Neither Ellen Degeneres nor Melissa Etheridge made much of an impact on California voters as they decided the fate of gay marriage. Perhaps it's because Americans are not so ignorant as to let out-of-touch celebrities decide the fate of the country. They needn't pat themselves on the back for Barack Obama's pending presidency either. Obama won in spite of celebrities and because of George Bush and a very poorly run McCain campaign.Republicans are willing to accept an Obama victory and a federal government chock-full of Democrats. Voters opposed to proposal eight in California would do well to follow suit. The majority has spoken. If you throw yourself on the ground and begin kicking and flailing your arms...you still lost. It's called democracy. The government and the media can't help you anymore than they can help Republicans retain John McCain for president.
27 comments:
So what is the big deal with gay marriage and how does it have an impact on the "institution" of marriage?
I see far too many heterosexual couples get married in a church under the eye of god, making all sorts of promises, only to get divorced later. That sure doesn't say much for the supposedly sacred nature of marriage. What is the divorce rate these days? And where does it say anything in the bible that gay people shouldn't be married anyway? I know quite a few gay couples that have been in a committed relationship far longer than most heterosexual married couples I know.
In fact, what does organized religion have against gay people in the first place? There are gay monkeys so does organized religion think they got that way by choice? Why can’t gay people get married and live a loving, caring life like anyone else? At least there would be no abortion worries!
Why is it organized religion has through the centuries attempted to force its narrow view of the world on mankind? Why can't those that choose organized religion practice it themselves and leave the rest of us alone?
You know all the arguments there are against gay marriage. I don't have to name even one of them. The most pro-homosexual state does not support it.
This isn't about sin or God, it's about laws... and the legislation wasn't supported in the exercise of democracy.
This is all I'm saying. It didn't pass. Get over it.
Hollywood and tantrums may not turn back 8 but the attorney general might. It is unsettling that sponsors of the bill want to undo marriages that were legal prior to the vote, essentially making the vote retroactive. That's a lot like changing the credit card interest rate on someone for purchased previously charged, no matter how long ago. What do you say to the couples that were legally married and with the standard covenent of "What God has joined let no man put assunder?"
Read on:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now urging the state Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.
In a dramatic reversal, Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters.
But Brown said he reached a different conclusion "upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution.
"It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52% vote."
Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, is considering seeking the office again in 2010. After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he personally voted against it but would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer.
He submitted his brief in one of the three legal challenges to Proposition 8 brought by same-sex marriage supporters. The measure, a constitutional amendment that passed with 52% of the vote, overruled the state Supreme Court decision last spring that briefly legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.
Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the attorney general's change of strategy "a major development."
"The fact that after looking at this he shifted his position and is really bucking convention by not defending Prop. 8 signals very clearly that this proposition can not be defended," Minter said.
The sponsors of Proposition 8 argued for the first time Friday that the court should undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters banned gay marriage at the ballot box last month.
The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.
"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and a former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.
Both Brown and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.
The state Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation in March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-19-calif-gay-marriage_N.htm
Good point. I can definitely understand why a reversal of something that was once law would upset those affected.
What is "cut and dry" to me is that a very liberal state clearly isn't in favor of same-sex marriage. So...that's it and that's all.
Their rights here on earth is between them and the government. Their relationship with God is with them and Him. I have no interest in getting in the middle of either.
But, I found them to be, for lack of a better phrase...sore losers.
Ultimately, the people have spoken. I believe they assumed they were gaining support and becoming more mainstream. The truth is, we're still traditional...despite what you see on television.
God is a dude?
Well, if the AG is backing down it just might change.
Frank Schubert, whose campaign for California’s Proposition 8 was widely regarded as misleading and designed to stir up homophobia, is now involved in a lawsuit to overturn state campaign finance laws that require public disclosure of donors who contribute more than $100 to state political campaigns. The lawsuit was caused by widespread antagonism toward donors to the anti-gay-rights campaign.
What makes this ironic is that Schubert defended this attempt to hide information by saying “we have nothing to hide here”.
I guess this goes with Schubert’s claim that he is not anti-gay because his sister is a lesbian.
