It doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else.

"I'll remind you that the Supreme Court once ruled that Negroes were only 3/5 of a person. And if the southern states were allowed to decide issues by referendum, blacks would probably still be slaves today."

based on this statement neither the supreme court, or state referendum is acceptable. interesting.. maybe you should think of the modern day, for your examples. there is a half black man in the white house.

Hi Invictus, I am not sure I am following you, what exactly is your point?

Times have changed. I think that saying southern states would vote to enslave blacks today is typical race baiting nonsense. Citing the example of an ancient supreme court ruling is equally ignorant.

If you are for states rights, as I am, then you accept what each state decides. The Iowa court held that denying gays the right to marriage is unconstitutional, and that is that.

question....what is unconstituional about it? i don't understand this

There is an equal protection clause in the Iowa constitution. The judges determined that a ban on gay marriage violated that provision.

oh...it's an iowa constitution???? guess i didn't know anything about that

A states supreme court can only rule on their own states laws.

I just read that there is going to be legislation written to require the people getting married have to be citizens of Iowa. If this passes, so much for the big business boom.

Ah ok, thanks Invictus for clearing that up for me.

Is that because of this I wonder? Hey if there's one way to keep gays out, that would be another way.. I kinda doubt gays will flock to live in Iowa though. And this ruling won't make it any easier to be gay there any time soon.

It amazes me the lengths that people would go. No offence to anyone, it just seems so bizare to me.

I know and have known many gays in Iowa and they live pretty normal lives. There will always be those who hate because someone is different, but, at least in the (few) cities in Iowa, no one pays any more attention to gays than they do anyone else. The only people complaining about his ruling are the religious and the politicians who court them and their votes. The ruling is likely to stand for at least a few years. Democrats hold a majority in the state and they support the ruling. It is conceivable that if the next election bring republicans a majority that a constitutional amendment could win a vote, but even then it has to win another vote during the next session before it can go through and it has to pass both congress and senate both times.

I think if conservatives try to go for a constitutional ammendment it will be the most mean spirited thing they could ever do.

They won't amend the constitution.

You don't think so? Why wouldn't they, it would be their best chance, no?

Its too difficult. I think the compromise will be only citizens are eligible.

That is a bit strange for a compromise, considering gays aren't going to be willing to 'move' to Iowa and leave their family and friends for that, or at least I can't imagine that. Even just to marry and go home, especially if it's not good where they do live.

I sure won't be moving to Iowa just to say I was allowed to marry in one of 3 states. I imagine that might be more important for younger people, but still they would want to have to live there? I'm just too old to care, and it 'is' too cold up there.. LOL

I think it is a compromise. It will allow citizens equal rights, without another protracted legal and legislative battle. It wont appease those that want the amendment, but as far as the legislature goes, they seem content to accept it.

Dang I almost got to sleep.. lol I am confused how would that give citizens equal rights? so this new legislation IS about the gay marriage thing?