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.
lol... yawn...
Fundamentalist Christianists are so boring.
Posted by: Brian | Sep 5, 2007 3:42:28 PM
Brian, thank-you for your support. I appreciate it.
Stephen, once again you conveniently avoid the issue. The issue is the UPS case is an example of corporations and companies all over the country that could potentially try to follow UPS's example if civil unions were to be enacted over marriage in the United States. Who's to say that many companies and corporations could try to say well, "we would give marriage benefits to same sex couples, but because civil unions aren't marriage, we technically cannot do so". So Stephen you are wrong when you say the UPS case is simply a blip on the radar screen. It is an example of what could potentially happen if civil unions preside over marriage for same-sex couples.
Incidentially Stephen, to quote your rude and arogant wording, I will "quit bitchin" as soon as you read up on your facts and actually respond to the issues--JERK.
Posted by: matthew | Sep 5, 2007 3:44:57 PM
I just love the smell of desparation in the air.
Maybe STEPHEN could try to patent his scent and sell it to Glade or Fabreeze.
Posted by: Zeke | Sep 5, 2007 3:49:33 PM
You can always depend on Stephen to come back like Rasputin whenever the subject of gay marriage comes up. His arguements never change, they never get any better, they never convince anyone and he will never change his opinion. He's a happy second class citizen and that's what he wants to be. The back of the bus is fine with him and I say he's welcome to it.
Posted by: db | Sep 5, 2007 3:49:38 PM
Make that "desperation". Either way you spell it, it smells the same; desperate.
Posted by: Zeke | Sep 5, 2007 3:52:29 PM
Sorry DB, you would be wrong.
STEPHEN is not a second class citizen. Although he tried to hide the fact for a long time while trolling at Towleroad, the fact of the matter is STEPHEN is straight, or at the very least deeply closeted (think Larry Craig).
He is feverishly trolling to keep US in a second class position while he enjoys the benefits of first class status.
Posted by: Zeke | Sep 5, 2007 3:58:22 PM
Matthew:
NEWSFLASH
"Congress enacts law equating civil unions for same sex couples to marriage as it is for heterosexuals. All of corporate America must comply by 20xx."
UPS becomes a blip on the radar screen under that law. I won't compete with your ignorance and arrogance further.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 5, 2007 4:12:13 PM
DB:
Arguments built on solid foundation don't have to change.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 5, 2007 4:14:17 PM
And newsflash to you, Stephen, "Congress enacts law equating civil unions for same sex couples to marriage as it is for heterosexuals" would have a snowball's chance in hell of EVER getting through Congress. Why? The language speaks for itself; it equates civil unions and marriage. That is exactly what people who only support civil unions for gays do NOT want; they want clearly designated distinctions between the two.
Essentially, your little legislative act just calls civil unions marriages...so your logic about why you are against gay marriage is a little bit confusing.
Posted by: tom | Sep 5, 2007 5:52:11 PM
Stephen:
Arguments built upon homophobia and bigotry never change.
While we are on that subject, exactly where did you get the quote "congress enacts law equating civil unions for same sex couples to marriage as it is for heterosexuals. All of corporate America must comply by 20xx." Congress on the federal level has never, repeat, never enacted any such policy, nor has it even gone near any words to that effect. In fact, currently the only states that even have civil unions are New Jersey, Vermont, and starting next year New Hampshire. I believe there is another state with civil unions, but which state eludes me at the moment. Massachusetts is still the only state with gay marriage, and much to your disappointment I'm sure Stephen, Massachusetts has not collapsed or been engulfed in a ball of fire because of gay marriage. My argument about the UPS controversy was if UPS can try to challenge the civil unions in New Jersey, who is to say that other companies would try to follow suit, no matter how strongly a congressional law for civil unions would force these companies to give same sex couples benefits. Many Corporations could still potentially find loopholes around the potential civil union law on the federal level. You can argue that UPS is a insignificant all you want, but it points to the fact that there are many problems and loopholes with civil unions, whether you choose to see it or not.
As far as calling me ignorant and arrogant Stephen, who would know more about ignorance and arrogance better than you.
Posted by: matthew | Sep 5, 2007 7:07:06 PM
Stephen is straight--aaah--in that case he no longer makes me sad for him. Stephen's just a bigot, not a self loathing bigot.
Posted by: DB | Sep 5, 2007 8:12:43 PM
Stephen,
"Arguments built on solid foundation don't have to change."
What does that have to do with yours?
Posted by: db | Sep 5, 2007 8:13:51 PM
And the Democratic party sells us all up the river again. Queer revolution, anyone?
Posted by: Lia | Sep 5, 2007 11:35:23 PM
I'm a big fan of striking the word "marriage" from all civil documents. If it's a religious institution, why the fuck is the government overseeing it? Gays and straights should have civil unions through the government and if they want religious weddings, they may do so through religious institutions.
There, equality for all and the sanctity of marriage is highlighted for its absurd position in our society.
Posted by: Iko | Sep 5, 2007 11:50:08 PM
Not so suprising.
This story has been unfolding for several years, and the highpoints are:
The Democrats, Bill Clinton in the fore, rammed DOMA and DADT through Congress to appeal to bigot churches.
The Republicans (Bush excepted) are not as stupid as they look and seized the opportunity this gave them to use Clintons laws as a precedent to solicit the collusion of bigot churches in a campaign to pull the bigot vote.
Rove sweetened the pot with bribes, in the form of handouts to ‘faith (read superstitious-bigot) based’ groups.
First among these were the roman catholic cult, the southern baptists, aka KKK, and the lds church. Then the Republicans, guided by Bushbrain Rove, went after susceptible African-American churches, Latino evangelistas, Jewish ultra-orthodox leaders, and the neo-fascist slavic immigrant churches, gathering in a few churches from each group.
These bigot groups were rewarded for their work during the 2004 campaing in February of 2006 when Bush put his signature on a law giving 500 million dollars to superstition-based groups who oppose same-sex marriage.
Usually the story is about how the Republicans shrewdly use Clintons antigay bigot laws against the Democrats.
But this is a another reminder of how DOMA got started, and who supports it today, ie., the leaders of the Democrat/Republican Party, or if you prefer, the Republican/Democrat Party.
Posted by: Bill Perdue | Sep 6, 2007 4:26:27 AM
I will keep it very simple...
If you don't like gay marriage,
then please spare us all...
and don't get one.
Posted by: Jordan Statz | Aug 6, 2009 6:12:07 PM