...[marriage equality skeptics] believe that there is a difference between a union between two people of the same sex, and two people of different sexes. I can only say that, of course, there are some differences in those unions, some obvious, some not, but that those differences don’t need to be recognized by government in a way that changes our nomenclature for permanent romantic pairing.
And the point is: this is already the case with heterosexual marriages. Think of the diversity of lived experience that now exists within this civil institution in America. You have strict Catholic families with no divorce, no contraception and lots of kids in a very traditional fashion; you have childless yuppie couples, living in different cities; you have arranged marriages among some immigrant families; you have a newly married couple in their seventies; you have Larry King on his seventh and Dennis Prager on his third; you have Britney Spears' 55 hour special; you have teenage elopers and middle-aged divorcees; you have a middle class evangelical couple with three young kids and two working parents; you have George and Barbara Bush and Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher; you have open marriages which amount to sexual arrangements; and Mormon marriages whose sexual monogamy will continue physically after death.
Are people really saying that a lesbian couple of several decades falls outside the cultural range of these experiences? Civil marriage is already so broad in its inclusion of social types and practices that including gay couples will make virtually no difference at all. And this is the genius of civil marriage: it's a unifying, not balkanizing, civic institution. To argue that including gay couples destroys the institution is absurd.
And that is why the exclusion of gay people is not about securing marriage; it is about stigmatizing homosexuals, keeping a bright line between them and their own families and forcing them into a position of social exclusion that damages them and all of us. It is about prejudice and fear. And we will overcome both with time and patience and integrity.
I don't disagree with you that the lines of marriage has been blurred, disrespected and even shamed by the actions of recent generations.
As far as homosexual marriage, I don't take a strong stance. But, if the gayest state in the union says "no" than it's "no".
I don't condone nor condemn homosexuality. We'll all be judged at the end of our days. I'm certainly not going to take on the task.
Now, now...don't act like you don't care. Otherwise, why would you even begin a blog on the topic? It's difficult to be in the middle of condone or condem. Which is it? Agree or disagree?
I think to the religious right is is about "it is about stigmatizing homosexuals." Admit it. Tell the truth. Be honest and stand up for what you believe!!
I believe they lost. I believe they need to move past it. That's what my post is about, not the evils of homosexuality.
As of now, the states handle that decision.
I honestly don't care for the practice of homosexuality, but I truly don't condone or condemn it. It has little affect on my life. If it's truly a "sin", they will be judged...but not by me.
Where does anything say it is a sin? Nice how you once again dodge the question of condone or not condone. You should run for office - as a republican no less!
Guess I don't understand your original point since it sounded like a "nya, nya" towards gays and gay rights. Come on, admist it...that's really what the post was about wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more, you know what I mean...
It's saying "suck it up...you lost".
I don't agree with gay marriage, however I neither condemn or condone homosexuality. I do believe in God and if it is indeed a sin, it's up to Him to judge. That's my opinion. I think it's pretty clear.
So you have once again dodged the question of condone or condem. However, you said you don't agree with gay marriage but don't say why. Looks like I win. And who says there is a god that will JUDGE us. A god, yes, a judge? Religious myth meant to make us feal guilty and control the masses. Obviously works on some!
Bing! You should suck it up because I won!
Okay "Anonymous" you can win if you'd like.
I'm sorry I can't give you a firm statement on this, but I won't say something I don't believe.
At times, I feel sympathetic toward the gay community. How horrible would it be to have those feelings and live in shame?
I can't stand people who are gay because it's "hip" (aka bisexuals), but I know there is a group of folks who struggle greatly with their sexuality.
IF they are ashamed - the few that might be - it is because a society with a great deal of religious intolerance wants to control everything and paints them into a corner, making them fight for every right others take for granted, like having a commited, monogamous relationship acknowledged with marriage.
When all else fails, blame the Christians...
Bring it on. We can take it.
It's the only leg you think you have to stand on.
Sometimes we make decisions based on humanity, common sense, and principles. It's not all about religion.
I don't blame christians - I blame ALL organized religion. Do not try to bate me that way. Organized religion has been behind nearly every war in history and often behind this notion that being gay is a choice and it is bad if you are gay. Oh, and you're either gay or you're not - being bi is a choice.
