CNN

Do I like to comment on same sex marriage?? I personally do not like to use the word 'marriage' to recognize the union of same sex. I do not practice religeon as I always find controvercies in all religion. But ethically, socially, morally and traditionally I do not want to call that a marriage. With due respect to the Gay community (as they are also the creations of the same nature as all others, have the right to live and enjoy the same rights as all others) I would call that a 'Union' or some other respectable term. Why? The word 'Marriage' was created to define the social bondage of a man & woman only. Any other relations, man & man, woman & woman must be addressed with a different term. That will be good for the society and also for the Gay community and the controvercy within the religious communities also will fade out with time.
Finally, I do not support the 'Iwoa Supreme Court' decision. Who is the justice at the 'Supreme Court' or any court? A human being and human beings are always emotional, and sometimes responds to support the controvercial issues under certain environmental pressure even a mistake occurs. At all, human beings are human beings.

Equality under the law.
Discrimination is illegal.

This is America. This is the land were all are created equal. These are not just empty words. When the law is used to discriminate and suppress, then the law is wrong.

What goes on between consenting adults is none of my business, none of the government's business, no one's business. That is the key phrase however - consenting adults.

Lawrence in a traditional marriage-
"but marriage is a sacrament received in the Church and same sex partners ought not to be INSULTING and DEBASING our Christian beliefs."
ok just to point out you do realize that their is a difference between a religious marriage ceremony and a legal marriage ceremony right. and you basically are saying that you are absolutely right about marriage and their can be no other answer to the problem than a Christian one.

Discrimination does not belong in our constitutions (period). That should be something we all agree upon, regardless of affiliation, orientation, or morals. God bless the good people of Iowa and the USA.

For those who think we should put people's right up to a vote:

If the South was allowed to vote on segregation int he Civil Rights Era, how do you think that would have turned out?

Jefe April 3rd, 2009 11:25 am ET

Unbelievable that in America people care what other people are doing with their own lives, ESPECIALLY Republicans, who are supposed to be so high and mighty about government non-interference.

I'm not pro- or anti- gay marriage, I just don't care. I'm not gay, so what does it matter to me whether gays marry? I just don't get it. But I do know, THIS is not the nation where the choice should be made by Big Brother. Those who are looking for that kind of a nation should move to North Korea.
---------------

Well said!. You're right about choice. No one is forcing anything here..This is about free choice.

All of you out there who support discrimination hear this, we gay Americans are here, we pay taxes and we support our communites. I know many of you would prefer that we go back into our closets, but we refuse to live in the shadows any longer. It will take time, however, we will have the same rights as all of you eventually. The progression has started so get used to it.

I have a number of gay friends in relationships and the marriage ban causes problems for them in ways you might not expect. If my husband wants to move in order to take a better job, I'm covered by his health insurance. I'm covered no matter what I end up doing for work. If a gay couple moves for one person's job, the other person may have no health insurance until/if he or she gets a job, and even then the coverage may be poor compared to what the partner's would have provided. That's only one example. It seems very unfair to me.

Marriage between a man and a woman promotes the concept of heterosexual reproduction, which by the way is the only way humans reproduce. Our society, and indeed our species needs to have heterosexuals. Marriage as a government institution is a promotion of heterosexuals, and thus perpetuates the society. Marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman does nothing to promote this. In fact if homosexuals are allowed to adopt etc. this will socialize more people to act as a homosexual, increasing the number of homosexuals. This over time will undermine our society resulting in our ruin. Thanks Iowa Supreme Court.

'marriage' shouldn't be part of our govt. It's a religious thing. If you want equal rights, then do it. Trampling the sanctity of marriage in the name of equal rights is stupid. They are not one in the same. It's like sueing over catholics not allowing females into the priesthood. Stop equating marriage with equal rights.

If you want a valid argument... argue why you can't deem ANY PERSON you want to be your beneficiary...why does it have to be a spouse? why does it have to be a 'partner'???

