11/03/09 WordinEdgewise, by law professor John Culhane:
Some thoughts are flying around up here, and I want to get them down and disseminated quickly ... I won’t go on about why the whole idea of marriage-in-all-but-name is unacceptable. It suffices to say that once one’s willing to grant all of the benefits but withhold the name, what is left is pure discrimination. If you have trouble seeing this, here’s a quick thought experiment: Imagine that the proposal were to call same-sex unions “marriages” but to rename opposite-sex unions “civil unions.” Acceptable? Q.E.D.However, the unique circumstances of states other than Washington - like Wisconsin - support a different way of understanding even comparatively minimal versions of domestic partnerships.
10/27/09 Sioux City Journal:
This article concerns the benefits married same-sex couples now enjoy in Iowa:"It was a real victory for us when we adopted these children.... We were treated equally, as if we were a heterosexual married couple," Jason Swaggerty-Morgan said. "Now that we got married, I have health care. That's a big deal. It could financially ruin our family if I were to have gotten sick and not have health care."
11/02/09 press release by One Iowa:
On April 3, 2009 the Iowa Supreme Court granted the freedom to marry to gay and lesbian couples in the state of Iowa. In the months since the ruling, hundreds of same-sex couples have married in the state. One Iowa, the statewide advocacy organization tasked with protecting this historic ruling, is hosting a series of public forums across the state designed to build public support for equality and share perspectives on the freedom to marry.