![[Masthead]](http://www.lemarssentinel.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (31)
Share link
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
Google
 |
The official order allowing same-sex couples to marry was handed down by the Iowa Judicial Branch today (Monday), reflecting a ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court.
In an unanimous decision the high court ruled April 3 existing Iowa law that limits civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The Supreme Court's ruling gives gay and lesbian people the right to marry.
Iowa had an estimated 5,800 same-sex couples in 2005, according to the Williams Institue of the UCLA School of Law. In an April 2008 study the institue predicted more than 2,900 of Iowa's same-sex couples would marry in the first three years if gay marriage became legal.
The legalization of same-sex marriage doesn't change the overall role of county recorders, but it did mean some alterations to official document wording.
For example, instead of marriage applications requesting information from a "bride" and a "groom," the wording now reflects "Party A" and "Party B."
Jolynn Goodchild, Plymouth County recorder, said changes in wording on the forms also meant changes to their computer program.
But other requirements to get married like the $35 application fee, bringing a witness and waiting three business days stays the same.
With today's official mandate legalizing same-sex marriage, Goodchild isn't sure what to expect.
"There could be protestors from both sides," Goodchild said. "Hopefully if we do have anybody here they will act peacefully and professionally."
Some recorders could also receive a petition from the Iowa Family Policy Center with the support of Sen. Merlin Bartz pressuring them to not comply with the court's ruling, Goodchild said.
"They want us to refuse them because they want the people of Iowa to vote," Goodchild said. "Personally I don't think it will come before the Legislature this year."
For Goodchild, not doing her job, which means not following the court's ruling, is not an option.
"I feel like I'm caught in the middle because of my personal beliefs, but yet I have to do my job," she said. "If the Constitution of Iowa says I have to issue licenses to same-sex people then I'm going to do that."
As an elected official, Goodchild said she could be removed from office if she doesn't follow Iowa law.
"Personally I feel marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I'm going to do my job," Goodchild said. "I took my oath."
Goodchild said she hasn't received any calls from people pressuring her to ignore the ruling, but some county recorders like in Buena Vista have.
Permitting same-sex couples to marry not only affects recorders, but also the people who have the authority to marry them.
District Court Judge Jeffrey Neary said Iowa statute gives judges at all levels the authorization to marry people, but some choose not to.
"It's not mandatory, but I think I'm obligated to do that during the work day," Neary said.
Allowing same-sex couples to marry is not going to change that view, he said.
"I will continue to do weddings," Neary said. "I think the judges that do this will be criticized."
Ethically, he said, most judges either do weddings or they don't and he doesn't think any will choose to just marry heterosexual couples and not same-sex couples.
However, Neary said he has heard from other judges that they are just not going to do weddings at all anymore.
"If other judges are not doing it, I will be doing more," Neary said. "Our ethical code says treat everybody fairly."
Some information for this story contributed by the Associated Press.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please
Of all the people from whom to get a quote! Judge Neary is the activist (or clueless) judge who granted a 'divorce' to two women in November of 2003, stating he wasn't aware of their gender.
I am so sick and tired of judges who want to be legislators! If you want to make the laws, run for the legislative branch. (School kids start learning about separation of power in third grade. Maybe it's time for a refresher course!)
Get this to a vote of the people in Iowa. Of course, if we follow California's example, a negative vote (or two or three) still won't make any difference to these judges. Our state and country are going to....well....let's just say people like Judge Neary are expediting the delivery.
Support for same-sex marriage has increased significantly in recent years, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes the majority opinion nationwide. I'm thrilled that Iowa has emerged on the forefront of this issue, and I hope opponents of marriage equality can eventually get over their prejudices and bigotry.
I think the mesaure should have gone to a vote of the State and not liberal courts to interpret the law as they see it should be. Why does a panel of judges get to decide for the whole state what our law should be? Vote, then enforce.
First off, Judge Neary is a wonderful person. To call him clueless, is just that!
Secondly, this state/country has much more important things to worry about than an amendment about gay marriage. I don't agree with that lifestyle, but it's not affecting me or my family. Let's get the economy and unemployment under control first, then we'll see where things stand. Until then, let them live their lives.
All I was going to say is that I think a different picture for this article could have been used, really- a scanned document that isn't even scanned straight?! Come on?!