I wasn't sure if this would pass, but my great state continues to impress me!

I just dont get how gay people getting married changes straight people getting married. I think that's a really dumb argument.

Why is it that right wingers say that they're being discriminated against when they're not allowed to force their beliefs on other people?

I believe that we should make every marriage in this country, gay or straight, a "contract of civil union" when registering with the state, and then leave it to the churches to decide who they want to marry.

Also, once they take away the rights of the gays, how long do you really think it will it be until they come after divorcees, single parents, domestic partners, people who have 'fornicated' outside of marriage, et alia.?

The same people that are against gay marriage now were against mixed ethnicity marriages in the past.

Civil Rights are CIVIL RIGHTS.

Kevin in Ohio April 3rd, 2009 11:17 am ET

Time to change the Constitution, just like the PEOPLE of California did. That's the only way around this legislating from the liberal bench.

-–

What gives you or anyone else the right to tell someone that they cannot marry the person they love simply because they are the same sex. It does not involve you in any way, shape, manner or form. Mind your own business and let those who wish to marry mind theirs.

As long as it's a marriage between two consenting adults, let them alone.

Polygamy, polyandry and insest should also be legalized – who are we to tell other people what they can and can not do?

Do what thau wilt and that be the whole of the law!

Civil rights are lovingly worth upholding IMHO. Great day for Iowa.

I may not understand entirely how this action was brought about, but it appears to me that if it were just left alone there wouldn't have been any action either way about whether same sex marriage is OK or Not and the status quo of hetero marriage only would have prevailed. By forcing the issue not only did the homophobes NOT manage to define marriage their way but they also now seem to have helped the Gay cause in defense of their rights to marry whomever they want.

thank you iowa.

I'm impressed with Iowa's ruling and more states will follow suit. This blatant discrimination against a group of citizens is appalling.... Thanks to religious zealots and their lemmings.

It is high time to recognize that those who still think homosexuality is a choice are ignorant. Those that feel one should repress their true nature are even more ignorant. Those that preach hatred and intolerance are the most ignorant.

The basis of religion should be acceptance and love. Iowa's supreme court "gets it".

Marriage should be allowed period. Why we continue to discriminate is beyond me, too many religious fanatics imposing their will on society I guess. I say let's ban religious fanatics.

Only a matter of time as the old bigoted hit the grave and the youth of the America start to become the guides for the future.

Iowa, who gave Obama his start, takes another step towards self-destruction.

What puzzles me is that people can miss the most obvious principle of human life. MAN IS FOR WOMAN, and WOMAN IS FOR MAN. We sit around trying to define things and GOD has already defined it for us. Not necessarily through the bible or anything like that, but through our own physical attributes as humans. We can toil around forever with this subject should man be able to marry a man or should a woman marry a woman but its not going to go anywhere because poeple want to live out there on lustful desires. Its like saying we should allow people to murder one another, wouldn't that go against someones civil liberties? I mean come on people this is really simple. But hey there will come a day that people will have to answer to what they have done here on this earth and there will be nashing of teeth, why because people want to be God instead of letting God be himself!

When rights are denied to some, rights are denied to all.

I feel if 2 people want to marry, where is the harm?

What happens when someone wants to take the rights that you enjoy now??

And this happens in Iowa? Great!

Kevin in Ohio April 3rd, 2009 11:17 am ET

Time to change the Constitution, just like the PEOPLE of California did. That's the only way around this legislating from the liberal bench.

Discrimintation has no place in our constitution. Funny, it is only
when the wingnuts don't agree that it is called "legistlating from the bench". Don't agree with gay marriage? Then don't marry a man. If
marriage is so sacred, then lets start by making divorce illegal, shall we?

Go ahead! Come out of the closet!! I'm getting tired of living on earth. I want the Apocalypse to happen now!! The sooner we spiritually rot on earth, the sooner it will be the end of the world.