Are you saying gay people make a decision to be gay?
Are you saying it is the humanist thing to do to exclude gays?
Are you saying it is common sense not to be gay??
What about monkeys or dolphin that demonstrate gay behavior. That isn't choice, that's nature. And who controls nature? Was it god? If that's the case, god made gay animals and people that way. If it's nature it is natural.
I suggest you do a little more reading and perhaps talk to a few gay people to better understand the big picture here. I've had an opportunity to do that and it has been eye-opening. But then again, I'm open minded and curious, unlike King George.
Gay people are people too, just like you and me. Read on:
Don George wants to work towards civil unions laws and marriage equality:
If we pursue marriage as the sole vehicle to achieve the 1100+ federal rights and benefits for our relationships (the ones that come with opposite sex marriage), we will effectively be throwing gay couples who live in the 30 states with constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex marriage overboard. When everyone else gets marriage benefits, gay people who live in these 30 states will be left behind and get absolutely nothing. They will also have no hope of getting these benefits or protections for their relationships for a very, very long time.
I was unaware this was an either-or situation. And, in fact, the fight for marriage rights has made civil unions the moderate fall-back position. They have far more standing because of the fight for marriage equality than they had before. But a word of warning on those states that have jumped onto the ban marriage equality bandwagon. The forces against marriage equality are also adamantly against civil unions for gay people. And they have no intention of allowing gay couples any civil recognition, because we are an emblem of sin to them.
Why shouldn't a gay couple be married? What does marriage mean for a heterosexual couple beside a public commitment? I suppose to some it is a union in the eyes of god but doesn't god love everyone unconditionally? Apparently, being gay is the only reason two people cannot be married with the exception of one already being married.
The only thing I can conclude is that there are religious reasons behind this issue. If that is the case, I see nothing in the bible that precludes a gay couple from marriage, from Jesus or anyone else.
In the end, the marriage debate is about whether it is in the interest of society as a whole to attack and demean couples who are constructing loving, committed strong relationships, with the help of their friends, families and government. Whatever else it is, the attempt to break up these relationships, to deny and invalidate the hopes and dreams they aspire to, is both cruel and deeply hostile to any conservatism that seeks to bring people together around the shared values of family, fidelity and responsibility.
On Gay Marriage, the Right Was Right (and Wrong)
A. BARTON HINKLE TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST
Published: March 6, 2009
The religious right was right after all. Civil unions have weakened the institution of marriage. But gay people aren't to blame -- straight people are.
Here's the deal.
Gay marriage is banned in France. But about a decade ago, France's Socialist government created a compromise -- a civil solidarity pact, known by its French acronym PACS -- as a form of quasi-marriage for homosexual couples. Conservatives in France denounced the measure as a threat to traditional morality, just as conservatives in the U.S. have denounced gay marriage, civil unions, and similar arrangements here. Couples entering into PACS agreements can take advantage of various tax, inheritance, and similar benefits without getting wed. The bonds of PACS unions are also easier to sunder: Rather than having to go through a divorce, one or both partners can end the arrangement by submitting a written request in court. No alimony, no property claims -- no muss, no fuss.
But a funny thing happened since the law was passed. Large numbers of straight couples started opting for PACS, too. Drafters of the statute made its language gender-neutral, which meant it could apply to both straight and gay couples. Now more than nine in 10 PACS unions are formed by straights.
If France had opted to permit gay marriage rather than establish a poor man's version of it, then couples both gay and straight would have had a simple, binary choice: Get married -- with all the advantages and disadvantages that entails -- or don't. Now they have three options: Get married, don't get married, or take the quick and easy route between the two. More and more are choosing Door No. 3.
MARRIAGE IN France has been on the skids for years. The French marriage rate has fallen more than 30 percent in the past generation. Marriage has been declining in other European countries as well, but in France the slope has been steeper. By 2005, 59 percent of all first-born children in France were born out of wedlock. More and more French couples live in "free unions," or what Americans might think of as nonbinding common-law marriages. They simply shack up, often for life.
