Top Stories

Open letter to readers: Today and tomorrow

By Lynda Waddington | 11.17.11

Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.

ACS lockout continues; plan emerges to repeal sugar protections

crystal_sugar_80
By Virginia Chamlee | 11.15.11

A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.

Cain campaign: Farmers know more about regulations than EPA

hermancain_80x80
By Andrew Duffelmeyer | 11.15.11

The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.

Mathis wins, Democrats maintain Senate control

Liz Mathis
By Lynda Waddington | 11.08.11

The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.

Press Release

PR: Nation should work to address veterans’ challenges

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

BRUCE BRALEY RELEASE — As US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan ends, it’s more important than ever that our nation works to address the challenges faced by the men and women who fought there.

PR: Honoring veterans, help in hiring

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

CHUCK GRASSLEY RELEASE — A difficult job market is challenging the soldiers, sailors and airmen who have protected America’s interests by serving in the Armed Forces.

PR: In honor of America’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

TOM LATHAM RELEASE — No one has done more to secure the freedom enjoyed by every single American than our veterans and those currently serving in the armed services.

PR: Honoring and supporting our nation’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

DAVE LOEBSACK RELEASE — Veterans Day is an opportunity to reflect on the service of generations of veterans and to honor the sacrifices they and their families have made so that we may live in peace and freedom here at home.

Judge rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional

By Jimm Phillips | 07.09.10 | 7:58 am

A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled Thursday that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that the law, which bans federal recognition of same-sex marriages, violated the Constitution because it interfered with a state’s right to define what constitutes a legal marriage. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law in the midst of the 1996 presidential campaign season.

The ruling covered two separate cases in which gay couples had challenged the law in a Massachusetts court because while the state has recognized same-sex marriages since 1994, they were still denied federal benefits like Medicaid.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of the pro-gay marriage group Freedom to Marry, said he believed Tauro’s ruling was a historic blow to discrimination.

“Today’s ruling affirms what we have long known: federal discrimination enacted under DOMA is unconstitutional,” he said in a statement. “The decision will be appealed and litigation will continue.  But what we witnessed in the courtroom cannot be erased: federal marriage discrimination harms committed same-sex couples and their families for no good reason.”

Brian Brown, president of the anti-gay marriage group National Organization for Marriage, dragged Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan into the fray in his response to the ruling.

“Under the guidance of Elena Kagan’s brief that she filed when she was Solicitor General, Obama’s justice department deliberately sabotaged this case,” he said in a statement.

NOM Chair Maggie Gallagher suggested in the same statement that Tauro wanted to start another culture war.

“Does he really want another Roe. v. Wade?” she said. “The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy. Only an incompetent defense could have lost this case. We expect to win in a higher court.”

Comments

  • ConstitutionFan

    GALLAGHER: “The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy.”

    ******
    Clever, but not quite that simple. While Reynolds v. United States (1878) does implicitly rely on the premise that polygamy can be outlawed merely because it had long been thought “odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and… was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people”, I don't think any such bare defense of DOMA is tenable anymore in light of 20th Century cases like Loving v. Virginia (1967).

    For DOMA to survive Fifth Amendment scrutiny today, its supporters are going to have to marshal arguments stronger than their own perceived Ick Factor, and I think the judge in Massachusetts has already ably demolished all the lines of reasoning the homophobes might try.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Ejercito/1192560348 Michael Ejercito

      So why was the “ick factor” acceptable in 1878, but not now? None of the amendments ratified since then would have addressed the “ick factor”

      Loving did not overturn Reynolds, or Murphy v. Ramsey, or Davis v. Beason. In fact, in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, Justice Kennedy cited Davis,

      “[A]dverse impact will not always lead to a finding of impermissible targeting. For example, a social harm may have been a legitimate concern of government for reasons quite apart from discrimination. . . . See, e.g., . . . Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890)

  • MetalNick

    “Does he really want another Roe. v. Wade?” she said. “The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy. Only an incompetent defense could have lost this case. We expect to win in a higher court.”
    =============================

    Just because something has been around for a long time doesn't mean it's right. The assumption that the discrimination towards same-sex couples on the federal level is OK because the law has been “clear since the late 19th century” is a major logical fallacy. Logic, however, does not seem to work with the anti-homosexual crowd.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Ejercito/1192560348 Michael Ejercito

      Here is a quote from Murphy v. Ramsey:

      “Certainly no legislation can be supposed
      more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free,
      self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate
      states of the union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis
      of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing fr…om the union
      for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the
      sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the
      best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all
      beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this
      end, no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those
      provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political
      influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.”

      Baker v. Nelson does not apply to Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, since the case is not about the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, the rationale cited in Murphy is a constitutional rationale for upholding DOMA against an equal protection challenge.

Switch to our mobile site