+1

Ironic and then some.

But if it is a states rights issue then doesn't the state have grounds to set the rules?

I had to get a permit/license from the government to get married. Which btw fwiw wasn't in a church.

That would make too much sense. It would kind of take care of this whole mess rather efficiently.

Iowa (Iowa for pete's sake!) already ruled that state law prohibiting same sex unions/marriage was invalid:

"Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

To issue any other decision, the justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty.""

California's Prop 8 ( 8 = hate ) was upheld because the complaint against it said it illegally amended the state constitution.

I think they were avoiding testing deeper waters to see if they could get it repealed this way.

States rights seem to fly based on the administration in charge at the federal level.

"Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

Its a for lack of better terms, its a behavior choice. What defines a civil union, do they have to be romatically involved or could I civil union one of my broke ass buddies to get ahead on my taxes or to get him benefits etc?

more like hump back mountain

Kinda' like an "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry" thing?

In the fairness to straight men I feel obliged to include a clip of Jessica Biel from that movie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk46dN0ffvg

Bless you RvW

BEEEEP