In a perhaps surprising - but totally correct - ruling the Iowa Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that limiting civil marriage to one man and one woman to the exclusion of same sex couples violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. No doubt the fundamentalists and professional Christian set will be foaming at the mouth and convulsing on the floor while shrieking that the world is coming to an end. A full copy of the Court's 69 page opinion can be viewed here. The Court's ruling can be summarized as a finding that equal protection means what it says: equal rights under the law. The Court also looks at the real reason for opposition to gay marriage: religious belief. It states as follows:*
While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the notion of same-sex marriage unsettling. . . . Consequently, we address the religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate as a means to fully explain our rationale for rejecting the dual-gender requirement of the marriage statute.
While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the notion of same-sex marriage unsettling. . . . Consequently, we address the religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate as a means to fully explain our rationale for rejecting the dual-gender requirement of the marriage statute.
*
State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation. . . . This proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state. As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all.
*
In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. . . . The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.
State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation. . . . This proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state. As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all.
*
In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. . . . The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.
*
I am glad that the Court took on the religious basis head on and flatly stated what I wish more judges and legislators had the courage and honesty to do: tell the Christianists that their religious views have no place in determining the civil laws. Here are some highlights from the DesMoines Register:
*
The Iowa Supreme Court this morning unanimously upheld gays’ right to marry. “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 justices said in a summary of their decision.The court rules that gay marriage would be legal in three weeks, starting April 24.
*
The decision makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages. Lawyers for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group that financed the court battle and represented the couples, had hoped to use a court victory to demonstrate acceptance of same-sex marriage in heartland America.
*
Richard Socarides, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay civil rights, said today’s decision could set the stage for other states. Socarides was was a senior political assistant for Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin in the early 1990s. “I think it’s significant because Iowa is considered a Midwest sate in the mainstream of American thought,” Socarides said. “Unlike states on the coasts, there’s nothing more American than Iowa. As they say during the presidential caucuses, 'As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.’”
*
Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley (R-Chariton) issued the following statement this morning in response to the Iowa Supreme Court's decision to allow gay marriage in Iowa: "The decision made by the Iowa Supreme Court today to allow gay marriage in Iowa is disappointing on many levels. . . . “I’m off the wall,” said Democratic Sen. Matt McCoy of Des Moines, who is openly gay. “I’m very pleased to be an Iowan.”Then, as he saw a stream of grim-faced activists from the Supreme Court passing through security at the Iowa Capitol, he said: “The God squad’s coming in the door now.”
1 comment:
So overall their are pockets of positive things going on with this. I think we will always have the far right trying to negatively influenceing anything that is oposit thier view of how things should be. aother issue of importance to the gay community that needs attention is job rights. Someone please introduce and pass a federal law protecting against job descrination on basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. There is a case here in Virginia that this could have helped.
Post a Comment