I believe the only one that can judge the same sex marriages is God.But I also think we should have been given the choice to vote for this it was something big even though it went thru there will be alot more for them to go thru like health insurance and more i cant think of so this was a minor thing for them the big stuff is to come dont fault the judges and dont fire them for their beliefs if they choose not to marry the couples its freedom of speech
I am sad for Mrs. Goodchild...she chose to "officially" endorse homosexual marriage over her obviously weak personal beliefs..:(
Stand up for what is right and good and moral Mrs. Goodchild....you can still show what you are made of or more accurately who made you..!
One thing I will guaranty...is that your reward will not be here on earth in Plymouth County...it will be where it counts.
The Constitution of the State of Iowa does NOT guaranty the "right" of two men to marry....only these deluded and demented Iowa Supreme Court Justices are attempting to guaranty this abomination.
I am embarrassed for the state of Iowa and for you...
Unless you resist you won't get my vote anyway..!
Eternal decisions...wow...
"only these deluded and demented Iowa Supreme Court Justices are attempting to guaranty this abomination."
Yeah, all 7 of them. But surely YOU are better equipped to make decisions regarding the state constitution..
"LiveAndLaugh" wrote "Yeah, all 7 of them. But surely YOU are better equipped to make decisions regarding the state constitution.."
There is absolutley no doubt in my mind.
I will debate any one or all of them together the Constitution and its Ammendments.
Try me.
I think this is just wrong...On many levels.
LiveAndLaugh---You miss the point. Judges are supposed to uphold the law as it is currently written. It is up to a vote by the people, or at least their elected representatives in the LEGISLATIVE branch, to make changes to that law. If this is truly becoming a "majority opinion nationwide" as you indicate, then you should have no issue letting the change take the PROPER course---in the voting booth.
Second, before these changes by the JUDICIAL branch, Iowa did not recognize same-sex marriage OR civil unions. It is a basic tenets of law that you cannot dissolve that which you do not recognize in the first place. Therefore, I stick by my earlier statement that Judge Neary is either an "activist (or clueless) judge." He may well be a "wonderful person" as Whiners indicates...I don't know. I am speaking to this specific incident, not his career or life as a whole.
Whiners---You may be surprised how this issue could affect you in the future. For instance, if you currently have family health insurance paid by your employer, you may see changes down the road. You see, if same sex marriage is recognized by law, the next step is wanting equal opportunity to employer paid health care. The employer will not be able to discriminate, so if he does not agree with same sex marriage, he will have to take ALL family plans off the bargaining table and ONLY insure his employees. This is just one of many possible scenarios, so don't get too comfortable with your head in the sand.
Thanks Jeff for upholding the law.
It makes me proud to have graduated from Westmar with you!
We have been together for 27 years. We married in California before Prop 8 passed. I am happy to say we are also now legally married in Iowa. I hope California will learn from Iowa.
Why are we always catering to the the gays, the lesbians, the Blacks, the Muslims, etc etc, etc. The above article stated: For example, instead of marriage applications requesting information from a "bride" and a "groom," the wording now reflects "Party A" and "Party B." I don't want to be PARTY A OR PARTY B, I want to be the BRIDE! Where are MY rights? And no I am not a racist. It's time to get over what happend 40-100+ years ago. My heritage is German but I am not German American. I was born in the United States of America and I am AMERICAN.
FoodforThought--a function of the court is to strike down legislation it finds to be unconstitutional. That's what it did with the ban on same-sex marriage.
It's absolutely maddening to hear people play the "ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!!!" card every time they disagree with a controversial ruling.
Why are we always catering to the the gays, the lesbians, the Blacks, the Muslims, etc etc, etc.
answer: take back a few centuries ago, when women, black and other minorities had no rights.....they all fought for their freedom to live in America to be free and have the same rights as men.
Maybe we should go back to that time and see what you will all lose.
Stop whining and look to see what you all have and they just want the same right as you.
They pay the same taxes as you do, so why should they not have the same rights?
Top twelve reasons homosexual marriage should not be legal:
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
djruden
BRAVO, finally some a post that makes sense.
djruden
BRAVO, finally a post that makes some sense.
I should proof-read before posting
Why is it anyone's business how two people choose to live their lives? It's not for anyone to say what is right or wrong if the matter does not directly effect them. What is wrong is for someone to judge another person for the personal choices that they make in their lives.
Clear Thinker or maybe I should say clowded thinker, while I applaud your moral stance and I might add Mrs.Goodchild's also. your advice to someone who's shoes you have never walked in, I find empty. I would much rather have someone in any office uphold the law then go off on thier own. I'm quite sure that's what got this whole thing started. Govenors, senators, and in this case judges, that have a chance to do somthing about this. And in "your wisdom" you pick out the one that has chosen to obay the law and the oath she took and do the job that you pay her for. "OH NO" your not going to vote for her. You and others I'm sure. I think you might be missing one of the main points here, it's not about votes. but if it were, Mrs.Goodchild you got mine.
