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.Iowa is ending its discrimination against gay and lesbian couples. Wow.
After the debacle in Arkansas and the vote in California, it's not a surprise that this progressive move came from the Iowa Supreme Court. The traditional role of courts is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Actually, it's more complicated than that, because actually the court enforces the will of the majority as set out in the constitution. It's the role of the court to remind the majority what they already agreed was the law. It's as if the people gather together in a time of calm reflection and agree "We want to be treated equally" and then the court must calmly ride that principle through the storms of the moment.
This decision brings up an interesting Federalism issue. Traditional conservatives tend to rely heavily on "state's rights" arguments and argue against Federal preemption, they argue "let the states decide!" However, in this area (and abortion) these same people find themselves pushing for Federal intervention on the issue. The "Defense of Marriage" act was passed with huge conservative support and it forbids the Federal government from recognizing a same-sex marriage even if a State endorsed the marriage. The debate around this Federal intrusion on state sovereignty is described well HERE.
From what I've read, the Iowa constitution cannot be changed until 2012, but I am sure the campaigns began yesterday afternoon. I am certain many ugly things will be said. I am sure that God will be misquoted and his name misused in this public discussion. I must brace myself. I can hope, however, that perhaps a few years of gay-lesbian marriages will be enough to convince thinking Iowans that the world didn't come to an end - maybe even enough time to convince some that their state is better off treating each other with fairness and equality.
13 comments:
In my opinion this is a great step forward against discrimination (at least as far as the law is concerned) of homosexual individuals.
Vermont becomes #4. And they did it in the legislature. 4 down 46 to go.
I look forward to the MO struggle!
CoMo just passed a Domestic Partnership Registry ordinance last night. I'm not for sure yet what all it accomplishes on this front (as I have only read the news story and not the actual ordinance) but that is a start.
Unfortunately, MO will have a huge hurdle to overcome due to the passage of the last constitutional amendment in the November election.
okay, I didn't really read all of this due to time contraints, but I am left wondering if you feel that we should condone sin?
I didn't realize it was the government's job to censure, condemn, forbid, not allow, or prevent us from "sinning." I thought the government was to ensure equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all people regardless of color, creed, race, gender, sexual orientation, political views, right?
I can only infer from the placement of the question that Carrie Jean believes homosexuality is sin. I don't agree with that.
But even if I did, I don't understand the attempt to legislate against sin. We can legislate against harm to others (such as murder) and that may happen to be sin, but the point of the prohibition is safety and liberty of the people, not to prohibit sin.
I guess I was really just wondering several things. First do you all think homosexuality is sin (which David answered). Also what you think sin is and if you see this as just a political issue (which Seth answered). I know that not everyone thinks like I do and I try to understand (but often fail) what the basis is for other points of view. If the goverment is "to ensure equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all people regardless of color, creed, race, gender, sexual orientation" why do we have any laws? It makes me happy to go 120 miles an hour down the road. I would also love to rob a casino for my "pursuit of happiness." Yet both of those things are legislated, why? I am not sure if you would call yourself a Christian, but how can a Christian pick and choose parts of the Bible to follow? Read Roamans 13, which talks about the government's role. Maybe you don't claim the title of Christian. Just wondering and again trying to understand the other point of view.
You know, right, that it's the Declaration of Independence that says "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? And that it's the U.S. Constitution that promises equal opportunity in those pursuits? So I'm really confused by your questioning whether that's a legitimate role of government. If you don't think that the government exists to ensure equal opportunity for the pursuits of life, liberty and happiness, then I'm not sure we have a common foundation for discussion.
I guess you'll have to explain what you think the role of government is. Then I can begin to understand what you mean.
Your non sequitur about picking and choosing from the Bible is an interesting topic, but I'm also not sure how that relates to the role of government. I do not personally know anyone, even you, who does not pick and choose from the Bible things to practice and things to explain away. As I said in my earlier comment, sometimes morality and regulation overlap naturally, but that doesn't mean we regulate all morality or that regulation judges a behavior's morality.
If you're interested in further discussion, I really have to hear what you think the role of government is before I can say much further.
I was happy to hear about Iowa and Vermont. I look forward to the day that we don't have to see a difference between homosexual and heterosexual families, and just see each other as families.
The government's role is as declared in the Declaration of Independence. The reason we have laws that prohibit or limit the pursuit of some individuals' happiness is because that pursuit (i.e. speeding dangerously or robbing businesses) would directly lead to the opposite for another citizen. So the government has to do what it can to make sure that every citizen has an equal chance - or opportunity - to pursue all of those things.
The ability for homosexual couples to take advantage of marital perks (i.e. adoption, visitation for spouse in e.r.) does not directly or indirectly interfere with any other citizen's ability to enjoy life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, it's outside the scope of the government's role.
Not really relevant to the discussion on the role of government, except to the extent the discussion pertains to the role of the law in our society.
"Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" Romans 13:10
Interesting yet troublesome discussion.
It strikes me as quite sad (and ironic) that DVD's "Christianity" has been called into question by a reader because he does not discriminate as to who should receive equal opportunity (within the bounds of the law).
Let this give us pause. For those who would call themselves Christians, on this day when we remember His horrific death, we can't help but recall that at the very height of his pain he chose grace, love and equal treatment for the criminal dying beside him. His last act on earth was to choose love and grace over judgement!
Yet, it seems "heretic!" is cried by the Christian masses when we humans make a feeble attempt to follow his ultimate example!
I hope to have a face to face about this sometime, much easier than trying to understand someone's written words. Thanks for the feedback.
Post a Comment