Now France's experience with PACS helps clarify a very muddled point in the debate over gay marriage here in America. Social conservatives commonly argue against gay marriage for a multiplicity of (often dubious) reasons, from the necessity to protect children to the importance of subsidizing procreation. But perhaps the most often cited reason is that gay unions threaten the "institution" of marriage.
How, precisely, they do so is not intuitively clear. No one seriously argues that a marriage between John and Steve somehow undermines the bonds of affection that keep Ted and Amy together. Nor is it clear how encouraging homosexuals, who sometimes are condemned for libertine promiscuity, to enter a contract requiring lifelong fidelity weakens the appeal of lifelong fidelity.
So opponents of gay marriage fall back on the idea that letting gay people marry somehow cheapens the currency -- as though a marriage between Ted and Amy weighs less in the cosmic scales because John and Steve have entered into a similar contract. That is akin to the argument that letting gay people open bank accounts weakens the institution of banking.
FRANCE'S EXPERIENCE teaches a different lesson. It is not gay marriage, but the attempt to deny gays the chance to participate in marriage, that has cheapened the currency and further imperiled the institution. By creating a second-class -- call it a "subprime" -- form of marriage, France gave both gays and straights a watered-down option that let people enjoy all the privileges with none of the obligations. By contrast, letting gay Frenchmen marry -- and thereby requiring them to uphold the high standards of the marriage tradition -- rather than weakening French marriage further, would have shored up the institution against its erosion among heterosexuals.
And that points to the real issue at the heart of the argument about marriage as an institution. To say that letting gay people marry cheapens the currency of marriage holds true only if gay people have less intrinsic worth than straight people -- just as the argument against interracial marriage, that it would lead to the "mongrelization of the human race," made sense only to those who saw blacks as less than human.
To let gay people enter into sacred matrimony, then, requires recognizing something sacred within them. It requires acknowledging their equality on a very high plane. How troubling that some people would rather create civil unions -- subprime marriages -- than take that step.
My thoughts do not aim for your assent -- just place them alongside your own reflections for a while.
--Robert Nozick
It's sad when a politician allows religion to influence his vote when he knows his vote should not be influenced by religion. Religius people once again seem to want everyone to believe their way (convert)and want to control what I can and cannot do. Read on from today's USA TODAY:
MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont's House of Representatives gave preliminary approval Thursday night to a historic same-sex marriage bill, setting up a showdown with Gov. Jim Douglas.
After nearly four hours of passionate debate from supporters and opponents of the measure, the House approved the bill by a vote of 95-52 shortly after 9 p.m.
IOWA: Court ruling awaited
The legislation, S.115, would give same-sex couples the right to marry in Vermont.
The bill will be brought up again in the House on Friday for final approval. Then it must return to the state Senate, where changes to language must be approved. Should the Senate OK those changes, the bill will head to Douglas desk — and a promised veto.
That veto — which Douglas declared last week he would deliver — would not kill the legislation. Instead members of the House and Senate will try to override the veto by securing a two-thirds majority of support in each chamber. The Senate would need 20 votes to override; the House would need 100 votes with all members present.
Opponents of the measure spoke of their respect for its advocates. One, Rep. Albert "Sonny" Audette, expressed sadness at having concluded he was required by his church to vote no.
"I am a devout Catholic," Audette said. "My religion at this point would not want me to vote for this. I wish that I could and I hope for the best and I congratulate the people who are trying to get this through."
Iowa Supreme Court Rules in Marriage Case
Des Moines, April 3, 2009—
In a unanimous decision, the Iowa Supreme Court
today held that the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man
and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.
The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil
marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory
language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian
people full access to the institution of civil marriage.
Today’s ruling resolves an action brought by six same-sex couples who were
refused marriage licenses by the Polk County Recorder. Except for the statutory
restriction that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the
twelve plaintiffs met the legal requirements to marry in Iowa.
On August 30, 2007, the Polk County District Court issued a ruling determining
the statute was unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection
clauses of the Iowa Constitution. The district court initially ordered the county
recorder to begin processing marriage licenses for same-sex couples, but stayed
the order during the pendency of an appeal by the County.
