Will a gay couple going to get a marriage license in Sioux County: Will people be unfriendly and unwelcoming toward them (crime, live in)

[Yeah I've been there]

Originally Posted by duster1979

Not a valid comparison at all. Slavery was abolished in every state with the passage of the 13th ammendment in 1865, rendering any pro-slavery laws on the books of individual states null and void. To date there is no federal law requiring states to legalize same-sex marriage.

But soon there shall be hopefully!

[9162]

Originally Posted by duster1979

Not a valid comparison at all. Slavery was abolished in every state with the passage of the 13th ammendment in 1865, rendering any pro-slavery laws on the books of individual states null and void. To date there is no federal law requiring states to legalize same-sex marriage.

The federal government originally granted the right of each state to decide on the legalization of SSM individually. Do you assume an amendment must be passed in order to make SSM legal? Recent decisions from the Supreme Court however, have made state constitutions declaring SSM illegal, rather weak. Even states such as North Carolina that already had laws on their books recognizing only marriage of that between a man and woman, then added even more legislation to reinforce that, under the notion it would strengthen their anti-SSM laws, pointless.

Any SSM activist that want to organize and dedicate that much time to suing states that have laws against SSM may not really have that much of an uphill battle, but many activists may decide its not worth it. The military allowing SSM does set a considerable precedence as well. Consider, heterosexuals can marry in any state, meaning, they don't have to marry in the state in which they reside, actually, many marry overseas. There are no laws that indicate only heterosexuals can marry across state borders. Think of all the couples that used to travel to Las Vegas to get married.

[surfer778]

Originally Posted by 9162

The federal government originally granted the right of each state to decide on the legalization of SSM individually. Do you assume an amendment must be passed in order to make SSM legal? Recent decisions from the Supreme Court however, have made state constitutions declaring SSM illegal, rather weak. Even states such as North Carolina that already had laws on their books recognizing only marriage of that between a man and woman, then added even more legislation to reinforce that, under the notion it would strengthen their anti-SSM laws, pointless.

Any SSM activist that want to organize and dedicate that much time to suing states that have laws against SSM may not really have that much of an uphill battle, but many activists may decide its not worth it. The military allowing SSM does set a considerable precedence as well. Consider, heterosexuals can marry in any state, meaning, they don't have to marry in the state in which they reside, actually, many marry overseas. There are no laws that indicate only heterosexuals can marry across state borders. Think of all the couples that used to travel to Las Vegas to get married.

What is SSM? Its marriage equality. Nobody goes around saying SSM. It sounds like S&M...oh my!

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by duster1979

Technically, I don't believe this is 100% correct.

Iowa code 595.2.1 states that "Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid." True, the courts found that this statute violates the Iowa constitution and is therefore unenforceable. However, because the law is still on the books a county recorder could deny a marriage license to a same-sex couple and still be technically "in the right" because he or she would be following the letter of the law.

That being said, I doubt it would happen because of the likelihood that it would lead to an another expensive, high-profile lawsuit. Just pointing out that the issue of same-sex marriage isn't completely settled at this point.

No, the supreme court of Iowa legalized it in 2009 - it doesn't matter what any preceding law stated. That's what the supreme court overturned.

Anyway, the question of will they be granted their marriage - yes, certainly. It's the law. If the person at the courthouse says no that person would simply be removed for failure to do their job and follow the law and someone would be put in place to do it. It cannot be denied. Exact same situation as if two black people try to get married and the clerk says no. What do you think would happen? Other than the media going crazy with a juicy story.

Honestly even as conservative as it is up there (I know they want to go home, but it really is the most conservative part of the state - i wish they'd been from eastern iowa) they aren't going to run into huge problems. Iowans are very "live and let live" "it isn't my business". Someone might not agree with them, but there's really no threat of violence or anything physical happening.

They'll be totally fine. Why not just get married in a larger city like Des Moines or Iowa City? Make a weekend of it - it doesn't matter which county they do it in. Sioux County hasn't issued any same sex marriage licenses, while the state has issued many thousand so there are other counties with very large numbers of marriages.

[runewell]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

No, the supreme court of Iowa legalized it in 2009 - it doesn't matter what any preceding law stated. That's what the supreme court overturned.

However do note that the judges that allowed to the law to pass were all voted out of office the next election... So while it is our law there must certainly be a large portion of the population that did not like the idea to begin with...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/us...dges.html?_r=0

[runewell]

Originally Posted by duster1979

Technically, I don't believe this is 100% correct.

Iowa code 595.2.1 states that "Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid." True, the courts found that this statute violates the Iowa constitution and is therefore unenforceable. However, because the law is still on the books a county recorder could deny a marriage license to a same-sex couple and still be technically "in the right" because he or she would be following the letter of the law.

That being said, I doubt it would happen because of the likelihood that it would lead to an another expensive, high-profile lawsuit. Just pointing out that the issue of same-sex marriage isn't completely settled at this point.

They ruled:

Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.

However when I look on the Iowa website it doesn't look like it changed at all! Evidently though the courts provided their interpretation of the law saying that the one piece was unconstitiutional, it remains on the books!

[capitalcityguy]

Originally Posted by runewell

They ruled:

Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.

However when I look on the Iowa website it doesn't look like it changed at all! Evidently though the courts provided their interpretation of the law saying that the one piece was unconstitiutional, it remains on the books!

I don't care enough about this to follow the entire conversation but I do know that "gay and lesbian people" (your words) are not what the law/ruling is about. It is about "same-sex" marriage. That might not seem like a big difference to many, but legally it is a HUGE difference.

[ElleTea]

Originally Posted by capitalcityguy

I don't care enough about this to follow the entire conversation but I do know that "gay and lesbian people" (your words) are not what the law/ruling is about. It is about "same-sex" marriage. That might not seem like a big difference to many, but legally it is a HUGE difference.

You're right. Gay and lesbian are kinda two different things if you really get down to it. (gay is generally a term used for a man and lesbian for a woman)

The law doesn't care about that, just "same sex" as you said.

[attrapereves]

Why not just apply for the marriage license in a county that will, no questions asked, give you one. Marriage licenses issued in Iowa are valid throughout the entire state. Pick up the license in Des Moines, and get married wherever you want in the state.

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by runewell

However do note that the judges that allowed to the law to pass were all voted out of office the next election... So while it is our law there must certainly be a large portion of the population that did not like the idea to begin with...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/us...dges.html?_r=0

That's the situation in a lot of civil rights cases. It's why we don't let the masses vote on issues involving human rights for minorities.