Friday, August 31, 2007

Marriage in Iowa

An Iowa Court ruled that same-sex couple can marry. The ruling was based on equal protection. Before Iowans jump for joy, I must disclose it is a district court decision--meaning appealable. The Court also struck down an Iowa law that decreed a marriage could only be between one man and one woman.

Because I have no connection to Iowa or have much of a sense of the judiciary there, I cannot predict what will happen to the case as it inevitably makes its way through the appeals process. For at least a minute, though, Iowan gay couples get the same civil benefits as straight married couples. The fact that this is accomplished by calling the union a "marriage" is just gravy.

Aside: On the Federal side, I think the only thing the government needs to do is recognize gay couples as equal to straight ones. So far as I can tell, the department that needs to do so most urgently is the Department of the Treasury. Especially once the estate tax comes back. Yes, once again, it all comes down to money for me.

UPDATE: Kip has a much more detailed analysis of the court decision than I will ever do here. First off, the decision is 63 pages long. I'm now a third year law student with a job (read: coasting), so I'm only going to read the decision if I'm paid to.


KipEsquire said...

On the federal side, the biggest anti-gay atrocity is far and away the spousal benefit under Social Security.

The estate tax (which hardly applies to anyone, straight or gay) is a pimple compared to that.

Matt-CNS said...

pbwepzfAlthough I am a Canadian I do know enough to know that specific marriage laws are the responsibility of the state, so if the state wishes to deny someone the right to marry that is their business (as far as I know).
Personally I think marriage is a religious term and should be left to religion, government should use something else that is more ambigious and that puts everyone together.

I would agree that federally there should be something that recognizes same sex couples, that way they can collect on the estate taxes. Honestly that was an argument used by many politicians here in Canada when they voted for Same Sex Marriage.

Pink Elephant said...

Kip, I always forget about Social Security. It must be because I have no faith in that Ponzi scheme and don't expect it to apply to me anyway.

KipEsquire said...

Just read the last 15 pages -- it's good Fourteenth Amendment review.