 |
 |
Newlyweds Sean Fritz (left) and Tim McQuillan exchange vows in Polk County, Iowa on Aug. 31. (Photo by AP)
|
|
|
| | |
|
Court decisions are awaited in three other cases seeking marriage equality for same-sex couples.
California
What’s pending: Six cases at the state’s high court
What’s happened: After officials in San Francisco decide in February 2004 that withholding marriage licenses from same-sex couples violates the state constitution, they license and marry about 4,000 such couples. The state’s high court intervenes, ordering the licensing to stop while courts review the matter. Six cases are filed and gathered into one judicial proceeding. A trial court rules in March 2005 that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry.
An appeals court reverses that decision in October 2006. A decision is pending at the state’s high court.
Connecticut
What’s pending: Kerrigan v. State of Connecticut
What’s happened: Several same-sex couples are denied marriage licenses and file their case in August 2004. Soon thereafter, state lawmakers pass a law enacting civil unions. In a ruling against the couples in July 2006, the trial court judge says the couples are guaranteed “equal protection,” not “equivalent nomenclature.” The case is appealed directly to the state’s highest court. New arguments are made casting civil unions as an inadequate remedy. A decision is pending at the state’s high court.
Maryland
What’s pending: Conaway v. Deane
What’s happened: A group of gay and lesbian couples, along with a gay widower, sue in 2004 after they are denied marriage licenses. A trial court judge rules in January 2006 that excluding same-sex couples from marriage discriminates on the basis of sex. The state appeals the ruling to Maryland’s highest court. The Maryland Court of Appeals hears arguments in December 2006. The court’s seven judges appear divided in court on the issue and experts deem the outcome difficult to predict. A decision is pending at the state’s high court. |
|
| |
| |
|
|
| | |
HOME > NEWS > NATIONAL NEWS
By: JOSHUA LYNSEN COMMENTS
 
continued...
equality is possible everywhere, not just on the coasts.”
National repercussions?
Brackett said the ruling — arriving amidst the race to the White House — could reshape the national discussion.
“I definitely do believe that what happens here in Iowa will affect the presidential campaign,” she said. “I think this will push the campaigns closer to equality.”
But Clyde Wilcox, a government professor at Georgetown University, said candidates could have little to say about the case until the Iowa Supreme Court rules.
“If the state’s Supreme Court were to overturn the ban on marriage, it would be big news for everyone,” he said. “It would galvanize activists on both sides. It would be an easy issue for the GOP, since all of them oppose marriage, but it would divide Democrats.”
None of the three leading Democratic contenders support same-sex marriage.
Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York, Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina instead back civil unions that bear all the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska, two dark horse Democratic contenders, are the only candidates to support full marriage equality.
Wilcox said Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate, could be most affected by the ruling.
“If the Supreme Court overturns the judge’s ruling, then Clinton can have it both ways,” he said. “She appears to moderate voters to oppose marriage, but can still emphasize her support for civil unions. But if the state Supreme Court were to uphold the ruling, then that would be uncomfortable for her.”
Clinton briefly discussed the ruling while taping last week an appearance on “The Ellen DeGeneres Show.” She said the question of same-sex marriage should be left to the states.
“The states have always determined age of marriage, other conditions and over time we’ve gotten rid of a lot of discrimination that used to exist in marriage laws,” Clinton said. “That’s now happening. People are making decisions. Civil unions, marriage. They’re deciding in the states and I think that’s the appropriate place for that to be.”
Yet the very decision process Clinton praised could, Wilcox said, hurt her chances of winning Iowa.
He said if state voters are asked in November 2008 to approve an amendment defining marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, Republicans are likeliest to benefit.
“But Iowa is a funny state,” Wilcox said. “It has a strong Christian right tradition but also a strong progressive tradition of equality and fairness.”
|
