

 



2009-04-03 10:32 AM
in reply to: #2060526

Master
2006
2000
Portland, ME
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.
jdwright56 - 2009-04-03 10:27 AM
Jackemy - 2009-04-03 10:24 AM

Congrats to whomever lives in Iowa. It's a great day when an oppressed group in our society is finally given their full rights.

Question though on the judgement. I didn't see anything in the judgement address section 595.19 of the Iowa law which refers to voided marraiges. Here is the law:

595.19  VOID MARRIAGES.
         1.  Marriages between the following persons who are related by
      blood are void:
         a.  Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
      daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
      daughter, or sister's daughter.
         b.  Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
      brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
      sister's son.
         c.  Between first cousins.
         2.  Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
      living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
      the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
      shall be valid. 

I'm assuming that this law is in place due to basis in the law that marraige was once for the purpose of procreating and that it wasn't neccessarily healthy for the child or that childs gene pool to have a mother and a father that were also a brother and sister.

But the law currently allows brothers to marry or sisters to marry? Since the court has decided that marraige is about love between two individuals and not for the purpose of procreation is there any reason to re-write this portion of the law? 

I'm just thinking it through and not judging Iowan as I have not plans to live there so whatever Iowa wants to do is perfectly ok with me.

Just a clarification - are you asking if the new law allows bros and sisters to marry or the old one?  I am confused by the syntax used - the great problem with electronic communication.

Yeah it does look choppy. What I am saying is that with the changes in the new law which is fine don't get me wrong, it leave a loophole in the current law that allows siblings to marry (Men can now marry their brother in Iowa).

 



Edited by Jackemy 2009-04-03 10:34 AM
2009-04-03 10:43 AM
in reply to: #2060549

Champion
5868
50005001001001002525
Urbandale, IA
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.
Jackemy - 2009-04-03 10:32 AM
jdwright56 - 2009-04-03 10:27 AM
Jackemy - 2009-04-03 10:24 AM

Congrats to whomever lives in Iowa. It's a great day when an oppressed group in our society is finally given their full rights.

Question though on the judgement. I didn't see anything in the judgement address section 595.19 of the Iowa law which refers to voided marraiges. Here is the law:

595.19  VOID MARRIAGES.
         1.  Marriages between the following persons who are related by
      blood are void:
         a.  Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
      daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
      daughter, or sister's daughter.
         b.  Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
      brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
      sister's son.
         c.  Between first cousins.
         2.  Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
      living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
      the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
      shall be valid. 

I'm assuming that this law is in place due to basis in the law that marraige was once for the purpose of procreating and that it wasn't neccessarily healthy for the child or that childs gene pool to have a mother and a father that were also a brother and sister.

But the law currently allows brothers to marry or sisters to marry? Since the court has decided that marraige is about love between two individuals and not for the purpose of procreation is there any reason to re-write this portion of the law? 

I'm just thinking it through and not judging Iowan as I have not plans to live there so whatever Iowa wants to do is perfectly ok with me.

Just a clarification - are you asking if the new law allows bros and sisters to marry or the old one?  I am confused by the syntax used - the great problem with electronic communication.

Yeah it does look choppy. What I am saying is that with the changes in the new law which is fine don't get me wrong, it leave a loophole in the current law that allows siblings to marry (Men can now marry their brother in Iowa).

 

Now I understand the question. 

Yeah, I guess, all things considered, you would have to change and/or add some refereneces to the section on voided marriages.  I have always disliked the way that law was written anyway, because it does not define brother or sister.  My wife has two brothers and one sister.  One of her brothers is the product of her mother and her step-father and a brother and a sister are the product of her father and step-mother.  The law doesn't ascertain the definition of sister or brother in a case where both parents are not the same.  You have to go to another law to find that definition.  That always seemed strange to me. 

2009-04-03 11:02 AM
in reply to: #2060578

Master
2006
2000
Portland, ME
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.
jdwright56 - 2009-04-03 10:43 AM
Jackemy - 2009-04-03 10:32 AM
jdwright56 - 2009-04-03 10:27 AM
Jackemy - 2009-04-03 10:24 AM

Congrats to whomever lives in Iowa. It's a great day when an oppressed group in our society is finally given their full rights.

Question though on the judgement. I didn't see anything in the judgement address section 595.19 of the Iowa law which refers to voided marraiges. Here is the law:

595.19  VOID MARRIAGES.
         1.  Marriages between the following persons who are related by
      blood are void:
         a.  Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
      daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
      daughter, or sister's daughter.
         b.  Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
      brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
      sister's son.
         c.  Between first cousins.
         2.  Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
      living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
      the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
      shall be valid. 