The "tradition" of marriage is a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, taken as an oath before GOD "until death do you part". If you are going to limit marriage between a man and a woman, it should also be a LIFELONG commitment, NO DIVORCE with the exceptions as specified in the BIBLE. People who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman because that is the "traditional definition" or because that is what the Bible says, but also are divorced or believe in divorce are total, utter hypocrites. It is DIVORCE that is tearing up the fabric of the American family, not gay marriage.

I live in Des Moines and when I heard the news on the radio this morning driving to school I was so excited for all the same sex couples in this state that now have equal rights! Just hoping the rest of the US starts to make the same decisions!
I'm incredibly proud of our Supreme Court Judges with this UNANIMOUS ruling

This is a just and wonderful ruling, which will strengthen the institution of marriage for ALL by giving more people a stake in its responsibilities, privileges, and protections.

No state has any business imposing religion-based bigotry on its laws and citizens. If churches want to continue discriminating based on a superficial, flawed, innaccurate reading of the Bible, that's their problem.

We just need to make a national law on this, and to stop allowing states to do as they please....

100 years ago the majority of the population did not think it was right for people to marry outside of their religion... now it is common and accepted by the majority.
50 years ago there were violent outbreaks over interracial marriage and the majority of Americans believed that interracial marriage was wrong... now it is common and accepted by the majority.
Today, due to a wide variety of factors (religion, bigotry, ignorance, etc.), the majority of Americans do not believe gay marriage should be allowed. But it will be allowed, because to tell a man he can marry any woman he wants, but can not marry any man is simply not equal.
The vast majority of the arguments against gay marriage are ideological. The vast majority of the arguments for gay marriage are about treating each person in the country equally.

Personally, I think the term marriage should be removed from all govt. and tax documents. Any union recognized by a state or federal govt. should be called a civil union. If the couple also decides to enter a marriage, that can be their spiritual commitment to each other, and can include a religious ceremony.

If we had a true separation of church and state, this would be a moot point.

@ Bob from Pittsburgh, who said "Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony. Civil Union is a LEGAL status."

OK, let's assume that's true for second, just to go along with your premise. Taking your distinction as fact, please explain why the government should be involved in codifying laws that have anything do with MARRIAGE (s you defined it).

So basically they are saying the" will of the people" no longer matters and that a minority of people can control the majority?

We are progressing our way to the ancient Rome just before the fall of that empire.

I suppose next up will be brother-sister marriages. And then human and farm animals. And perhaps, humans and inanimate objects could be a possibility. Our country's moral compass is broken.

This is "One nation, UNDER GOD" and God does not recognize same sex "MARRIAGES" "Marriage" is a RELIGIOUS AND LEGAL UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN - If the country wants same sex civil unions, that is another story to be debated, but marriage is a sacrament received in the Church and same sex partners ought not to be INSULTING and DEBASING our Christian beliefs. I disagree with same sex civil unions, as do 90% of the country – if they are all true Christians – but there can be no argument that Marriage is a holy religious union between a man and a woman, and gays and lesbians have no business "crashing the holy altars of our churches. God Bless America. Amen

Sweet!! This is awesome news!

I think there should be amendment to the constitution banning same-sex marriage. This is a disgrace and immoral act by these few people and the judges. Democrats in power everywhere so there is no morality and discipline. Everything goes and ACLU must be celebrating.
Only Iowans can come forward now and end this stupid ruling. Wake up Iowa, Wake up America. We must keep our family values and the marriage is between a man and a woman. No judge and nobody can change it.

Ahhhhh the religious right. I thought this was a free country where we have choices. I am not gay but leave them alone to make their own lives. We love to to go to other countries to dictate our policies and now we feel that religion should dictate policy in this country to a minority who bothers no one.

Hey... if gays want to marry, so be it. I personally don't care.

