Here is Andrew Sullivan's summary.

There are a few points that the court makes that strike directly at some of the bile that Keymaker likes to infer about homosexuals.

I agree with Andrew Sullivan that it is preferable for people to give equity to same-sex couples through the legislative process instead of the litigative process, but I love the way that the Iowa court spells the whole thing out in plain language and bases it in human rights.

Steve, is Steve in the house?
We need a par....well, you know!

Spelling it out in plain language... "highly resistance..."??

"Highly resistant to change" is an odd choice of term anyway, as it's clearly coined by someone who believes that sexual orientation is in some way susceptible to change from outside. I believe not. Discuss?

Some of you guys are just obsessed with homosexuality for some reason... so some people have same sex attractions - who cares?


Such as?


What "highly resistance to change"? What’s that, the first ever ungrammatical principle to form the basis of a judicial decision? Acceptance of the role of therapy is incompatible with marriage. What he conveniently forgot to mention though is that any such union wouldn’t be recognised in England except as a civil partnership.

As for human rights most of us in Europe achieved that for same sex partners some time ago without trashing the rights or religious sensibilities of other groups. By contrast you lot in the States have demonstrated time and time again that you’ve got no understanding of human rights whatsoever so I don’t think the rest of the world will be taking much notice of what some semi-literate judge in Iowa has to say about it.

km

That is pretty weasel-like right there. I guess the court did not want to write anything about homosexuality not being a choice into the case law, which might have made the decision not unanimous.

What is nice though is that it appears to be written from the point of view of a court that is in the process of understanding equality in regards to sexual orientation. They aren't totally there yet, but they are showing a path to their decision that is easy to follow.

This is hilarious set against what you have posted over the last year.

No, that's an error on the part of someone quoting the decision -- the decision itself [pdf] has correct grammar ...



Who is the "he" to which you refer? And why would he concern himself with wether or not Iowa state law was recognized in a foreign country?



Iowa Supreme Court = 7 justices, all of whom I have no doubt are at least as literate as you ...

Agreed - thanks for the pdf.

Justice Cady's is a well-reasoned judgment that relies on a central fallacy - that equal protection affords the right to an inappropriate word to achieve the same rights as are enjoyed by peers. One could use the same reasoning to insist that Phelps should henceforth be allowed to compete in the women's freestyle but in reality it would be a denial of the rights of persons currently entitled to enter the event.


Andrew whatever is name was... the reporter.


Because it has implications for Iowans travelling abroad. When most of us get married it's recognised all over the world. With one of these ones it would only be recognised by a local minority and wouldn't have universal acceptance.

km

The only clear and fair thing to do is to recognize marriage is an unnatural institution and abolish it once and for all.