Gays could wed today, but rights don't follow out of state as it should be.
Doc Dice
issued. As normal heterosexuals we don't worry about such things and
take a legal marriage for granted. It's a shame to waste marriage on
the gays, for crying out loud! I still think we should have them jump
over a broom and be done with it.
Gays could wed today, but rights don't follow out of state
Same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land in Iowa today, but out-
of-state residents who are married here aren't likely to be afforded
the same rights as heterosexual couples when they return home.
Iowa's lack of a residency law allows out-of-state gay and lesbian
couples to join Iowans seeking marriage licenses at recorders offices
across the state, starting this morning. State law calls for a three-
day waiting period before the licenses can be used, although same-sex
marriages will take place today if judges waive that provision.
Advertisement
http://www.campfireusaia.com
Still, most states - including all of Iowa's neighbors - will not
recognize same-sex marriages that take place here.
"It's one of the first things we told couples," said Rick Garcia, a
spokesman for Equality Illinois, a Chicago gay rights group. "It's a
great ruling, and we're thrilled for Iowans. You can get married in
Iowa, invite 100 people, and show us your slides when you get back.
"But when you get back to Illinois, in the eyes of the law, you are
strangers."
As a result, marriage-law attorneys and scholars believe that
eventually the Iowa Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex
marriage could lead to court cases that will either further clarify or
muddy the issue.
"I don't see how they're going to stay out of the federal system,"
said Ryan Genest, a Des Moines attorney who specializes in family law.
"Let's say you have a gay couple from Illinois who marries in Iowa.
Then tax season rolls around next year, and they try to file as a
married couple. Illinois says no. It's just a matter of time before
that sort of question arises."
Some gay rights advocates also worry that a high-stakes federal case
would undermine efforts to establish same-sex marriage rights
elsewhere. Divorce lawyers said multistate legal disputes could end up
in the U.S. Supreme Court.
"The biggest issue for same-sex couples who are married is just how
portable their license is," said Kevin Batt, a Boston attorney who has
tried gay-marriage cases. "It's contested in many places."
Legal issues won't stop nonresident marriages
Chad Gearig and Thom Howe of Chicago are among the same-sex couples
who plan to marry in Iowa, despite the jurisdictional issues.
"We live on a pretty modest budget, and it's just a three-hour drive,"
Gearig said, adding that the couple is planning a wedding in
Bettendorf in May. "We're really just doing it for us."
Two gay men from St. Louis have chartered a tour bus with 11 lesbian
and two gay couples to marry in Iowa City on Friday, even though their
marriages will legally vanish when they return.
No one can say for certain how many out-of-state residents are likely
to travel to Iowa to be wed in the years ahead.
A study by the Williams Institute at the University of California at
Los Angeles, a nonpartisan think tank, predicted last year that 55,000
same-sex couples would come to Iowa to wed in the first three years
after gay marriage was legalized. U.S. Rep. Steve King, who represents
western Iowa, warned that the high-court ruling could turn the state
into a "gay marriage Mecca."
But others say Iowans should not expect an influx of same-sex couples,
partly because Massachusetts, Connecticut and Canada already offer the
opportunity.
"It's not all that difficult or expensive to travel around the
country," Genest said. "If a couple can afford to go to Iowa, they
probably can afford to go to Canada."
Besides, "why would people flock to the state of Iowa to get married,
if in fact their home states don't recognize it?" asked Judge Kurt
Wilke, the chief judge for the second judicial district in northern
Iowa.
Examples of problems same-sex couples face
Many questions about whether other states will recognize same-sex
marriages in Iowa center on the "full faith and credit clause" of the
U.S. Constitution, which requires states to recognize legal marriages
from other states.
But Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which
University of Iowa law professor Ann Estin said allows states to
ignore same-sex marriages sanctioned elsewhere and prevents the
federal government from recognizing them.
"This in-state, out-of-state discussion has been a big issue," said
Batt, the attorney from Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has
been legal since 2003. "Even people who get married here and plan to
stay here can have problems if they change jobs and move to another
state. Then the status of their marriage can be problematic."
As a result, some gay or lesbian couples who marry in Iowa often can
not reap the tax and inheritance benefits afforded to heterosexual
couples in their home states.
A gay man who marries in Iowa probably could not sue for spousal loss
if his partner dies in a car accident in Nebraska, said Estin, the law
professor.
Wisconsin residents who come to Iowa to circumvent their state's
marriage law could face a fine and jail time when they return,
according to one state law.
If a same-sex marriage sours after the couple return home, at least
one spouse could have to move to Iowa for a full year to legally be
granted a divorce.
The Iowa decision could prompt other state legislatures to pass laws
that refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, Genest
said. Such laws could then lead to legal challenges from couples who
want the benefits afforded heterosexual spouses.
Past challenge in Iowa offers glimpse of issue
The debate about whether to recognize another state's laws has
previously played in Iowa courtrooms.
The case involved two Sioux City women who filed for a divorce in
August 2003, about one year after they entered into a civil union in
Vermont.