Upon appeal to the supreme court, the parties and numerous amici curiae filed
extensive briefs. The supreme court heard oral argument on December 9, 2008,
and today issued its decision affirming the district court ruling. The court’s
decision becomes effective upon issuance of procedendo, which normally occurs
twenty-one days after the opinion is filed, unless a petition for rehearing is filed.
The entire opinion is available online at www.iowacourts.gov/supreme_court
Opinion Summary
The Iowa Supreme Court has the responsibility to determine if a law enacted by
the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa
Constitution. The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa
Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong
and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion.
News Release
April 3, 2009
Contact: Steve Davis, Court Communications Officer, (515) 725-8058
In addressing the case before it, the court found one constitutional principle was
at the heart of the case—the doctrine of equal protection. Equal protection under
the Iowa Constitution “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated
should be treated alike.” Since territorial times, Iowa has given meaning to this
constitutional provision, striking blows to slavery and segregation, and
recognizing women’s rights. The court found the issue of same-sex marriage
comes to it with the same importance as the landmark cases of the past.
Equal Protection Principles.
Under Iowa’s tripartite system of government,
courts give respect to the legislative process and presume its enactments are
constitutional. The deference afforded to legislative policy-making is manifested
in the level of scrutiny applied to review legislative action. In most equal
protection cases, the court applies a very deferential standard known as the
“rational basis test.” Under this test, “[t]he plaintiff has the heavy burden of
showing the statute unconstitutional and must negate every reasonable basis
upon which the classification may be sustained.” Classifications based on race,
alienage, or national origin and those affecting fundamental rights are, however,
evaluated under a “strict scrutiny” standard. Classifications subject to strict
scrutiny are presumptively invalid and must be narrowly tailored to serve a
compelling governmental interest. The court also recognized that an
intermediate tier has been applied to statutes classifying persons on the basis of
gender or illegitimacy. Under this level of scrutiny, a party seeking to uphold the
statute must demonstrate the challenged classification is substantially related to
the achievement of an important governmental objective.
Similarly Situated People.
Prior to proceeding to an application of the equal
protection analysis, the court addressed the County’s request that it apply a
threshold test. Under this threshold test, if the plaintiffs cannot show as a
preliminary matter that they are similarly situated, courts do not further consider
whether their different treatment under a statute is permitted under the equal
protection clause. The County asserts that plaintiffs are not similarly situated to
civilly married heterosexuals because they cannot procreate naturally.
The court rejected the County’s analysis, finding the threshold analysis
advocated by the County results in the avoidance of a full equal protection
analysis. Equal protection demands that laws treat alike all people who are
“similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purposes of the law.” “ ‘[S]imilarly
situated’ cannot mean simply ‘similar in the possession of the classifying trait.’
All members of any class are similarly situated in this respect, and consequently,
any classification whatsoever would be reasonable by this test.” Likewise,
“similarly situated” cannot be interpreted to require plaintiffs be identical in every
way to people treated more favorably by the law. “No two people or groups of
people are the same in every way, and nearly every equal protection claim could
be run aground [under] a threshold analysis” that requires the two groups “be a
mirror image of one another.” Rather, equal protection demands that the law
itself must be equal. It requires that laws treat all those who are similarly situated
with respect to the purposes of the law alike. Thus, the purposes of the law must
be referenced for a meaningful evaluation.
The purpose of Iowa’s marriage law is to provide an institutional basis for
defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of persons in
committed relationships. It also serves to recognize the status of the parties’
committed relationship. In this case, the court concluded, plaintiffs are similarly
situated compared to heterosexual persons; they are in committed relationships
and official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining
their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities.
Classification Undertaken in Iowa Code Section 595.2.
Having determined
that the plaintiffs were similarly situated for purposes of equal protection analysis,
the court next addressed the classification undertaken in Iowa’s marriage statute.
The plaintiffs contended the statute classifies and discriminates on the bases of
gender and sexual orientation while the County argued the same-sex marriage
ban does not discriminate on either basis. The court concluded that “[t]he benefit
denied by the marriage statute—the status of civil marriage for same-sex
couples—is so ‘closely correlated with being homosexual’ as to make it apparent
the law is targeted at gay and lesbian people as a class.” Therefore, the court
proceeded to analyze the statute’s constitutionality based on sexual-orientation
discrimination.
