That crazy, left-wing Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled today that Iowa's statutory ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. The ruling is available here and is worth a read.
In short, the Court found that government couldn't provide a single legitimate reason to deny homosexual couples the right to marry that wasn't either completely arbitrary or blatantly illogical.
Amen to that perspective.
Gays and lesbians are in the same position that women were 100 years ago, or where African-Americans were just a few generations ago. For the old, clueless white guys of the GOP to stand in the proverbial schoolhouse door on this issue is to show how fundamentally the GOP fails to understand the mindset of younger voters.
The only reason marriage amendments pass with comfortable margins is because of the lopsided support of voters over the age of 65 - you know, the ones who called minorities "colored people" and shooed them to their own drinking fountains.
The future of the Republican Party is built around economic and fiscal responsibility, limited government, and social tolerance. If the Bible-thumping faction within the party thinks that somehow younger voters will change their minds on this issue as they get older, they're sorely mistaken - as is any elected official who buys into their crusade. In a generation or two, opposing equal rights for gays and lesbians will seem about as outmoded and antiquated as opposing them for women and African-Americans seems now.
We can't get there soon enough.
In short, the Court found that government couldn't provide a single legitimate reason to deny homosexual couples the right to marry that wasn't either completely arbitrary or blatantly illogical.
It is also refreshing to see a quote from a Republican who actually gets how inconsequential this issue is to most Republicans. Said House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen, "We have two jobs in the legislature this year: help put Iowans back to work and pass a balanced budget. Those are our primary jobs. To the extent we get something else done on the side, I'm fine with that."
Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution. This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective. Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.
Amen to that perspective.
Gays and lesbians are in the same position that women were 100 years ago, or where African-Americans were just a few generations ago. For the old, clueless white guys of the GOP to stand in the proverbial schoolhouse door on this issue is to show how fundamentally the GOP fails to understand the mindset of younger voters.
The only reason marriage amendments pass with comfortable margins is because of the lopsided support of voters over the age of 65 - you know, the ones who called minorities "colored people" and shooed them to their own drinking fountains.
The future of the Republican Party is built around economic and fiscal responsibility, limited government, and social tolerance. If the Bible-thumping faction within the party thinks that somehow younger voters will change their minds on this issue as they get older, they're sorely mistaken - as is any elected official who buys into their crusade. In a generation or two, opposing equal rights for gays and lesbians will seem about as outmoded and antiquated as opposing them for women and African-Americans seems now.
We can't get there soon enough.
10 comments:
For the record, 5 of the 7 Supreme Court Justices from "Crazy, Left-Wing" Iowa were appointed by Governors Culver or Vilsack (both Democrats). Iowa has also voted Democratic in 5 of the last 6 Presidential Elections.
Regardless of whether one agrees with the decision, it features many of the hallmarks of a judicial activist opinion: frequent references to the non-binding opinions of other jurisdictions (with scant reference to conflicting opinions), and the belief in the notion of a "living Constitution" detached from permanence.
This decision is why - as the Court repeatedly notes - 42 non-Iowan states amended their Constitutions rather than passing laws on this subject. Had Iowa passed an Amendment rather than a Statute, their Supreme Court could not decide that their Constitutional amendment goes against their Constitution.
It's about time. Hooray for Iowa - now what is wrong with WI? It really is embarassing.
Either allow gay people to marry, with all the legal benefits and obligations that go with marriage, or abolish marriage as a legal institution and let it remain as a religious observation only.
Every single "objection" to gay marriage boil down to this: we think it's icky. And/or: our religion condemns homosexual behavior. Neither of those is a legitimate reason to deny persons equal protection and equal treatment under the law.
The only possibly defensible objection to gay marriage is that the state has an interest in promoting marriage for people who plan to be parents. This is easily defeated as b.s. for many reasons, including that marriage proponents don't seek to require folks to plan on becoming parents in order to marry, and marriage is not forbidden to the sterile or post-menopausal. Parents are not required to stay married, either.
Further, gay people who ARE parents raise children that are demonstrably as successful in every measurable quality as children raised by straight parents.
Seriously, WI: this will be an historical embarassment.
The concepts of due process and equal protection have been part of the Constitution for generations. Was it judicially activist for courts to begin ruling that those principles also applied to women and minorities? They most certainly did not apply to everyone in practice when they were authored.