What I do care about, though, is a double standard. Example:

It's proven that smokers live on average 10 to 15 years less than non-smokers. Consequently, they must pay higher premiums for things like life insurance.

It's also proven (go look it up) that gay men live 10 to 15 years less than hetero men. But their lifestyle cannot be used to justify increased rates.

Your arguement will be that smoking is a choice and being gay isn't. Perhaps you're correct. To that, I counter that one may be genetically predisposed to heart disease. If that shows up on a medical report being used to purchase insurance, the purchaser will pay higher rates. Now did that purchaser "choose" to be genetically at risk for heart disease? I think not.

So tell me where I'm wrong with this arguement?

Im a strong supporter of gay rights and i feel that more states should follow iowa, mass., and conn. leads and give people the freedom to marry who they please. once again, individual churches with individual beliefs should be respected just the same and no same-sex marriage should be forced upon a priest/minister who does not believe in it. That being said, if the gay community respects religious culture and what it entails, than the churches, no matter how disappointed they are should respect the views of other fellow americans. i believe that this is a step in the right directon for america especially for gay rights. i hope that we can continue this fight for freedom and get the rights that we deserve as "The People" .

we are all here together, theres no room for discrimination

Only when people disagree with a judicial decision, do we hear that the judiciary is legislating from the bench. You types need to read your US HIstory and Gov't book again, and you will learn that the role of the courts is to interpret the constitution, and rule whether statutes violate it or not, That is what was done here plain and simple. Because we're dealing with the judiciary and matter of civil rights, the will of the majority is irrelevant...or else, inter-racial marriage would still be banned.

Who would have thought...Iowa.

Kudo's to level heads and sane thinkers in Iowa.

Great Job Iowa!!! This is a great day to be an American.....ALL men shall be created EQUAL!!! The Right-Wing nut jobs can only hold back the LGBT community for so long......and today the LGBT community WON!!!!

to New Yorker: I am a straight grandma living in Iowa. Jesus Christ is what Christianity is all about, right? Where in the New Testament does he ever refer to homosexuality? His bottom line was the Golden Rule -You are following obscure verses in the old testament that also include not eating pork, certain building restrictions, not sitting on a chair that a menstruating woman sat on – the list goes on and on with many more ridiculous instructions that I have never seen any so-called Christian follow- do you follow these admonitions?? Why is someone else's sexual life any business of yours? No church official is going to be "forced" to perform marriages of gays. This is their civil right as a citizen of our country – take your hate and prejudice back to your church and leave it there.

Brian Cooks suggests,

"You CAN'T take away someone's rights by way of a popular vote. That's not how it works"

---

Really? So it's ok for us to lead a prayer before a high school football game? (freedom of religion)

And it's ok for lawmakers to take away property from a select few individuals (taxing wealthy at a substantially higher marginal rate)?

And how exactly do felons loose their right to vote, own a firearm, etc?

And what about illegal aliens? Does the "public" have the right to vote away their rights of living in this country... using our healthcare system...etc?

Kevin in Ohio,

Please answer my previous question. How exactly is YOUR life or marriage negatively affected by gay marriage? Read the decision, no church is being forced to marry anyone (for instance, my Catholic church wouldn't sanction my marriage because my wife wasn't Catholic, does that mean I'm not married either).

The secular government cannot assignate special rights and priviliges to couplings based on religious edicts. Period. Therefore, gay marriage should enjoy equal protection under the law. Period.

Me said – Now that we're on our way to allowing gay marriage we can open the door for polygamy, polyandry, and plural marriages.
-

I really don't care if men or women have multiple husbands or wives as long as the marriage is between two consenting adults of either the opposite or same sex. If you want to live in a household with multiple spouses – go for it. Personally the idea of multiple spouses squicks me.

As long as you don't push your preference on me, I won't push mine on you.

Marriage is a decision that should be made by the two people involved and, in the case of multiple spouses, the ones in that household. It's nobody's business but the people getting married.

