{ Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v. Brien }

Super cute couple...Is allowing interracial marriage the same thing as allowing same-sex marriage? I think not. The Iowa Supreme Court now has to decide...

Super cute couple... Is allowing interracial marriage the same thing as allowing same-sex marriage? I think not; we're talking man and woman here. The Iowa Supreme Court now has to decide...

Justice David S. Wiggins pointed out that society’s notion of what was acceptable in marriage had evolved over time. “Thirty years ago you couldn’t have interracial marriage — I mean things are just changing, is marriage, as you call it, a static relationship?”

The Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Varnum v. Brien on Tuesday 12/9.

Watch the proceedings in the video at the bottom of the page here.

At the core of this case is the question of whether or not Iowa’s 10 year-old definition of a valid marriage as only “between a male and female” violates the Iowa Constitution’s guarantees of equal treatment and due process.

It looks like activists judges rear their ugly heads in Iowa too.  Six same-sex couples  financed and represented by the national gay and lesbian rights group Lambda Legal, sued the Polk County Recorder and Registrar Timothy Brien in 2005, after his office denied them marriage licenses. Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson sided with the couples in a ruling last year but then suspended his decision pending a high court ruling on the matter.

“The law is extremely over-inclusive in its attempt to strengthen heterosexual marriage and procreation by preventing an entire distinct group of individuals — homosexuals — from marrying,” Judge Hanson wrote.

A trial court judge ruled last year that the law was unconstitutional and that a dozen gay men and lesbians had been wrongly denied marriage licenses in Polk County, which includes the state capital, Des Moines.

The state, i.e. the Polk County attorney’s office appealed the lower-court ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court on the grounds that,

[Judge] Hanson erred in his 2007 ruling and that the county had followed the “clear, unambiguous language” of state law.

In a case that could make Iowa the first Midwestern state to legalize same-sex marriage, the Iowa Supreme Court pressed lawyers for both sides with sharp questions on topics like the 4,000-year-old history of marriage and whether a ruling favoring gay couples would open the door to polygamy. [Several justices challenged the attorneys on this issue].

I say that any ruling allowing the marriage of same-sex couples would most definitely be geared towards the further disintegration of the already tattered moral fiber of American society. Dennis Johnson, a Des Moines lawyer, criticized Polk County’s arguments about possible long-term damage to marriage as “highly speculative,” and cast the law as an intrusion on equal rights.  I don’t understand how this guy could classify the potential for damage as “highly speculative.” Studies on the issue abound, and the facts and statistics of the long term effects of same-sex marriage are horrifically present. Johnson should be very clear on this, but apparently chooses to “speculate” despite the information that is available.

Many questions arose during oral arguments, and issues such as the following will have to be sorted out:

“Where was the line, they asked, between religious and governmental interests in definitions of marriage? How did the state’s defense of the law defining marriage differ from the way it might have once defended now-defunct laws barring interracial marriage? Would allowing same-sex marriage encourage more gay couples to adopt, and was there anything wrong with that?”

An assistant attorney for Polk County, Roger J. Kuhle, said the core of marriage, historically, was about children and creating stable systems for procreation.

“The essential factor of marriage, which is procreation, which is raising children, which is replenishing society, has never changed,” Mr. Kuhle told the court.


Attorneys conclude Supreme Court arguments in gay marriage case

Iowa Justices Hear Same-Sex Marriage Case

{ Gay Rights Activists Infiltrate eHarmony.com }

Dr. Neil Clark Warren founded eHarmony in 1998, with the goal of helping people form long-lasting relationships.

Dr. Neil Clark Warren founded eHarmony in 1998, with the goal of helping people form long-lasting relationships.

What will gay rights activists think of next….who will they sue next….and what will they think is unfair next….? Yesterday it was eHarmony.com, a heterosexual dating website that uses top-notch technology to find matches for heterosexual singles. I know several people who have married people they met on this dating site.

The New Jersey Office of the Attorney General announced that online dating service eHarmony has agreed to create a new Web site — “Compatible Partners” — for gay and lesbian users. By March 31st, the website will provide services to people seeing same-sex partners.

“eHarmony — which was not found in violation of the law — also agreed to ensure that same-sex users will be matched using the same or equivalent technology used for its heterosexual clients. It will also post photographs of same-sex couples in its “Diversity” section of its Web site and in advertising materials.”

Why should eHarmony have to provide their dating services to gay people? If gay people want a dating site, then one of them should create one. Why harass and sue eHarmony to do it for them. I can’t understand the logic of the people who brought these suits. It’s like they want society to bend over backwards to make life perfect for them, to accept them and give them everything that heterosexual people have. I think they need to protest less and work more on building dating websites if that’s what they think they need. But I guess it’s just easier and more fun for them to make other companies look bad……

“Even though we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business, we ultimately decided it was best to settle this case,” eHarmony legal counsel Theodore Olson said in a statement. “eHarmony looks forward to moving beyond this legal dispute, which has been a burden for the company, and continuing to advance its business model of serving individuals by helping them find successful, long-term relationships.”

“The lawsuit claimed that by solely offering to find a compatible match for men seeking women or women seeking men, the company was violating state law barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

I don’t consider it discrimination if a company simply doesn’t offer services that people think they should. I can’t walk into my grocery store and ask for a facial, or a manicure. What so now I can sue because the grocery doesn’t offer all of the services that I think they should? Seriously….this is their logic? And the courts appear to be perpetuating this problem. I’m sorry, but everything does not revolve around fairness, equality and whether or not someone is being discriminated against. Should I sue a make-up company that only makes foundation for African American Women, because I’m white and they don’t provide a product suitable for me…..NO!!!!!! I should shop with a company who does provide the services and products that I need.

I’m also wondering where these people get all of this money to file law suit after law suit? Is there like an underground free legal service society only for gays…I could certainly use free legal service when dealing with my husband’s crazy ex-wife…but no, the thousands of dollars have to come out of our pocket. Life is too short and there are so many other positive things these people could be doing with their time and money….maybe start an internet dating company for one, and become the next dating site millionaire….

Photo courtesy of: www.electronicretailermag.com

{ The Supreme Court Has Spoken…..aren’t we lucky… }

CA Supreme Court

CA Supreme Court

It looks like the saga continues, and how upstanding of the court to not let gays marry until after their ruling on the three law suite. I mean, the people did vote and majority has already ruled on the issue. Give me a break, these law suits are rediculous….

Nov 19, 5:07 PM (ET)

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – California’s highest court has agreed to hear legal challenges to a new ban on gay marriage, but is refusing to allow gay couples to resume marrying until it rules.

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The amendment passed this month with 52 percent of the vote. The court did not elaborate on its decision.

All three cases claim the ban abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

Defamer.com says:

BREAKING: Six of seven CA Supreme Court agreed today to review the legal challenges to Prop 8 brought by married same-sex couples. Until they rule, all further same-sex marriages are suspended, and the status of those already wed remains to be determined. What are the chances they’ll overturn the challenge? Slim, but they have done so in the past: “In 1966, the California Supreme Court struck down an initiative that would have permitted racial discrimination in housing. Voters had approved the measure, a repeal of a fair housing law, by a 2-to-1 margin.” Hang in there, D.L. Hughley—we realize how confusing all of this can be!