Furthermore, should an amendment process start, it will be interesting to see whether those who pursue such a crusade will try to withstand the due process and equal protection provisions of the Iowa Constitution as a part of their argument. Otherwise, even in passing a ban on gay marriage, you would have two parts of the Constitution essentially in conflict with one another, and that would still put the whole affair back in the hands of the courts.
I will say that I find the notion of a majority - any majority - trying to suspend certain constitutional protections for minority populations a somewhat terrifying road to traverse.
While the opinion was hardly revolutionary, I think it did a good job in establishing that, at least in terms of the arguments made by the plaintiff, those arguments were all highly arbitrary and often lacked any internal logic (e.g. if marriage is defined by its procreative nature, should we required couples who sign marriage licenses to attempt to have children?)
I'm totally okay with churches doing whatever they want. But marriage to government is nothing more or nothing less than a legal contract, and it never should have been in the first place.
Let consenting adults form civil unions, and get government out of the business of defining marriage in the first place. In a secular state, there is no legitimate interest in denying the right to marry to homosexuals - at least that I've seen. It's either based on "we believe it's morally wrong" (subjective) or "it's bad for kids" (inaccurate). And while many actions that are perceived as morally wrong are illegal, they almost always involve harm done to another individual without that individual's consent.
Although I agree with the court's decision, I was a little troubled by the tone the decision assumed very early on:
"This lawsuit is a civil rights action by twelve individuals who reside in six communities across Iowa. Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities. They include a nurse, business manager, insurance analyst, bank agent, stay-at-home parent, church organist and piano teacher, museum director, federal employee, social worker, teacher, and two retired teachers. Like many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some are foster parents. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be
maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto."
If it was up to me, I would have written this decision to be as dry and impersonal as possible. Phrasing it the way the court did just feeds the "Judicial activism!" trolls. Maybe the actual substantive analysis within the decision IS dry and legalistic, but any court decision that's self-aware about making history makes me cringe. It's simply not helpful.
Could someone PLEASE explain "gay Republicans?"
I just don't get it. Maybe you can explain this strange and rare phenomenon, RS?
I think they must really hate themselves, especially to put money ahead of their humanness.
I think a gay Republican must be about as sick as freeper.
What do you do if you're homosexual but fiscally conservative? (Not that the GOP has been great on that issue, but go with me for a second.) You're basically stuck between a rock and a hard place. You hate Obama's economic agenda but at the same time hate the GOP position on gay rights.
I think that in the coming years, however, the GOP will become a more friendly environment for LGBT voters. Most of the Republicans I was involved with in college could give a rat's behind about what gays and lesbians do in their bedrooms, and that was 10 years ago. As we continue to dump older citizens out of the voting cohort and replace them with younger voters who are generally either supportive of gay marriage or just apathetic to the issue, the GOP will change gradually too. Heck, Michael Steele sticks to a 10th Amendment position on the issue, and Jon Huntsman, the Republican governor of Utah, openly backs civil unions for same-sex couples. Things are changing already.
Those southern Democrats didn't give up their racism very easily in the 50's and 60's either. Social change takes time. The reason gay marriage opponents are so vocal is because they know that with every passing day, they're losing a little bit more.
Those southern Dems weren't really Dems; they were Dems only in name.
And I think I would put my happiness and a lot of other things ahead of money any day of the week. BTW, I'm not some flaky flower child (with a trust fund).
I still think that a gay Republican is a freakish thing. The Dems are much more open than the GOP any day of the week, IMHO.
To paraphrase JC Watts' father: 'A gay voting Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders!
"Those southern Dems weren't really Dems; they were Dems only in name. "
Wouldn't we all like to say that those most unappealing members of our parties were not really one of us?
It doesn't change the fact that folks like George Wallace (and his millions of supporters in the South) were Democrats. Maybe they wouldn't be today, but they certainly were representative of where a lot of Democrats, particularly in the south, were at the time.
OK, RS.
"Wouldn't we all..."
Today's Republican base, found largely in the South, is still fighting the Civil War. Exhibit Number 1: The fight over the "stars and bars" on the state flags for those former members of the Confederacy.
I wouldn't hold out hope that any time in the near future those former Dixiecrats and their offspring will be kind hearted enough to offer what many call "special rights to homosexuals" any more than they were/are to African-Americans.
Looks like Sarah Palin and her ilk are the "future of the Republicans.
Dream on.
Anony 4:40, you obviously know very little about the history of the Democratic party.
Do a little reading on their positions around the time of Lincoln.
Post a Comment