I think that it is funny how narrow minded some people are.
Why does it have to be a law for us to choose who we should love and live our lives with?
What's this world coming to? First only an educated white male got to vote, then uneducated white men voted, then they freed the slaves, let women vote, integrate schools, interracial marriages, women's equal pay for equal work, and so on and so forth. And now gay marriages are legal. What are we thinking, the next thing you know all of us will be equal.
1. Judges are supposed to uphold current laws and not create them.
2. The governor himself stated that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Yet, would not uphold that when asked his opinion. At the very least, he should have asked that this should have gone to a vote by all registered voters in the state of Iowa.
I believe that is called the will of the people.
I have no ax to grind, am just disappointed the way this was carried out.
My greater concern is the way the current federal government is pushing us towards socialism.
I would cite the book, "animal farm," as one example as to where this leads.
Finally, very upsetting to me that the Head of Homeland Security feels that the following are cause for alarm:
Prior military
pro guns
pro life
is truly cause for alarm as a domestic terrorist. I fit into everyone of those groups and honestly I am saddened by that. To my knowledge those were core beliefs that our founding fathers stood for.
Posted by oldone1 on Wed, Apr 29, 2009, at 9:54 AM - "My greater concern is the way the current federal government is pushing us towards socialism."
-------
There are bigger things in this state/country to worry about right now rather than focusing on gay marriage. As long as they keep things within their own homes, who cares? Don't throw out that insurance argument again. Insurance benefits can change from year to year regardless of same sex marriage.
And as far as your concerns about the government pushing us to socialism, take another dose of Cognex, Aricept, Reminyl, or Exelon (whichever of those you need to be taking). Look it up, you'll understand what I mean.
Whiners: an apt moniker to be sure.
Please reread my post. I did not say that I was against gay marriage. what I said was, listen carefully: the will of the people should determine it. I am against the process, not the outcome. And I am sick or narrow minded?
I stand behind my socialism comment. Period!
Why is it in a country that strives for free speech, only tolerates the current flavor of correctness. So, because I choose to dare ask a question, that I am sick or a bigot?
I have have served in the military WHINERS for you and others to have the freedom to say what you wish. Why am I not afforded the same?
Because you perceive my values are different from yours? I am for honesty, equality and fairness. It appears that you feel that I am not worthy.
Very sad indeed.
And what I said was, LISTEN MORE CAREFULLY, go ahead, get closer so you can hear, you ready? - WE HAVE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DEAL WITH AT THIS TIME!
Again, as long as they keep things within their own homes, what does it matter? I'm sure there was homosexual/bisexual activity going on in this town long before this ruling came down. Why is it a big deal now all of a sudden? I don't necessarily agree with their lifestyle, but unless they start rolling around with each other where I can see it, I DON'T CARE. It's not that important.
My last post on this. Whiners: while the topic is about gay marrige, my larger concern is about the government and the direction it is taking us as a country. I was able to understand the first time when you wrote your opinion. Really was not necessary to use cap locks to shout at me. The way the state government chose to pass this is why I even commented.
I have followed your previous posts and more than understand your logic on what you believe.
Attempting to belittle me does not raise your stature in the conversation.
I would hope however, that you care about the direction of your government. I also hope that you vote. That is your voice. I respect your right to free speech. I just question why I have become the target of your wrath. I have been civil to you and your point of view. Maybe that is why you feel my need to be medicated?! I ask too tough of questions? Or that I dare to ask anything about any subject? Perhaps I might not be the person who should be provided the drugs you are so free to throw about in your conversation. Hummmm.
This video and song about 2 roosters pretty much somes up what I think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l9XWA6OG...
How horrible, to expect people to give up there jobs over this. Does anyone know how jobs are hard to come by these days? I am pretty sure God knows her beliefs and understands. After all he is all knowing and forgiving. What a horrible thing, people attacking her simply over her job duties. Not every person agrees with the certain details of everyones job. How sad.
What I don't understand is this...if there is a 3(three)day waiting period for people to get married, WHY were there two couples married on the same day they were allowed to apply? When this law passed it was stressed on the news that the law would be the same for ALL couples. If you have to wait, you have to wait. NO exceptions should be provided. The rest of us have to wait the timeframe out to get married, even if we don't want to wait. Why was there special treatment for them?
Judge Neary waived the 3 day waiting period. It says that in another article I just read on here.