Appropriate Level of Judicial Scrutiny.
The next issue addressed by the court
was whether sexual orientation is a suspect class entitled to a heightened level of
scrutiny beyond rational basis. Four factors utilized in determining whether
certain legislative classifications warrant a more demanding constitutional
analysis were considered: (1) the history of invidious discrimination against the
class burdened by the legislation; (2) whether the characteristics that distinguish
the class indicate a typical class member’s ability to contribute to society; (3)
whether the distinguishing characteristic is “immutable,” or beyond the class
members’ control; and (4) the political power of the subject class.
In its analysis, the court found each factor supported a finding that classification
by sexual orientation warranted a heightened scrutiny. The court, citing historical
as well as present-day examples, concluded that gay and lesbian people as a
group have long been the victim of purposeful and invidious discrimination
because of their sexual orientation. There was no evidence that the
characteristic that defines the members of this group—sexual orientation—bears
any logical relationship to their ability to perform productively in society, either in
familial relations or otherwise. Addressing the issue of immutability, the court
found sexual orientation to be central to personal identity and that its alteration, if
at all, could only be accomplished at the expense of significant damage to the
individual’s sense of self. This, the court concluded, would be wholly
unacceptable for the government to require anyone to do. Finally, the court
found that, despite their securing of significant legal protections against
discrimination in recent years, gay and lesbian people have not become so
politically powerful as to overcome the unfair and severe prejudice that produces
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Intermediate Scrutiny Standard: Governmental Objectives.
Based upon the above analysis, the court proceeded to examine Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban
under an intermediate scrutiny standard. “To withstand intermediate scrutiny, a
statutory classification must be substantially related to an important
governmental objective.” In determining whether exclusion of gay and lesbian
people from civil marriage is substantially related to any important governmental
objective, the court considered each of the County’s proffered objectives in
support of the marriage statute. The objectives asserted by the County were (1)
tradition, (2) promoting the optimal environment for children, (3) promoting
procreation, (4) promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships, and (5)
preservation of state resources. In considering these objectives, the court
examined whether the objective purportedly advanced by the classification is
important and, if so, whether the governmental objective can fairly be said to be
advanced by the legislative classification.
Maintaining Traditional Marriage.
Initially, the court considered the County’s
argument the same-sex marriage ban promotes the “integrity of traditional
marriage” by “maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one
between a man and a woman).” The court noted that, when tradition is offered
as a justification for preserving a statutory scheme challenged on equal
protection grounds, the court must determine whether the reasons underlying the
tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements. These reasons, the
court found, must be something other than the preservation of tradition by itself.
“When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the
classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed
into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the
governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.” Here,
the County offered no governmental reason underlying the tradition of limiting
marriage to heterosexual couples, so the court proceeded to consider the other
reasons advanced by the County for the legislative classification.
Promotion of Optimal Environment to Raise Children.
The second of the
County’s proffered governmental objectives involves promoting child rearing by a
father and a mother in a marital relationship, the optimal milieu according to
some social scientists. Although the court found support for the proposition that
the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and oppositesex
parents, it acknowledged the existence of reasoned opinions that dualgender
parenting is the optimal environment for children. Nonetheless, the court
concluded the classification employed to further that goal—sexual orientation—
did not pass intermediate scrutiny because it is significantly under-inclusive and
over-inclusive.
The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from
marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators,
parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are
undeniably less than optimal parents. If the marriage statute was truly focused
on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not
merely gay and lesbian people. The statute is also under-inclusive because it
does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children in Iowa. The statute is
over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. The
court further noted that the County failed to show how the best interests of
children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported
by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban, or how the
ban benefits the interests of children of heterosexual parents. Thus, the court
concluded a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is
simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal
environment to raise children.
Promotion of Procreation.
Next, the court addressed the County’s argument
that endorsement of traditional civil marriage will result in more procreation. The
court concluded the County’s argument is flawed because it fails to address the
required analysis of the objective: whether exclusion of gay and lesbian
individuals from the institution of civil marriage will result in more procreation.
