About the Author: Matt
Matt, 22, is an LGBT journalist, activist and youth advocate currently living and working in Charlotte, N.C., where he serves as the Editor of Q-Notes, the Carolinas' LGBT news source. A native of Winston-Salem, N.C., Matt attended the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and is still continuing to pursue his bachelors degree. He is the Owner & Editor of InterstateQ.com and has been active in LGBT advocacy work since the age of 14.

View all posts by Matt

1. 7 Responses to “Iowa couples rush to marriage…”

2. Great! Just in time to get constitutional amendments on the ballots in Iowa and the surrounding states next year and to raise millions for the GOP. We allowed ourselves to be used to guarentee rebublicon victories in ‘00, ‘04, and even to a lesser extent in ‘06 - why should ‘08 be any different? Maybe we can get Nader on the ballot as well. These small victories are worthless if the wingnuts capture the White House again and continue to stack the SCOTUS against us. With even one more right-leaning appointment the advancement of gay rights will be stalled for a generation. This upcoming election is crutial and using a technicality-based decision that will be overturned when it gets to the Court of Appeals to get married does nothing but embolden and deepen the pockets of our opponents - it is both selfish and short-sighted. Besides that, I would not want to know that my marriage was based on a technicality. The case should have been continued until this time next year if not after the election.

   By Jim Walters on Aug 31, 2007

3. Jim… Thanks for your comments and I think you bring up a lot of valid points. I also think, however, that the majority of the “values voters” driven initiatives on marriage - both nationally and at a state level - have fizzled out.

   I think most states, where there isn’t an amendment yet, aren’t going to get one. The issue is a dead one for many people.

   But that is just my (hopeful, optimistic) opinion. Yours could be just as correct.

   By Matt on Aug 31, 2007

4. During the Right to Marry campaign I had the oppurtunity to speak with Evan Wolfson (www.freedomtomarry.org) and he highlighted a lot of interesting facts about the shape of marriage equality.

   2007 is not 2004. In 2004 we suffered a tremendous backlash with anti-marriage equality amendments sprining up all over the place (and passing by distrubing margins in some places). A Federal amendment was brought up and for awhile seemed like a looming option, but support for that has dispated.

   Last year we saw Arizona DEFEAT an anti-marriage amendment. Since the November elections in 2004, Washington adopted domestic partnerships, Connecticut added civil unions, and New Jersey now confers all marriage rights under the title “civil union” though the majority of voters would support changing that distinction to marriage.

   Beginning in 2008 Oregon will have domestic partnerships and New Hampshire will have civil unions.

   In 2007 a record number of pro-marriage equality bills were introduced into state legisltures in statehouses around the country.

   Marriage equality bills have passed state legislatures multiple times in California and most recently in New York. To date, no pro-marriage lawmaker has lost his or her seat due to support of marriage equality.

   The Democrats, who wouldn’t touch LGBT rights held a discussion on Logo. Support for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is basically non-existant amongst soldiers and civillians alike.

   And although full marriage equality exists in only one state, a large percentage (I want to say 30%) of LGBT people live in an area that affords them some type of recognition for their relationships.

   Do we have a far way to go? Absolutely. But the tides have already begun to change and as gay and lesbian families settle down in California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachussettes, New Hampshire, Vermont, Hawaii, and now Iowa … Americans around the country are beginning to understand just how ugly and unfounded discrimination is.

   Is the case closed? No. Are marriages in Iowa safe? Not yet. Do we need to ask for anything less than full equality under the law and ask for it now? Absolutely not!

   By Brian Murphy on Aug 31, 2007

5. UPDATE… The same judge who knocked down Iowa’s DOMA also issued a stay against his own ruling today… No more marriages in Iowa for right now…
   http://www.kcci.com/family/14020652/detail.html

   BUT… A gay couple, two college students, did get married this morning, before the stay was issued.
   http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/08/31/iowa.samesex.ap/index.html

   By Matt on Aug 31, 2007

6. Safety for marriage equality in Iowa is a non-starter. The decision will be overturned and the marriages that were officiated today will be invalidated. If the Roberts Court does agree to hear the inevitable appeal (which is doubtful) it will not be scheduled until around the time of the off-year elections in ‘09 at the earliest. More important is the safety of Senator Tom Harkin (D-Ia) who is rated among the Senate’s top 10 most vulnerable. Furthermore, electing a woman with the last name Clinton (yes, she will get the nomination) will be difficult enough without us and ours doing Karl’s job for him. A little pragmatism or even some semblance of a strategy would be so refreshing. Without it we can kiss our chance of capturing the White House and achieving a super-majority (the ultimate win) ‘Good-bye’. This is a game of chess, not checkers. We can demand equality now just as we can demand an immediate end to corporate welfare, privately funded elections, and the occupation of Iraq. None of those things are going to happen ‘now’. Each will take time, brilliant strategy and a heckuva PR campaign. We have to change minds on a grand scale if we are to gain and keep what is rightfully ours. That is simply the reality. I stand by my assertion - trying to win marriage equality in the lower courts at this time in history is reckless and Lamda Legal, etc. needs to cool it at least until the end of November of next year. Oh, and the federal ban on gay marriage will be back in play if the wingnuts recapture either house of Congress in ‘08 (the Blue Dogs would back it as well) and the Arizona win is hardly representative of a national trend, especially not in a state with an agriculturally-based economy like Iowa.

   By Jim Walters on Aug 31, 2007

7. One more thing - I may be old school, but I actually prefer ‘domestic partner’ or ‘civil union’. To call my BF, if we eventually decide to make a permanent arrangement, my ‘husband’ implies that I am his ‘wife’ and that is not cool. Isn’t the package the same without the bow? Thoughts?

   By Jim on Aug 31, 2007

8. Jim… as I said after your first comments, I do appreciate your thoughts and comments and I think you raise a lot of valid points. Your voice needs to be heard. When we hear voices from all sides of all issues, that is where we find balance.

   As for “marriage” or “civil union” or “domestic partner” or “BF” or “husband”… whatever… We know that our society places a HUGE value on “marriage.” We know from experience with New Jersey civil unions that those legal arrangements aren’t being recognized as equal to marriage in the society even the law itself says a civil union is as legally, statutorily, etc. equal in the eyes of the law with marriage relationships. Unfortunately, businesses and hospitals aren’t getting that message and continue to say civil unions are not “marriages” even though the law puts both legally recognized relationship statuses on the same legal plain.

   By Matt on Aug 31, 2007