Nice to see this pop up in the Midwest as opposed to being the purview of the "ultra-liberal" Northeast. Here's hoping it lasts.

How ironic – Iowa, land of corn, and white bread, got it right, meanwhile, NY, a dark blue state, got it wrong.

BTW – the court was merely doing its job – protecting the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority!

Equal Marriage Rights BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

To everyone here who is "appalled" at this "moral degradation" or are angry at how the courts could "force unwanted policies" on people, or think this is "undemocratic" here's a news flash: THE COURTS ARE HERE TO PROTECT AND ENFORCE THE LAW.

Just because public opinion demands one thing doesn't mean that thing is LEGAL. Everyone could vote that if someone steals something from you and there are more than three witnesses you have the right to cut off one of their hands. The people have spoken, right? WRONG. It wouldn't change the fact that this would be unconstitutional. This is why we have the COURTS to protect the constitution. The courts ruled (and rightly so) that a ban on gay marriage violates the law. End of story. It doesn't matter what the people think. It's ILLEGAL.

No one is forcing people to like gay marriage. No one can force churches that don't recognize gay marriage to marry gay couples (you can thank the constitution for that...that's right...the door swings both ways, people). Just accept the fact that gay couples have the same rights as married couples, and isn't equality what America is all about?

I thought convervatives were against government interference in people's lives. If two adults want to marry (even if they are the same sex) why should the government involve itself in that decision?

Wait, I forgot–conservatives are actually in favor of government interference if it advances their moral/religious beliefs. It's a general hypocracy inherent in the mindset. Its how they can be both "pro-life" and "pro-death penalty" (which kills people) and "pro-war" (which kills lots of people) at the same time. Hypocrites, I hate hypocrites.

Funny. I could care less what the courts say. I never told anyone that sexual orientation would bar you from being happy with your partner and living a moral life. Some virulent schmuck living in a cave somewhere in lower Mesopotamia came up with that one. If the "religious leaders" who think they speak for me don't want to marry two people who wish to share their lives, that's their problem. Let the civil governments take care of it. I created those too, you know.

This is a great thing! It's about time the whole country does not have to follow a religion that creates an excuse for people to be discriminatory. This country is finally evolving past religion and I think it's fabulous. I'm a woman married to a man, and I don't find it insulting at all that anyone can get married. Heck, let people have more than one wife or husband if they want to, what does it matter? Everyone should have equal rights under the law in such a wonderful country and I don't see the validity in an argument otherwise.

Throw out the supreme court bums in Iowa. They had no legal right to overturn a law that was voted on by the PEOPLE! Lets face it -marriage is a religious issue, not a political issue to be decided on by a bunch of senile old hypocrites! Recall the bums and put them in a retirement home where most of them belong!

"You CAN'T take away someone's rights by way of a popular vote. That's not how it works."

- Its how it should work, that is the democratic way! If something wins with a 60% majority then it should be law.

You know what would be a big step for civil liberties? Not letting laws be determined by activist judges that legislate from the bench. Put these issues to voters where it has a history of being routinely shot down. Something tells me the framers of the US Constitution are rolling in their graves.

This is disgraceful!! This ruling violates the constituion the court over stepped it's bounds and made the law. That ruling should be thrown out. im glad im not from iowa it is a bad day for that state. MY GOD says it is wrong and it is!! i am glad i live in the Bible Belt and my Conservative state of Alabam!!! I hope this is over turned, take it to the US Supreme Court

Just because a couple of judges say it's so don't take it to the bank.
I forsee the issue being turned over by a public constitutional vote.
Then we will have a small group of people that have marrages and no rights.
It's an abomination in any event.

There should be a difference between marriage and "Holy Matrimony" I don't see why all the religious nuts are against people who are different than themselves. Marriage is between 2 people, matrimony is between a man and woman

This is a case of discrimination against Christians who know that marriage is God-given and only between a man and a woman. Why not have a civil union with all of the "wrappings" of a Christian marriage but still call it a Civil Union Marriage.

