Today Iowa joined Connecticut and Massachusetts in recognizing same-sex marriage. In Varnum v. Brien, (IA Sup. Ct., April 3, 2009), the Iowa Supreme Court held that the Iowa statute (IC Sec. 595.2) that limits marriage to unions between opposite-sex partners violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 6). Conducting a lengthy analysis of equal protection precedent, the court concluded that "legislative classifications based on sexual orientation must be examined under a heightened level of scrutiny...." Finding that the same-sex marriage ban cannot survive intermediate scrutiny, the court did not need to decide whether a strict scrutiny analysis should be applied instead. Near the end of its opinion, the Court focused on the question of religious opposition to gay marriage:
[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.New York Times reports on the decision. Americans United issued a release praising the decision and saying it "has reaffirmed religious liberty." On the other hand, a release from the Traditional Values Coalition complains about judicial activism and warns of possible losses and mandates that it says could be imposed on religious groups.
A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. 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.
.jpg)
Posts
10 comments:
Iowa Supreme Court said gay-YES!
See the actual video.
video
Those FLDS people should have been living in Iowa instead of Texas.
"..'Clergy are free to perform or decline to perform marriage ceremonies, while the government treats everyone equally when it comes to civil marriage.'"
YES! Three down, forty-seven to go! Into the twenty-first century, kicking and screaming!
Michael Ejercito said...
Those FLDS people should have been living in Iowa instead of Texas.
Sure, because same-sex marraige is just like polygamy and old men 'marrying' little girls?
More judicial dictatorship discrediting the courts and encouraging total disrespect for the whole judicial system by the vast majority of Americans according to election returns on the issue.
I wasn't aware that interpreting Constitutional language was a matter for the electorate, Deacon John.
There's a reason Constitutional language isn't subject to the mere whims of the citizenry, Mr. Bresnahan. It's to prevent a little thing called the tyranny of the majority, and our founding fathers very carefully put the power to alter the most fundamental and structural laws of our nation out of the hands of the mercurial and temporal whims of the citizens. If the citizens wish to change their Constitutions, the means have been given to them to do so - they have simply to amend them through properly created Constitutional Amendments which are specific enough to override existing Constitutional language. Their inability to do so here puts a prima facie wall between your argument and sensibility.
Blaming a decision you do not like on "judicial dictatorship" simply indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of not only the American and State constitutional systems, but a fundamental aversion to the very notion of the rule of law itself.
If you can point to the Iowa Constitution and discover material in it which interprets the word 'equality' to include the direct discrimination and unqual treatment of Iowa citizens on the basis of a non-criminal characteristic, then by all means do so. Until you do, the talk of the will of the electorate or judicial dictatorship is nothing more than a smokescreen for what you really wanted to say, which was:
"My personal theological decisions which have absolutely no binding authority on anyone outside of myself are at odds with the foundational documents of the State of Iowa - and therefore, it is the State of Iowa's fundamental laws and NOT my personal theological decisions which should be give weigh under the overpowering weight of the latter."
If you're going to attempt to discredit the decision, you could at least be honest about your argument.
--MD
Sure, because same-sex marraige is just like polygamy and old men 'marrying' little girls?
Absolutely.
Just like in Mass. the judge's decisions were only based on the state constitutions AFTER twisting and distorting pretzel-like the common understanding and use of the words "marriage" and "equality" to their liberal dictatorial whims. They remind me of a bunch of Cheshire cats from Alice In Wonderland. If you take unto yourself the privilege of redefining any word in the English language to suit your political prejudices--then you are taking unto yourself the ability to be total dictators and the words in the constitution then come to mean diddlysquat. And as far as changing a state constitution, in most states it is one of the most impossible of political tasks.
It takes no feat of legal legerdemain to define the concept of 'equality' before the law as the idea that the laws must be applied to all persons in the relevant jurisdiction with no regard to non-permissible criteria.
When the Constitution says that the "legislature shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens" (Iowa Const., Art 1, s6), that is pretty clear.
As long as the ability to marry legally in the state is a "privilege or immunity" which the legislature has extended to one citizen or group of citizens, it cannot deny that right to other citizens.
It seems pretty clear that the ability to legally marry is a privilege - after all, at the merest whim of 50%+1 of the Iowa electorate, they could abolish the legal recognition of marriage if they so chose. As a privilege, the Iowa Constitution is quite clear - if extended to one class of citizens, it must be extended to all on equal terms.
I eagerly await your jurisprudential argument, Deacon John:
If a privilege is extended to one class of citizens (such as the class of citizens who are both straight AND desire to marry), how does this NOT conflict with the Iowa Constitution's seemingly directly opposing mandate that any privilege extended to one group be extended to all?
Oh, and changing state Constitutions is not difficult - The Iowa Constitution alone appears to have over 50 Amendment-alterations to it since it's inception - the majority of which have taken place during your lifetime. For a Constitution which is only 150 years old (give or take), that's pretty good. Despite your claim of the intractability of State Constitutions, you seem strangely ignorant of the majority of states which have amended their Constitutions with regard to this very topic in the past decade or so. Once again, empirical facts seems to place a fairly sturdy barrier between your argument and sensibility.
Once again, it appears that your argument is more sensibly boiled down to the conflict between your wholly private and wholly irrelevant (irrelevant in the sense that they have no controlling weight in interpreting the actual law of the land) religious theological choices and the interpretation of foundational laws which are not bound to your theology.
--MD
Hello, VERMONT!
Four states now agree that marriage is a state that all citizens are entitled to enjoy. Only forty-six to go, and some of them soon.
Post a Comment