Wait, seriously?

That makes me so happy. I love the judicial branch.

(Yes, yes, insert caveats about changing constitutions and the steadily eroding power of the judiciary. I don't care. Happy.)

Just has to pass muster with the Iowa Supreme Court.

It's nice to see stuff like this happen occasionally.

But -- and I, as always speak for all gay people, everywhere, when I say -- it's even cooler to see straight people cheer it on.

It was such a non-issue here when it was passed. I think it made the news, but everyone (even the homophobes) just said "fair play!" No one here ever gets married for the insurance or the tax break because those things aren't even considerations. I think the idea had much less resistance for those reasons: there were no massive, (bloated, corrupt, evil) insurance companies lobbying against it.

"Just think of all the medical care we'd have to offer to GAY PEOPLE if they could form legal partnerships! Do have any idea what that demographic's medical bills are like? Senator, we are glad to continue to provide small mountains of cocaine and fresh young catamites for you every weekend, but you've got to play ball with us on this one..."

I mean, the UK might more enlightened on this issue, but I think it was just easier to allow people to get on with civil partnerships because the was no economic hit involved (and therefore no lobbyists fighting it).

/derail

Yay Iowa!

Oops, the judge stayed it until the ISC reviews it.