Christians need to come up with another name for marriage if this perverted trend continues across the USA. How about just calling it a Christian Marriage; Roman Catholic Marriage etc. and the Gays can call their union a Civil Union Marriage.

I feel the argument...sorry guys/gals a Christian marriage is between a man and a woman. Your marriage is not and will never be the same as my marriage end of story. I feel for the children in these perverted homes. You can call it love but it is not natural and very confusing for the children.

My oldest son brought home a girlfriend from college (Cal Berkeley) and her mother was a lesbian college professor who lived with a female student. The daughter was so sad; she would not take her friends or my son to her home. It changed her forever..so sad.

For those that think gay marriage will lead to some sort of moral decay, come up to Canada. Its legal here, and Canada seems to be more stable right now than the States. Seems like its working.

As for same sex marriage, I don't see how you can't allow people to have the same rights as heterosexuals. Sexuality is genetic, much like sex or skin colour, so denying equal rights is pure bigotry. In 40 years we'll look at this whole debate the way we now look at civil rights struggles in the 60s.

Very proud to be an Iowan today! Look everyone, even folks in "flyover country" support equal rights for all.

Those who think marriage is a "religious" institution have a very short view of history. It goes way back before the Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians, and it was always a civil institution.

@ Michael "..."morally superior" hate-mongers ..."

Between the far right hate-mongers and the Obama hate-monger army, there is too much hate flying around.

This kind of the court decision should get people fired up to support Libertarians, and leave the RNC-DNC hate behind.

Question Authority.

Grow up! Same-sex marriage is NOT a threat to you, your beliefs or the "institution of marriage." Maybe the reason some people are so "outraged" at same-sex marriage is because their own marriage is a bit shaky...

If people don't stand up for equal rights for EVERYONE, it's a disgrace. In those statements I hear echos of the people in the 60s who fought to keep segregation, or the people in the early 1900s who fought to prevent women from being able to vote. Open your mind, open your heart – these are your fellow human beings. Nobody is asking YOU to adopt their lifestyle, just to recognize that they are people with feelings and that they deserve fair and equal treatment.

Sarah April 3rd, 2009 11:45 am ET

This is disgraceful! Once again a few court members force the entire populous to accept something that just won't be accepted. How UNdemocratic!
--------------------------
Civil Rights aren't supposed to be democratic. They are to be left up to the court's to interpret whether the Constitution is compatible with the claimed right. The Constitution was set-up to protect the minority from the majority. Your right to free speech, marriage, vote, etc. should never be subject to majority rule. If it was the south would have remained segregated. The Court is suppose to do what is right by the color and sex-blind Constitution. They have done so here.

Gay activists are doing what conservatives could never get done.....

....pushing the majority of Americans into voting State Constitutional Amendments to keep traditional definition of "Marriage".

It's important to point out that the court decision states that individual churches can still define marriage however they like. No priest will be legally forced to marry a same-sex couple. That pretty much takes all the wind out of the sails of the right wing.

And with regard to amending the Constitution, what CA did was unconstitutional and will be overturned. Never before in the history of the country has the rights of a specific group been put up for a popular vote. You CAN'T take away someone's rights by way of a popular vote. That's not how it works.

Perfect!

What a great ruling. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of constitutional "equal protection" knows that this ruling was a foregone conclusion if the judges were acting rationally.

Since homosexual tendencies are innate (something you are stuck with and not something that can be modified except perhaps by extreme conditioning), homosexuality is a suspect class like race or gender. Furthermore, marriage (and other family decisions) are extremely personal and afforded a great deal of protection as a fundamental liberty.

Denying a person a fundamental liberty because of an innate characteristic is a big no-no in constitutional law without a compelling reason. I don't think anyone except religious fundamentalists can honestly say with a straight face that gay marriage is so harmful to society that it is worth denying a group of people a fundamental right. Connecticut and Massachusetts are still standing (and in fact have more stable families - reflected in lower divorce rates) than the Bible Belt.

