By Emily Geiger

I wasn’t sure I quite understood all that’s in this decision, so I had to talk to an attorney friend of mine and made him read it too. Here’s what we came up with.

As background, it is important to know that the trial court in the case of Schott v. Schott had ruled that it could not decide on the issue of custody and visitation for children of a separating lesbian couple because it thought that the adoption by the same-sex partner of the other same-sex partner’s children was invalid under Iowa law. Generally, adoption severs ties with both biological (or legal) parents unless the adoption can be considered a step-parent adoption, for which there are special statutory definitions and provisions that allow one biological (or legal) parent to retain his or her rights to the child in question when that legal parent’s SPOUSE is the person seeking to adopt the child.

Essentially, the Supreme Court said that trial court was wrong to question the other trial court that approved the adoption. The Supreme Court said that the adoption was valid because Iowa trial courts are courts of general jurisdiction that can decide adoption cases (even if they are wrongly decided). It went on to say that the trial court in this case was also wrong to say that it did not have jurisdiction to decide custody and visitation now because Iowa trial courts are courts of general jurisdiction with the power to decide custody and visitation cases. Basically, since the adoption represented a final decree of a court, that final decree could not be disturbed by another court.

When I read this, I though for sure the Supreme Court was going to say that adoption by a gay partner of another gay partner’s child was going to be allowed in Iowa. But then, the decision actually says, “We need not decide whether second parent adoptions [the gay equivalent to step-parent adoptions] are permissible in Iowa for purposes of this appeal. Even if the district court who issued the adoption decrees misinterpreted Iowa’s adoption statute, the adoptions are not void.”

So basically, the Supreme Court copped out of deciding whether or not these “second parent” (i.e. gay step-parent) adoptions are legal in Iowa. At first, you might think that’s a good thing if you are of the mindset that this would be another step on the road to gay marriage. At least the Court didn’t openly validate such adoptions. But it also did not prohibit them, which means that trial courts can go ahead and issue these adoptions. So if you pick the right judge in the right county, you can get your gay step-parent adoption, even though this violates the Iowa Code sections on adoption. And because the Supreme Court said that these adoptions can’t be challenged by outside parties in separate court actions, it will be very hard to challenge the practice of certain judges granting these “second parent” adoptions.

So what does all this mean in the grand scheme of things as it relates to the gay marriage debate?

Well, this decision was not as enlightening as I thought it might be. The one thing I think is telling is the fact that the Supreme Court could have openly ratified or nullified these adoptions, and specifically chose not to do so. I think the justices are playing coy, knowing that they might tip their hand on the pending case challenging the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act. If they  in any way appeared to be condoning any aspect of gay marriage in today’s decision, that would fuel the fire of those seeking a marriage amendment and spur Republican legislators to try to get the first legislative votes in the amendment process completed this legislative session.

When you look beneath the surface and examine the VERY CAREFUL wording used, I get suspicious. With this decision, the Court allows gay step-parent adoptions to take place in Iowa, and they provide enough ambiguity as to their leanings on gay marriage issues so as to not stoke the flames of the anti-gay marriage crowd.

That paves the way for Dems to push their “wait and see” arguments for postponing the initiation of the amendment process until after this legislative session concludes. Then the Court can issue their decision on the Defense of Marriage Act once all the legislators are gone, and it will be too late to do anything about it this year. Assuming they’ll agree with Judge Hansen, because of the length of the amendment process, that means we’ll have gay marriage taking place and becoming part of the social fabric of our state for at least three years before we can do anything about it.

Just remember what your mom told you… you can’t un-ring a bell. Once we have gay marriage in this state, I’m afraid it will be here to stay.

This story made my day. Some might call it karma. Some might say you reap what you sow. The Clinton campaign is upset at reports that certain culinary union official have been over-zealous, or even using “bully” tactics to force other culinary union members to sign pledge card indicating they will caucus for Barack Obama.