Judge Jeffrey Neary granted the divorce in November 2003 as part of
his routine paperwork, but later said he did not realize the case
involved a lesbian couple. He declined to withdraw the order, but
amended the ruling a few weeks later to say it only ended the civil
union in Vermont.
The controversy ignited an unsuccessful campaign to remove Neary, of
Merill, from the bench. Neary's decision also prompted a legal
challenge from a group that included Republican state lawmakers, King,
and the Church of Christ of Le Mars.
The group alleged in a lawsuit that Neary could not dissolve a
marriage that the state did not recognize. Their arguments were based,
in part, on the now-defunct 1996 state law that limited marriage to
one man and one woman.
In 2005, the Iowa Supreme Court did not address that argument but
ruled that the group did not have a right to challenge the divorce,
because it was not directly involved.
"It would be strange indeed and contrary to our notions of separation
of powers if we were to recognize that legislators have standing to
intervene in lawsuits just because they disagree with a court's
interpretation of a statute," former Chief Justice Louis Lavorato
wrote.
The high court declined to address same-sex marriages. Lavorato noted
that Neary "may have been correct or may have been incorrect," but "we
make no judgment on the merits."
Garcia said legal situations have risen for same-sex Illinois couples
who marry legally in Canada then decide to divorce. Illinois courts
have refused to dissolve the relationships, he said, because it would
require them to acknowledge the marriages.
"Opponents go on and on and on about the legal problems gay marriage
will cause," Garcia said. "The main problem comes from having an
unequal system. We set up all these parallel tracks - domestic
partnerships, civil unions, some states have marriage - and that's
where all these problems come up."
Some of the problems in Illinois could dwindle with a bill that would
classify same-sex marriage as civil unions and allow couples to
collect marriage benefits, said Garcia said. The legislation is likely
to pass, he said.
A same-sex marriage case also could end up in federal court if it
connects to equal-rights access to federal marriage benefits, Estin
said. Spouses receive more than 1,000 federal benefits, including
access to Social Security pension and survivor benefits for federal
employees.
"There are a lot of different ways this could come up to the U.S.
Supreme Court," Estin said. "The more it gets worked out by state
supreme courts, the richer the opportunity the court will have to
engage the question."
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) Unemployed? No need to be: www.LayoffRemedy.com
Doc Dice <steven_joh...@ymail.com> wrote:
> It's like a make believe marriage as it's only good where it was
> issued. As normal heterosexuals we don't worry about such things
> and take a legal marriage for granted.
Same-sex marriage is 100% LEGAL here in Iowa, starting today,
and people can come here from ANYWHERE to get married. No
more long, coast-to-coast trips necessary. MOST people live within
easy driving distance from here. (I know from experince that if
I leave Waterloo, Iowa at 3 pm one day, I can be in Albany, NY
by 7:15 in the morning, 15-1/4 actual hours later.
So GAYS -- wherever you live, come to IOWA, unless you live
closer to CT or MA (or later, VT.) The marriages will be honored
in MANY other states -- and almost cetainly will be TOTALLY legal-
ized in ALL states after the Supreme Court does for the gays what
it did for interracial couples with "Loving vs Virginia."
HERE is the current, FAST-IMPROVING situation:
Same-sex marriage (SSM) is REALITY in all these places, and
the list is steadily and inexorably* growing:
( * RRR Cultists: Look up "inexorable." Take it to heart.)
� Netherlands (as of 2001)
� Belgium (2003)
� Massachusetts (2004)
� Canada (2005)
� Spain (2005)
� South Africa (2005)
� Norway (2008)
� Connecticut (2008)
� New York ** (2008)
...and PENDING in 2009.
� Iowa (2009)
� Vermont (2009)
� Sweden (2009)
� Washington, D.C.** (2009)
� New Hampshire: PENDING in 2009
� Maine: PENDING in 2009
� New Jersey: PENDING in 2009
� Hungary: PENDING in April, 2009
** New York State, Rhode Island, Washington, D.C.,
France, and Israel now recognize gay marriages
for couples legally married outside of the
state/district/country.
Gender composition is IRRELEVANT. Expect this to be the case
in almost ALL of the world within a few more years, as its societies
continue to OUTGROW and REJECT mindless bigotries.
The bigots have *already* LOST, and the RATE of their loss
is accelerating. A few years from now, SSM will be legal in ALL
50 states, and people will look back at them and their agenda, and
both will very properly be recalled with the *same* DERISION that
we now hold for the Segregationists and *their* EXTINCT agenda.
-- (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <drivers...@ymail.com>
http://www.LayoffRemedy.com.com -- Unemployment Solution!
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://spifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
http://www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"Family" -- Key CODE WORD of the RRR Cult
Throughout the RRR Cult, "Family" is ALWAYS a code word
that translates to: "Anti-Personal-liberties."
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Doc Dice
to be: www.LayoffRemedy.com" <driverservi...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:09:21 -0700 (PDT),
>
This little group vs the rest of the world who is against fag
marriage?
lol!
DD
Pat Magroyne
Considering the course of human history, that little group came into
being VERY rapidly.
And it continues to grow (rather like your girth).
:-)