Thank you, Iowa, for striking a blow against legalized discrimination!

The government shouldn't have a say in marriage, whether gay or straight. There needs to be a vocabulary distinction between legal marriages and religious ceremonies already. What messes people up is the fact that we even call the binding contract we enter, recognized by the government, "marriage". Any two people should be able to enter this contract, and allow the religious institutions decide who can enter into a spiritual union, which is actually "marriage".

But that will never happen any time soon, unfortunately.

@ Jerry writes,

"It really is sad that so many people can't understand the concept of equal protection under the law."

--

Jerry, let's have a short quiz:

A) Can a gay man marry another man? (no)

B) Can a straight man marry another man? (no)

C) Can a gay man marry a woman? (yes)

D) Can a straight man marry a woman? (yes)

PLEASE explain to us all who this is a violation of Equal Protection?

This is difficult issue. While I believe that marriage should be between and man and a woman, I cannot agree with those who claim that these courts are "legislating" from the bench. The Constitution calls for equal rights for all citizens, and if the judges (who were seated by the people's elected representatives) say that laws not permitting homosexuals to marry violates equality, then they have to void the law and tell the legislature to write a new one. Constitutional rights have to be protected for every citizen, and not left to the will of the majority.

At this point, I would like to state that I agree with Kevin in Ohio, that I would like to see an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Great News!

if it has always been a man and a woman, than what is the benefit of changing that if the rights and benefits are the same for everyone

it is hurtful to the rest of us to change the definition

This drives home the point that judges understand a law banning-same sex marriage is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

A majority CANNOT take away the CIVIL RIGHTS of a minority.

Thank goodness. Now that we're on our way to allowing gay marriage we can open the door for polygamy, polyandry, and plural marriages. It's a matter of civil rights to allow EVERYBODY to enjoy the institution of marriage. This is a great day for civil rights. Thank you Iowa!

I'm a liberal but I will always believe marriage should be between and man and a woman....Sorry

Wow, who would have guessed Iowa would have done this. I grew up there but never would have thought they would have progressed this far. Glad to hear it!

drip .. drip... drip...drip...moral decay ,corruption, and indifference is slowly trearing the guts out of this country,,, it wont be another nation that defeats us , we are doing it to .....how sad ....

Yes, Virginia, there is freedom in the United States. Sometimes it just takes a while for it to crawl past all of the "morally superior" hate-mongers on its way to the light. Let's here it for a commen sense interpretation of the Iowan Constitution!!!!

This is disgraceful! Once again a few court members force the entire populous to accept something that just won't be accepted. How UNdemocratic!

Anyone else find this bass-ackwards that California, supposedly the most liberal state in the nation, votes to ban gay marriage, and Iowa, which is in the middle of the Bible Belt, becomes the third state in the nation to allow gay marriage?

I think this is great, and hopefully other states' high courts will take a cue from Iowa and start realizing and implementing equal rights to ALL.

The Iowa Supreme Court deserves all the praise in the world right now. It's sad so few believe in equality in this country; only if you aint differ'nt, I guess.

Thank you Iowa! Proud of my great state!

Well another state that won't get my vacation money.

I encourage everyone to read the text of the ruling. It's the best statement on the issue I've ever read.

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony.

Civil Union is a LEGAL status.

My self I am in a civil union even when my wife a female and me a male. So even when my wife and I would be considered a married couple, we are NOT, we were never married on a CHURCH, but at the local city hall.

So Ladies and Ladies, Gentleman and Gentleman, you MAY NEVER be allowed to marry by some church standards. Is their church and you may never be allowed in. However if some churches change their rules you may allowed to marry.

But for now the best you may be able to get is a CIVIL UNION.

Painfull but true.

