RECENT  POSTS:  » What most people aren't getting about the fake non-troversies of the anti-gay right » 'Weekly Standard' asst. editor equates Tim Cook with man who pits God against him » Michigan pastors make unfortunate lifestyle choice; say they'll go to jail rather than not discriminate » PFOX's Quinlan says SBC leader's opposition to 'reparative therapy' is cruel » That Idaho wedding venue posts new 'rules and regulations'; will still perform non-Christian weddings » Another deceptive thing about NOM's duplicitous anti-Hagan ad » NOM trying to shape Arkansas politics without even learning state's abbreviation » Video: Focus on the Family staffer who calls homosexuality 'particularly evil lie of Satan' hangs out in Chicago's Boystown » Video: Another new NOM ad targets Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR); uses James O'Keefe video as source » What the heck is 'NOM Victory Fund'?  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

12/16/2008

Sioux City: Sue/Sue to be treated shitty?

by Jeremy Hooper

iowa-flagMarriage equality is currently being decided in the Iowa Supreme Court. But while we all await that body's binding legal ruling, local bodies are pushing for their own chance to ceremonially weigh in on the matter. Bodies like the Sioux City city council, where members are currently weighing a non-binding, non-nice, non-fair, nonsensical resolution that would put them on record as being opposed to fairness for same-sex couples:

Elected leaders in Sioux City, on a split vote Monday, delayed action on a controversial proposal to publicly oppose gay marriage.

Mayor Mike Hobart said he pushed for the delay to allow for advice from the state attorney general's office "on whether we have the jurisdiction and authority to pass the resolution," which was proposed by City Councilman Brent Hoffman.

Hoffman asked other council members to publicly to support the definition of traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Gay-marriage resolution in Sioux City is on hold [Des Moines Register]

It remains to be seen if the council will get the opportunity to record their biased stance for posterity's sake. But unless they enjoy looking unfortunate in the state's historical record, we would suggest that when it comes to marriage fairness, they should stay as silent as the "x" in their city's name.

**UPDATE, 12/15: Sioux City leaders delay action on anti-gay marriage resolution [Des Moines Register]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

UPDATE: From 365 Gay News:

(Sioux City, Iowa) A proposed resolution declaring marriage in Sioux City, Iowa, as a union between a man and woman has been tabled while city lawmakers try to determine if such a measure would even be legal.

Send / Share
Add Comment
Citizens on both sides of the gay marriage issue packed City Council chambers Monday night where debate on the resolution was to have been held. But before deputations were heard, the measure was tabled.
Councilman Dave Ferris, Mayor Mike Hobart, and Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Rixner voted to put the resolution on hold until the city can get a legal opinion from Iowa’s Attorney General.

Last week, the Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case by six same-sex couples seeking to have the state’s exclusion of gays from marriage overturned.

Rixner said the resolution could be illegal.

“I think that’s especially important both in finding out whether we’re acting with purview of our authority as well as whether we’re exposing ourselves to some possible litigation as a party to the lawsuits that develop over this issue,” Rixner told KCAU television.

Rixner, Hobart and Ferris also said the resolution was divisive, would serve no real purpose and would change no laws.

But Councilman Brent Hoffman, who first introduced the resolution, argued against tabling the measure.

“Some would argue that the resolution has no teeth because it’s merely affirming current national and state laws,” Hoffman said. “Well, you can’t then turn around and make a counterargument that even though it just affirms current national and state laws that it’s illegal or there are some grounds to challenge it on a legal basis.”

The state Supreme Court is not expected to rule on the constitutionality of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples until spring.

Posted by: LOrion | Dec 16, 2008 11:44:46 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails