My hope is that it will place some pressure on CA's S.Ct. to not screw with equal protection analysis in this country by openning the door to saying bare majorities can determine equality  under the law. Certainly, coming on the heels of efforts in Vermont, they must be feeling the historical heat. I believe if CA makes the wrong decision it will go down in history as bad jurisprudence.

I think the effectiveness of gay marriage as a wedge is waning. Some polls seem to endorse this view, but more importantly  my instincts about watching the furvor says to me that there is an expiration date on conservative outrage over these things.

Obligatory Field of Dreams Quote...

John Kinsella: Is this heaven?
Ray Kinsella: It's Iowa.
John Kinsella: Iowa? I could have sworn this was heaven.
[John starts to walk away]
Ray Kinsella: Is there a heaven?
John Kinsella: Oh yeah. It's the place where dreams come true.
[Ray looks around, seeing his wife playing with their daughter on the porch]
Ray Kinsella: Maybe this is heaven.

What great news to wake up to!!  I was going to comment to you somewhere about Judith Warner's incredibly stupid NYT column today, but now we have much, much better news to talk about it!!

Thanks for the quick analysis of the constitutional revision process in Iowa.  I hadn't read that anywhere yet.

Iowa rocks!!!!!

But, this is at least a medium one.

The clock continues to tick, those who oppose equality for all Americans are drifting further and further into the pages of history.

The battle is not over, but time is on our side.

This is a non-issue for the millenials.

I suspect, in the time frame between 5 and 15 years, when enough of them are in the voting ranks, and our chicken shit politicans do what they always do, cover their butts, we will see the blue states have all flipped and only the retrograde Red states Still outlaw equal rights for all Americans.

But, that is their legacy? Why would Mississipi and Alabama do anything to tarnish their rich history as the home of bigotry?

http://natchgreyes.blogspot.com/2009/04/ what-gay-marriage-means-for-iowa.html - Commentary on 'What Gay Marriage Means for Iowa'

http://natchgreyes.blogspot.com/2009/04/ todays-score-gay-marriage-3-to-47.html - Another link to the Supreme Court Decision

And, finally, I'm glad we're making progress.

     In the fifth paragraph, you say that a Constitutional amendment has to be passed in consecutive legislative sessions, mentioning 2009-10, and 2010-11. Three paragraphs later you say that the Republicans, if they make gains, would have to pass it "in the 2011-2012 legislature and the 2013-2014 legislature".
     Not being from Iowa, I assume that a given legislature sits for a term of two years, which is divided into two annual sessions. Can a proposed Amendment be passed by two different sessions of the same legislature, or must it be passed by one session in each of two consecutive legislatures?

Some people seem surprised that such a landmark decision would emanate from Iowa, of all places.  As the court notes, there's no reason to be surprised:

In the first reported case of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa, In re Ralph, 1 Morris 1 (Iowa 1839), we refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions. 1 Morris at 9. This decision was seventeen years before the United States Supreme Court infamously decided Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1856), which upheld the rights of a slave owner to treat a person as property. Similarly, in Clark v. Board of Directors, 24 Iowa 266 (1868), and Coger v. North West. Union Packet Co., 37 Iowa 145 (1873), we struck blows to the concept of segregation long before the United States Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). Iowa was also the first state in the nation to admit a woman to the practice of law, doing so in 1869. Admission of Women to the Bar, 1 Chicago Law Times 76, 76 (1887). Her admission occurred three years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois' decision to deny women admission to the practice of law, see Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130, 139, 21 L. Ed. 442, 445 (1873), and twenty-five years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the refusal of the Commonwealth of Virginia to admit women into the practice of law, see Ex parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116, 118, 14 S. Ct. 1082, 1083, 38 L. Ed. 929, 930 (1894). In each of those instances, our state approached a fork in the road toward fulfillment of our constitution's ideals and reaffirmed the "absolute equality of all" persons before the law as "the very foundation principle of our government." See Coger, 37 Iowa at 153.

great news! and as for Iowa not being California, thanks for rubbing it in.

Another step in Iowa's longstanding tradition in being ahead of curve on recognizing the common humanity of citizens.

I'm really hoping that my ex-partner and his current partner decide to make the trip up to Iowa when they're ready to get married.  His mom still lives in Ames in the house he grew up, and I am certain that her hope that she would see her son come home to get married died a long time ago.

She's a really great lady, and I know she's not the only parent in Iowa who has had to watch their GLBT children leave Iowa to find a more accepting place to build their lives.  Today is a victory for all of them, as well.

Wait did you say you were against gay rights?

Any particular reason?

Perhaps your against Women's Rights?
Maybe Civil Rights (ie African American's Rights)?
Maybe you'd prefer the US when we were still declaring people as 3/5 a person eh?

Oh wait the courts are so evil I mean the founding fathers of our nation wanted the "mob" to rule which is why we are a Direct Democracy oh wait we aren't, but it seems you would prefer such because that would be best right?

I think you tend to confuse a political issue with a political question. While gay rights may (unfortunately) be a political issue. The issue in front of the court was not one of a political question but rather a legal one. If you even bother to read the decision (which you haven't) then you would realize that decision was based on the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act violating the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution and since the state couldn't provide a reason as to why a distinction based on sexual orientation

Another thing technically Iowa's Supreme Court Justice's are elected through a non-partisan retention system. It has been shown to be the most effective way of retaining a fair and balanced judiciary where many states use a partisan election to elect their judged. The point I'm making is I'm not sure how having "unelected" judges is really a bad thing.

However all of this is addressed in Section III of the Iowa state supreme court and the go to great length to show their jurisdiction in the case and state the justification for why such a case is to be heard from the court. For example they write "the very purpose of limiting the power of the elected branches
of government by constitutional provisions like the Equal Protection Clause
is "to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy,
to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish
them as legal principles to be applied by the courts."

One thing that makes our republican form of government so good is its ability to protect the minority over the majority.

Apparently the Iowa Constitution requires every ten years for voters to vote on having a Constitutional Convention where you guessed it Constitutional Amendments can be proposed and the voted on by the people without the requirement of the two consecutive assemblies. So when is the next vote on a Constitutional Convention required?

In 2010.