A same sex marriage first?

[Faithless]

Iowa high court to review lesbian divorce (http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=11214&sd=02/05/04)
The Iowa supreme court agreed Tuesday to review a divorce agreement granted to two lesbians who wanted to end the civil union they obtained in Vermont. U.S. representative Steve King, six state lawmakers, and the Church of Christ of Le Mars and its pastor sought the review. They hope to block the divorce, saying Iowa law does not recognize marriage between two women. The court's action effectively halts the divorce of Kimberly Jean Brown and Jennifer Sue Perez. The two women, from Sioux City, were granted a divorce by Woodbury County district court judge Jeffrey Neary on November 14. Neary said he didn't immediately notice the gender of the couple involved, but decided to let the decision stand because the U.S. Constitution requires states to recognize each other's laws. He later amended the decree to eliminate any reference to marriage and changed the wording to civil union.

The two women went to Vermont in March 2002 to take advantage of the state's civil union laws. Iowa "recognizes only a man and a woman in a marriage, and that would also mean that a judge could not dissolve a marriage between a same-sex couple," said state senator Neil Schuerer, one of the lawmakers challenging the divorce.

[Green_Circle]

This opens cans of worms. What about children being adopted and raised by lesbians or gay men. What's the correct way to navigate this stream?

[Faithless]

This opens cans of worms. What about children being adopted and raised by lesbians or gay men. What's the correct way to navigate this stream?
Maybe, not mixing metaphors. :confused:

[Emperor_Mike]

This opens cans of worms. What about children being adopted and raised by lesbians or gay men. What's the correct way to navigate this stream?

The same way the situation is to be dealt with in ordinary heterosexual unions. I don't see how the sexual preference of couples should in any way impede the regular legal proceedings which would take place in a situation like this. One thing about equal representation under the eyes of the law means that no particular class of individual should in theory receive special attention unless said attention is warranted by exceptional circumstances which render the party or parties in question a specific and recognised disadvantage. In the present case I do not see why regular divorce proceedings shouldn't continue, notwithstanding the status in Iowa not giving their nod to homosexual unions. However, if states within the federal union are compelled to acknowledge the laws of other states by virtue of the American Constitution, then the issue takes on a different form. I will not comment on this since I am not well versed in American Constitutional law.