09/05/2007
Democratic Iowa Governor Chet Culver Supports Gay Marriage Ban
Although he believes a constitutional ban on gay marriage is unnecessary, Democratic Iowa Governor Chet Culver still says he doesn't believe that same-sex couples should have the right to marry. Rather than come down on District Judge Robert Hanson's ruling however, Culver says he'll wait to hear from a higher court:
"I respect the important role that the judicial branch plays in this issue and in many issues. I have said personally that I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I've been consistent on that. At the same time, I think it's important we let the judicial process work itself out here."
Culver says that Iowans should wait and see what the State Supreme Court has to say about the issue. Hanson issued the ruling striking down the state's gay marriage ban on Friday and then stayed his ruling shortly thereafter. But not before college students Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan were issued the state's only same-sex marriage license.
The Des Moines Register reports that "a final ruling in the case could take six months to two years or more."
Culver backs law banning gay marriage [des moines register]
Posted 12:15 PM EST by Andy Towle in Gay Marriage, Iowa, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Culver's got it right.
Civil unions are for same sex couples, because it's absurd to think a man and a man can marry. I support the equality gays seek, but marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 5, 2007 12:24:24 PM
Stephen...explain to me again why we should care what you think?
Posted by: scott | Sep 5, 2007 12:30:03 PM
Uh...are you reading that out of the Republican play book? How about we have equal institutions AND equal names. Why the separate term for same sex marriage when they're technically identical?
Posted by: scientitian | Sep 5, 2007 12:33:16 PM
Not so fast; a bit of a difference there in what two men do in a sexual union versus what a man and a woman have the potential to create. Therein lies a magnificent distinction. An intrinsic part of marriage is pro-creation.
I support all the rights gays seek, but through a civil union, domestic partnership or fruit loops law.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 5, 2007 12:40:16 PM
Stephen, you sound hot. Wanna meet me in the airport bathroom? Just tap your foot three times.
Posted by: crispy | Sep 5, 2007 12:44:50 PM
LOL Crispy!
Posted by: the queen | Sep 5, 2007 12:55:09 PM
so Stephen...should men and women past child bearing age (let's be generous and say both the man and woman are 50+) be allowed to get married? Or should they too be relegated to the "fruit loop" law? What about young couples who for whatever reason can't conceive? Should all couples seeking fertilization services get "fruit looped"?
Posted by: scott | Sep 5, 2007 12:55:10 PM
Stephen, I'm sensing you have a deep seeded desire to visit tea rooms. Don't forget to bring a piece of paper to "drop on the floor" while your sending your "signals."
Posted by: Robert In WeHo | Sep 5, 2007 1:03:53 PM
stephie, what you don't know could fill a box of Froot Loops. thanks for the overly oversimplification of human sexuality. welcome to 2007 where marriage and pro-creation are now mutually exclusive. sexual surrogacy, test-tubes, petri dishes, infertile couples, adoption, cloning, etc. also, take a basic course in human anthropology to know that pro-creation anteceded marriage by thousands of years. and you pretty much negate your saying you support gay rights by referring pejoratively to the adherement of said rights as "fruit loops law." pro-creation is no longer an instrinsic part of marriage. filing a joint tax return is. now scurry back to your darkened corner and take a nice juicy bite of Larry Craig's ass.
Posted by: sean | Sep 5, 2007 1:04:37 PM
I think that all heterosexual couples who do not produce offspring within 5 years after their wedding should be forced to divorce. Further, infertile people of either sex should be banned from marriage.
If the point of marriage is procreation, then we should be consistent with that. But is procreation isn't the point, then we should stop using that lame argument to continue some stupid bias.
Posted by: Brian | Sep 5, 2007 1:10:04 PM
FOR GOD'S SAKE PLEASE DO NOT ENGAGE THE TROLL STEPHEN IN THIS DISCUSSION!
He has been exposed as a straight troll from the Focus on the Family stables. You will not influence him with statistics, facts or reason. He doesn't base his opinions on any of those things. Trust me MANY have tried to challenge him with fact over the last year but he just comes back, over and over, like a broken record to sing the same song.
Pity Stephen's ignorance and his desparation; it must suck to realize that the next generation overwhelmingly rejects your outdated thinking and that marriage equality, no matter how much you whine and stomp your foot, is inevitable.
Be amused by his burning need to troll gay websites like Larry Craig trolling a bathroom stall. But for god's sake please don't feed him.
As for Culver, here's the translation of what he's saying, "I believe in the judicial system and I'm going to give them another chance to get it right ("right" being in accordance with Culver's position). If they don't change the ruling to reflect his opinion, then he will support an amendment to enforce his opinion.
The bottom line here. If the court can't find a legal and constitutional way to deny rights to gay and lesbian people then he will use majority rule to change the law and the constitution.
What an ass!
