Students react to same-sex marriage law ruling, changes in Iowa, Vermont

Until recently, same-sex marriages were confined to the coasts and were only a distant reality in the Midwest. With the passage of California's Proposition 8, it looked like same-sex marriages were losing ground nationally.Then there was Iowa. On April 3, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage violated the state's constitution.

Because of the court's order, couples will be able to file for marriage licenses on April 27. Following a mandatory three-day waiting period, Iowa is expected issue its first same-sex marriage license by April 30.

Iowa isn't the only state reviewing its handling of same-sex marriages, though.

While the judicial system made the final decision in Iowa, Vermont legislators decided to follow a different path.

After Gov. Jim Douglas vetoed a bill allowing same-sex couples, the Vermont Senate overrode him by a vote of 23-5, followed by the House by a vote of 100-49. As a result of the legislation, Vermont's nine-year same-sex civil union law will be upgraded starting Sept. 1.

Iowa and Vermont will join only two other states - Massachusetts and Connecticut - in allowing same-sex people the right to marry. California had allowed same-sex marriages, but Proposition 8's passage last year resulted in the reversal to civil unions.

Several other states are beginning to face similar questions over the status of same-sex marriages. Lawmakers in New Hampshire, Maine, New York and New Jersey are all reviewing potential legislation.

UNO students - like the rest of the nation - have a variety of perspectives on the decisions to allow same-sex marriage, ranging from supportive to condemning.

Windy Rottenbucher, a social work major and member of the UNO student social group Queers and Allies, said she was excited with the progression of gay rights in Iowa.

"At first, I thought, 'Iowa, really?'" Rottenbucher said. "But, it's absolutely fantastic that they are leading the way."

The argument, Rottenbucher said, that the family structure will be threatened or damaged if same-sex couples are allowed to marry was the same one used to prevent women from voting.

"Same-sex marriage will not bring the hellfire of heaven; no one will turn into pigs," Rottenbucher said. "The family structure will be preserved."

Civil unions aren't enough for couples since it's just a form of "lip service," Rottenbucher said. The ability to marry ought to be considered a right.

A civil union, Rottenbucher said, doesn't allow you to adopt each other's children. It recognizes the couple as co-existing, not married. Rottenbucher compared this to the treatment of blacks before and during the civil rights movement.

"Separate but equal has never worked. Why would we expect it to work now?" Rottenbucher said. "By no means should you be placated with civil unions."

Kristin Phillips, a history major who is also member of Queers and Allies and former columnist for The Gateway, said that news of Iowa's same-sex marriage law was surprising, but exciting.

"Iowa has historically been represented for its traditional values," Phillips said.

Phillips said she didn't mind how the goal of gaining gay marriage rights came about, whether legislatively or judicially. However, legislation is a better way to send the message that same-sex marriage is what the majority of people want.

Chelsey Stearns, a criminal justice major, said she was shocked that Iowa - a state she described as conservative as Nebraska - would grant same-sex marriages.

"I would've wanted a state-wide vote though," Sterns said. "Leave it up to the people."

Theresa Faure, a chemistry major, said she was in favor of civil unions and didn't mind couples moving to Iowa to get married.

"I don't think it will be a bad thing," Faure said. "It might boost the economy."

Ben Mawhiney, a biology major, said he would like to be able to vote on the matter rather than have the ruling in the hands of the Iowa Supreme Court.

"We're not idiots," Mawhiney said. "We don't need them to decide."

Marriages, Mawhiney said, originated in the church and should be kept in the hands of church officials.

"It's fundamentally a Christian thing and should be kept out of a state decision," Mawhiney said.