I'm assuming that this law is in place due to basis in the law that marraige was once for the purpose of procreating and that it wasn't neccessarily healthy for the child or that childs gene pool to have a mother and a father that were also a brother and sister.

But the law currently allows brothers to marry or sisters to marry? Since the court has decided that marraige is about love between two individuals and not for the purpose of procreation is there any reason to re-write this portion of the law? 

I'm just thinking it through and not judging Iowan as I have not plans to live there so whatever Iowa wants to do is perfectly ok with me.

Just a clarification - are you asking if the new law allows bros and sisters to marry or the old one?  I am confused by the syntax used - the great problem with electronic communication.

Yeah it does look choppy. What I am saying is that with the changes in the new law which is fine don't get me wrong, it leave a loophole in the current law that allows siblings to marry (Men can now marry their brother in Iowa).

 

Now I understand the question. 

Yeah, I guess, all things considered, you would have to change and/or add some refereneces to the section on voided marriages.  I have always disliked the way that law was written anyway, because it does not define brother or sister.  My wife has two brothers and one sister.  One of her brothers is the product of her mother and her step-father and a brother and a sister are the product of her father and step-mother.  The law doesn't ascertain the definition of sister or brother in a case where both parents are not the same.  You have to go to another law to find that definition.  That always seemed strange to me. 

[devils advocate]Or you can just scrap the law since the underlying basis of this section of the law is that the intent of marriage is for procreation. This basis was rejected in Iowan court as unconstitutional. Also the court rejected the protection of traditional marriage under the equal protction law and you could argue that the tradition in America to not marry a next of kin doesn't warrant exclusion from equal protection for two individuals to enter a civil contract.

2009-04-03 11:10 AM
in reply to: #2060350

Elite
3490
20001000100100100100252525
Toledo, Ohio
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.

Awesome!!!  Congrats to everyone in Iowa. 

"One man cannot hold another man down in the ditch without remaining down in the ditch with him."Booker T. Washington

2009-04-03 11:10 AM
in reply to: #2060350

Master
1390
1000100100100252525
Ferndale, MI
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.

5 years ago, if someone had told me that Iowa would rank up there with Mass and Conn on gay marriage rights, I would have laughed my pants off.  Go Iowa!



2009-04-03 11:28 AM
in reply to: #2060350

Master
2009
2000
Charlotte, NC
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.
Yay Iowa!!!!
2009-04-03 12:20 PM
in reply to: #2060687

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2009-04-03 12:28 PM
in reply to: #2060350

Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.
Wow, whoda thunk Iowa would be more progressive than us California idiots.  Goodonya Hawkeyes
2009-04-03 4:03 PM
in reply to: #2060350

Member
34
25
Joliet
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.

I am just thrilled by this.  One of the members of our congregation came in to drop off food for the Community Food Baskets and was just so tickled that Iowa beat the rest of the midwest.

Times sure are changing - not fast enough for me on this Human Rights issue - but I guess patience is needed.  Congrats to Iowa!

Peace ~ Charliegirl 

 

 

2009-04-03 4:55 PM
in reply to: #2060350

Elite
3519
20001000500
San Jose, CA
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.

I am not on this site much anymore...with the new job, but I thought I would drop in today.  It is a great day, not only for Iowa, but for all the states.  Each time one state allows Same sex marriage...the country as a whole gets closer to recognizing us as equal and not second class citizens.  I was lucky enought to marry in California, before Prop 8 went into effect.  My dad was born and raised as a farmer in Iowa.



2009-04-03 5:49 PM
in reply to: #2060500

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2009-04-03 6:29 PM
in reply to: #2060350

Pro
5011
5000
Twin Cities
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.

I always knew my people were a reasonable folk. You go, Iowa.

2009-04-03 9:54 PM
in reply to: #2060350

Regular
102
100
Subject: RE: Today, I am proud to be an Iowan.

So glad for Iowa, Vermont just passed something similar. I am not gay but totally support gay rights. I lived in South Carolina for 4 years. I actually really liked it for the most part and would consider moving back there if the right oppurtunity came along, but there was a vote to BAN gay marriage in the state constitution. I claimed residency their so was able to register to vote and voted against this ban. Sadly, no hope. 75% of the state voted FOR the ban. Very sad, especially for a couple of friends of mine.

New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Today, I am proud to be an Iowan. Rss Feed