Posted by: Zeke | Sep 5, 2007 1:15:29 PM
Guys, guys! Why bother responding to Stephen's persistent smell? He's just a shit stirrer for shit stirring's sake. Zeke has verified that he's a straight [or closeted] Right Winger who just keeps showing up along Towleroad spraying his stink.
Since we can't piss on him in person, do the next best thing: ignore him unless you want to keep playing his fool.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 5, 2007 1:19:27 PM
Good for you, Zeke! Sorry our posts crossed in the ether zone.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 5, 2007 1:21:09 PM
I suggest since governments not churches provide marriage licenses that they instead force churches to police the unions they favour, and that church-marriages be renamed "procreation pacts" so that everyone understands the difference....
Posted by: Mike | Sep 5, 2007 1:21:52 PM
sorry leland but it doesn't cost me a thing to rip someone a new asshole. i relish the opportunity. ignore - no. bash brains in - yes.
Posted by: sean | Sep 5, 2007 1:41:05 PM
Minor correction: Tim and Sean were not the only gay couple issued a license - apparently there were about 20 more issued. But Tim and Sean were the only ones married before the stay was put in place.
Posted by: PistolPetey | Sep 5, 2007 1:58:14 PM
Not only are many mis-guided, they are, at times, flat out wrong!
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 5, 2007 2:05:42 PM
Actually, Sean, I'm all for your or anyone else ripping Stephen a new asshole [yes, that's redundant] figuratively or literally, though, again, ignoring him would hurt him far more.
I should have made more clear I was speaking about those who try to reason with him, etc.
Cheers.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 5, 2007 2:11:54 PM
I'm going to assume that Ohio, like other states will not rescind official acts merely owing to "inevitability" and the one marriage will remain valid, though I foresee legal challenges in that direction.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Sep 5, 2007 2:18:31 PM
Normally I would not see the point of responding to nasty posts, but Stephen is really starting to get on my nerves.
First of all Stephen, civil unions do not cover all of the rights and benefits that marriage does, and companies can deny benefits to same sex partners by finding some loophole in civil unions, and I can give an example to support this. Earlier this year in New Jersey, UPS stated that because New Jersey had a civil unions law and not a Marriage law that it could deny marriage benefits to its same-sex partners. If the United States had civil unions rather than marriage, how do you know that many other companies and corporations would not try to pull the same thing?
Secondly, it is not an intristic part of every heterosexual marriage to "pro-create". If the woman is sterile and cannot conceive, then they would have to adopt, what would you say to that?
Normally I do not see the point to respond to disgusting anti-gay bigots like Stephen, but I could not help to respond to this. Referring to laws allowing same sex partners to marry as a "fruit-loop law". It just exposes Stephen as the disgusting homophobic jerk that he is.
(p.s. How much is the Bush administration paying you for this Stephen?)
Posted by: matthew | Sep 5, 2007 2:19:46 PM
I think marriage should be for everyone or for nobody. How dare government officials speak for the gay community.
Stephen is what we in Ireland would call a little bollix - ignore him.
Posted by: Sean R | Sep 5, 2007 2:36:14 PM
I find it interesting that no one has pointed out that Culver is a Democrat in their commentary on this issue. I'm fairly certain that had he been a Republican there would have been hundreds of posts about how awful he is and how he espouses the hateful Republican blah-de-blah. Why not take Culver to task as you would a Republican governor?
Posted by: Kamasutra Jones | Sep 5, 2007 2:47:19 PM
Matthew:
It IS an intrinsic part of the sexual union between a man and a woman that a new life will be born (that is of course, barring any contraception/health/age issues).
Hence, there will always be a differnece in the mating of the sexes.
Secondly, if Congress wanted to enact a federal civil union law to provide benefits to long-term, same sex couples, they could do so (Much like the federal ADA law, in which Congress provided for handicap individuals on a federal level).
You and the many others continue to bang the "it must be called marriage" drum, when you KNOW that a federal civil union law could provide the same, so quit yer' bitchin'.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 5, 2007 2:58:46 PM
Matthew, Stephen conveniently chose to ignore the separate but equal issue (the New Jersey case) that you mentioned.
Don't bother arguing with him. He's not working from an evidence-based system. He's working from a faith-based system that won't change no matter what the facts show. People like that are so entrenched in their own (or their pastor's) beliefs that they often can't even see the absurdity of their argument. Don't even try. Just know that the majority of young people believe in fairness and equality. All we have to do is wait for people like him to die.
Posted by: Brian | Sep 5, 2007 3:07:55 PM
Brian:
FYI, The UPS issue is a blip on the radar screen given what I've written regarding Congress enacting a federal civil union law. Hence, no need to address it.
BTW, interesting last sentence there; do you hold in your hands the Book of Death?
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 5, 2007 3:29:01 PM