The court found no argument to support the conclusion that a goal of additional
procreation would be substantially furthered by the exclusion of gays and
lesbians from civil marriage.
Promoting Stability in Opposite-Sex Relationships.
The County also
asserted that the statute promoted stability in opposite-sex relationships. The
court acknowledged that, while the institution of civil marriage likely encourages
stability in opposite-sex relationships, there was no evidence to support that
excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage makes opposite-sex
marriage more stable.
Conservation of Resources.
Finally, the court rejected the County’s argument
that banning same-sex marriages in a constitutional fashion conserves state
resources. The argument in support of the same-sex marriage ban is based on a
simple premise: civilly married couples enjoy numerous governmental benefits,
so the state’s fiscal burden associated with civil marriage is reduced if less
people are allowed to marry. While the ban on same-sex marriage may
conserve some state resources, so would excluding any number of identifiable
groups. However, under intermediate scrutiny the sexual-orientation-based
classification must substantially further the conservation-of-resources objective.
Here again, the court found it was over- and under-inclusive and did not
substantially further the suggested governmental interest.
Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage.
Having addressed and rejected
each specific interest articulated by the County, the court addressed one final
ground believed to underlie the same-sex marriage debate—religious opposition.
Recognizing the sincere religious belief held by some that the “sanctity of
marriage” would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples, the
court nevertheless noted that such views are not the only religious views of
marriage. Other, equally sincere groups have espoused strong religious views
yielding the opposite conclusion. These contrasting opinions, the court finds,
explain the absence of any religious-based rationale to test the constitutionality of
Iowa’s same-sex marriage statute. “Our constitution does not permit any branch
of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts
the task of ensuring government avoids them . . . . The statute at issue in this
case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead,
the statute, declares, ‘Marriage is a civil contract’ and then regulates that civil
contract . . . . Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges,
far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the
concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited
class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with marriage.”
Constitutional Infirmity.
In concluding the marriage statute is constitutionally
infirm, the court stated:
We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian
people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially
further any important governmental objective. The legislature has
excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a
supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally
sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in
dispute, that can affect this determination.
We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of
the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s
marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa
Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our
constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to
different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification,
they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection
upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2
denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law
promised by the Iowa Constitution.
# # #
2009
Iowa Supreme Court
1111 East Court Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319
515-281-3952
Yes, I know...Catholics are against homosexuality. I'll have to take their word that it's in the Bible...I've never read it. It very well may be wrong, but I'll let God be the judge of that.
Catholics aren't asking you to agree with them, though. They're just telling you what their views are. It shouldn't really bother you. So, they're not going to vote for gay marriage...why does it bother you that they think differently than you?
"Public Christian"
Rod Dreher laments after Iowa:
The lawyer said that as soon as homosexuality receives constitutionally protected status equivalent to race, then "it will be very hard to be a public Christian." By which he meant to voice support, no matter how muted, for traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality and marriage. To do so would be to set yourself up for hostile work environment challenges, including dismissal from your job, and generally all the legal sanctions that now apply to people who openly express racist views.
Anonymous Liberal makes the rather obvious comparison:
I realize its often hard to appreciate how your words will come across to those who don't share your beliefs, but good grief, is it possible to be more oblivious? ... eah, it's pretty rough being a Christian in America. Maybe Dreher should try being a "public homosexual" for a while and compare the experience. If I had a Quantum Leap machine, I'd be tempted to zap Dreher into the life of a gay high school student or maybe a gay man in a small Southern town and see how easy he finds it to publicly be himself.
One imagines how the early Christians might have responded to this threat: by embracing their marginalization and seeing discrimination against them as a sign of their righteousness. Today's Christianists, in contrast, need the government to enforce their religious doctrines, for fear that without government, these convictions could falter. It says a lot about the comparative strength of their faith and their paranoia.
"I'll have to take their word that it's in the Bible...I've never read it. "
Wait a minute...I thought you were a catholic. You haven't read the bible? And if you are a catholic, what's this "tey" stuff?
Post a Comment