Ta Ta....

I hope AT LEAST some on the gay community understand difference.

Thank God... it seems that common sense and civility are making a come-back in our country. Hopefully the rest of the nation will follow suit. For heaven sake... can't we all just get along? Come on straight folk... to know us is to love us! (Well... most of us!)

There is something wrong when 'states rights' are not recognized regardless of the issue. .........

Once again, false-hearted judges making decisions against the will of the people. When are we going to take back our country from these people who claim to represent us and the Constitution but do neither.

And then there were three.

How this impacts the pending CA case remains to be seen, but the message is pretty clear–popular opinion and claims of separation of powers cannot be used as tools to violate constitutional rights!

That, of course, is one of the fundamentals that separates our republic from a pure democracy.

The ruling is spot-on, and Iowa now joins CT and MA in the land of equal marriage.

Maybe now they can get rid of marriage licenses altogether now there, since there's no need for them anymore.

It really is sad that so many people can't understand the concept of equal protection under the law. It's there to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. It seems the only way some people can grasp this, is when they find themselves on the receiving end.

Perhaps the majority Protestant population of Iowa, should restrict the rights of non Protestants? Would that be ok?

Move to Canada and get married.

If it can happen in Iowa, it can happen anywhere. Same sex marriage will soon become a reality throughout the United States, which is a good thing!!

While I may not be gay, I am pleased my state decided to do this. This will make many people happy.

And for those who disagree with it, get with the times. Every person should be equal under the law regardless of anyone's beliefs.

Considering this is taboo in the Islamic terrorists mind, this ruling, no doubt, will give them all the more reason to try to further destroy this country; and the liberals think the Bush administration brought us into ill repute??? One thing Islam and Christianity (true Christianity) have in common: sexual relations between the same sex is an abomination to God.

It's about time! Suggests that maybe, just maybe, more states will become more enlightened and lift the ban on same sex marriage. You would think the whole country would become this free, and it will someday come to pass. Congrats Iowa!

As an Iowa native, I am proud of our state! People often think of us as uneducated and rural...today we have shown that we have heart and truly respect the rights off all people. This is a great day for Iowans and a big step for America.

Government should stay out of people's lives and not tell people how to live. It's called freedom. Government should not give one group one set of rights, and another group a different set of rights. It's called common sense interpretation of the constitution.

I also sense an upswing in Iowa tourism coming....

A great day for civil right and for iowa!

I have a simple question for you religious fundamentalists freaking out over this ruling. How exactly is YOUR heterosexual marriage actually affected by gay people also getting married? Don't give me Bible verses as your answer.

Unbelievable that in America people care what other people are doing with their own lives, ESPECIALLY Republicans, who are supposed to be so high and mighty about government non-interference.

I'm not pro- or anti- gay marriage, I just don't care. I'm not gay, so what does it matter to me whether gays marry? I just don't get it. But I do know, THIS is not the nation where the choice should be made by Big Brother. Those who are looking for that kind of a nation should move to North Korea.

The problem is marriage is a religious ceremony and always has been.

Therefore, the common sense approach is to leave the option of gay marriage up to religion. Many will oppose it, but there are many different options all around the country.

Personally, this is a ridiculous issue to hold back, because anyone should have the right to marry anyone they choose.

However, government should never get involved in matters like this, but they do by doing stuff like this:

Now, the government (state and federal) can do Americans a favor and stop making it benficial for people to get married, like the decrease in taxes you pay married vs single.

Everyone should have an equal tax base in their salary range. PERIOD.

Great Day to be an Iowan!

All the people of Iowa have to do is amend their state constitution
like we did here in CA and the voice of the Iowa people will be heard.

I feel that the will of the people should always be the law not the high court of the state legislating from the bench for a special interest of one class or another.

today is a great day to live in iowa!

Time to change the Constitution, just like the PEOPLE of California did. That's the only way around this legislating from the liberal bench.