Please read the following in the context of the dripping sarcasm with which it is intended: What! Unions bullying their members to support a certain Democratic candidate? No! Never! How completely unfair! I can’t believe that unions would do such a thing. (End sarcasm).

Hillary, welcome to our Republican world! We’ve been dealing with this for decades. Unions are notorious for sending their members out to do campaign work (and paying them to do it). They door knock (for money). They flier entire neighborhoods (for money). They make phone calls (for money). They intimidate (for money). Kinda seems unfair, huh?

How ironic that the tactics that helped get Bill elected are coming back to bite Hillary in the hiney. Payback’s a … well, you know.

This made me laugh. It's interesting to see how Mitt and company react when they are called out on their lies... with accusations of unprofessionalism. Classy, very classy.

See it here:

A friend notified me that the Iowa Supreme Court is coming out with a decision in a case tomorrow that could give insight as to how the justices will view the gay marriage case (first decided by Polk County Judge Robert Hansen) that is also awaiting a decision.

The case coming out tomorrow deals with two lesbian partners who split up, and one of them filed for custody rights to the children she had somehow adopted. It sounds like they want this type of situation to be considered in a similar fashion as step-parent adoptions. Here is how the Iowa Courts website summarizes the case:

Schott v. Schott

General case description: Heather Joye Schott, who was involved in a same-sex relationship with Jamie Schott, appeals from a district court decision determining it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and therefore dismissing her petition for determination of custody, child support, and visitation. Heather argues the district court erred in ruling it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Heather asserts her adoptions of the two children were second-parent adoptions, the court should interpret Iowa Code section 600.13(4) to include second-parent adoptions, and recognition of subject-matter jurisdiction would be in the best interests of the children.

Check back tomorrow for more details on the ruling.

Everyone in the “elite” wing of the party still seems flabbergasted as to why people like (and vote for) Mike Huckabee, and Rush Limbaugh has led the way. He’s coined the phrase “identity politics” to describe Huckabee, claiming that it’s only Huckabee’s personality that attracts his voters. (Apparently social conservatives are too stupid to have checked out Huckabee’s positions on the issues.)

The reason Rush doesn’t get it is because he doesn’t understand the concept of authenticity. Huck has it and Rush doesn’t. Though Rush claims to be conservative, both fiscally and socially, we all know Rush hasn’t exactly lived a socially conservative life.

Let’s see… he’s now disposed of wife #3 (I guess that’s something he and Giuliani have in common). He only managed to stay married to wife #1 for three years before she saw the light and gave him the boot. In 1983, when he was 32, he snagged wife #2, who was a college student and “usherette” for the Kansas City Royals. Just a guess, but I’m thinking it wasn’t her huge brain that first caught el Rushbo’s attention. That one lasted seven years, so give him bonus points for improvement. Then, in 1994, when he was 43, he married a 35 year old aerobics instructor… once again, I’m guessing they had lots in common, till he dumped her 10 years later.

And of course, there’s the tiny issue of the illegal prescription drug addiction/rehab. I know that can happen to even good people, but along with Mr. Limbaugh’s other lapses in judgment, I think I’m seeing a pattern here. Oh, and there’s his nasty little tobacco addiction as well (though he likes to refer to his “formerly nicotine-stained fingers,” he still has a wicked stogie fixation).

Oh, and now that he’s divorced again, he likes to refer to his girlfriends as his mistresses (and this is plural on purpose). Note to “mistresses”: grow some self-respect and dump the guy who refers to you as his mistresses.

None of this is new information, but it begs the question: why do we care what a guy like this tells us is the definition of “conservative?” With a track record like this, he wouldn’t know a true social conservative if he ran over one with his golf cart. And with a track record like this, it’s pretty apparent that finding an authentic social conservative candidate isn’t too high on his priority list.

Note to social conservatives: Rush isn’t one of us. His goals aren’t the same as ours, and therefore his candidate preference will not be the same as ours. Keep that in mind when he’s talking about how Mike Huckabee raised taxes $500 million (and ignoring the fact that Mittens raised “fees” in Massachusetts $700 million).