Iowa Continues Tradition as Civil Rights PioneerEarlier today, the seven justices of the Iowa Supreme Court continued the state’s long history of pioneering civil rights by striking down a state law prohibiting same-sex marriages. In a unanimous decision, the Court declared that it was unconstitutional to bar gay and lesbian couples from marriage and ordered the state to grant same-sex couples the ability to marry. Students of American history know that this decision is hardly surprising. As the Court noted in its decision, Iowa has long been WAY out in front on civil rights issues, often leading the rest of the country by years and even decades. In its very first decision in 1839, the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa “refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery” and held that the state “must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions.” In 1869, the nation’s first female lawyer was admitted in Iowa, decades before U.S. Supreme Court decisions that actually upheld states’ rights to discriminate against women. And in 1873, 91 years before racial discrimination in public accommodations was struck down nationwide, Iowa justices ruled that a woman could not be prevented from entering an all-white dining room based on the color of her skin. This victory is especially encouraging on the heels of recent legislative victories in Vermont and New Hampshire, where legislatures have passed bills that would legalize same-sex marriage, and developments in Illinois, Wisconsin and Washington, where pending legislation could provide rights for same-sex couples in the form of comprehensive civil unions. Congratulations to the plaintiffs and justices for their work in bringing marriage equality to the Midwest. Once again, Iowa has set the example that the rest of the country will follow.
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 6 Responses to "Iowa Continues Tradition as Civil Rights Pioneer" |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Apr 4th, 2009 at 5:17am
You see, although most people see this as a battle to protect the dignity of marriage between a man and a woman, it goes well beyond the apparant. just as radical ethnic gangsters espouse civil rights as thier goal, using members of thier ethnic community as soldiers in thier assault upon capitalism and Western civilization, so, too, do the radical socialist gays use homosexuals as thier footsoldiers.
This radical movement was handed a stunning defeat in the polls in November 2004 not becuase the average voter understood the larger battle they were engaged in, but becuase on a deeply instincual level they understood tthis is the final battle for the survival of the FAMILY camouflaged in the somber tones of the civil rights struggle.
Apr 4th, 2009 at 1:49pm
Where I live(Québec City) we have had Gay marriage for a while now and our churches are empty and people don't respect religion or the institution of marriage.Furthermore the once all powerful Catholic Church now has to import priests from the Third World in order service those empty churches.In other words things are absolutely the same as they were before Gays were allowed to be married.
Apr 5th, 2009 at 5:29pm
this is a SAD day for the civil rights movement! If God doesn't destroy this nation because of the perversion of homosexuality, than he owes a public apology to Sodom an Gommorah!
Apr 6th, 2009 at 1:08pm
"You really ought to give Iowa a try -- provided you are contrary."
-- Meredith Willson, "The Music Man," circa 1957
Apr 7th, 2009 at 2:56pm
Personaly I think that the crazies on the right are much more likely to destroy America than either God or the gays.
Apr 7th, 2009 at 9:54pm
I have said in the past that the ACLU stands for what is wrong in America and you have proven it.
The last time I looked the majority rules in a democracy. We need to change our constitution like 28 other states have and not give in to sick thinking people. Just because the Supreme Court ruled UNANIMOUS doesn't mean they approve of Gay and Lesbian Marriages. They are saying the way the law was written was not done in a constitutional manner. Any legislator who fights giving the people of Iowa the opportunity to say how they feel about it with a Constitutional Amendment vote is most likely looking at either not running or certainly not winning reelection.
I don't hate Gays or Lesbians, but I hate their practices because it is sin plain and simple.