« Bessie The Cow Says “NO MAS!”
A ‘Truly New World Order’ Emerges; Global Currency Closer: Le Monde of France »
Iowa Supreme Court Overturns State Law Banning Same-Sex Marriage
The 69-page opinion is here.
Right-wingers are reacting, as always, with outraged cries that the Iowa Supreme Court has attacked traditional marriage, denied the will of the people, and legislated from the bench for political reasons. And, predictably, they are calling for an amendment to the state constitution to define marriage as one man, one woman.
Ed Whelan at The Corner is typical:
The lawless judicial attack on traditional marriage and on representative government continues.Today the Iowa supreme court ruled unanimously (7-0) that a “state statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.” Amidst the opinion’s 69 pages of blather, there are two key assertions (and they’re nothing more than that):
(1) “[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.” (p. 16)
If you were not attuned to the deceptive rhetoric of living-constitutionalist judges, you would sensibly imagine that that proposition would mean that the court would defer to the standard of the current generation reflected in the statute that Iowa adopted in 1998.But no:
(2) “The point in time when the standard of equal protection finally takes a new form is a product of the conviction of one, or many, individuals that a particular grouping results in inequality and the ability of the judicial system to perform its constitutional role free from the influences that tend to make society’s understanding of equal protection resistant to change.” (pp. 16-17)
What gobbledygook.
Ed Whelan is confusing the inequality with the changing standard of what constitutes inequality. Laws banning same-sex marriage are the response to changing standards on the part of people who want to cling to the old standards. Why would there even be this growing movement for marriage equality if the standard were not changing? Why would state laws defining marriage as exclusively heterosexual, and calls to amend state constitutions to so define marriage be considered necessary by folks like Ed Whelan, in the absence of a tangible public awareness that same-sex attraction and love is a real and normal and legitimate variant of human sexuality, and thus that gay and lesbian people should have the same right to marry as anyone else? That’s the evolving standard. Ed Whelan is part of the opposition to that evolving standard.
21 Responses to “Iowa Supreme Court Overturns State Law Banning Same-Sex Marriage”
Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…
…
OMG! Soon there will a giant worm hole opening in the middle of Iowa & our entire planet will be sucked down thru it.
Darn those gays!
OK, even if you TOTALLY agree with the ruling, this line, “The point in time when the standard of equal protection finally takes a new form is a product of the conviction of one, or many, individuals that a particular grouping results in inequality” should scare anyone.
The conviction of one..individual?? So, each and every person in Iowa now has a right to decide the what qualifies as the 'norm' and what qualifies as inequality?
How in the world is that enforceable? How can it even be called legal reasoning? It is the very definition of anarchy, the lack of any norm, because any one individual can now claim standing.
With due respect I do take exception to labeling the opposition to this ruling as 'right wing'.
If you look back at my relatively short time here at TMV our good readers have called me everything from a right wing hack to a brain dead reactionary (not sure that I agree but they do correctly place me right of center) and I have been a very strong supporter of the ruling.
Also I think you could find some liberal posters and bloggers who have expressed rather strong opposition to the ruling, almost bordering on the same homophobic attitudes usually assigned to the right.
Justice knows no political ideology.
Good point Patrick, I am a fiscal conservative but really don't care if gays get married or not. I have observed from her short time here Kathy seems to take a very polarized view of things.
AustinRoth I actually live in Iowa and have decided that I should be the guy that gets to decide the norm. Since I don't have a problem with gay marriage it's all good
Okay, now I truly feel part of the TMV family. I just got my first slam in Comments.
LOL, DaGoat. One person, one vote, but they can all be overruled by DAGOAT!
Aw, if I'd known you were waiting for that to feel welcome, Kathy, I'd have slammed you before now.
I think I've welcomed you thusly at another blog though.
lol@CS: You have, indeed — and we are old friends by now. We each have our battle scars to prove it.
Change takes time. Lots and lots of time.
One of the favorite graphs I ran across over the past year measured the acceptance of interracial marriage over time, from 1958 (at 4%) to the present day (at 77%). It wasn't until sometime around 1991 that the 50/50 mark was reached. Attitudes changed over time – but that time was measured in decades.
Graph here: http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-engine/fi…
I want to equate that to the slow, glacial acceptance of gay marriage here in America. Attitudes are changing, making gay marriage more acceptable, but it won't be another 10-20 years before it becomes normal and unnoteworthy.
See graph here, showing how acceptance has gone from around 10% in 1995 to around 40% today: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/1GayMarryf2.png
Extrapolate the lines out over the years, try and figure out when the 50/50 point is reached for gay marriage. 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, California are the early birds – I wonder just how long it will be before gay marriage is about as (non) eye-raising as interracial marriage.
And The Moderate Voice did tackle just this very subject a few months ago: http://themoderatevoice.com/25108/gay-marriage-…
Kathy
You're lucky. The first post I replied to was one of CStanley's. It turned into a knock-down-drag-out over the appropriate analogy to use to describe out current credit crisis. Whooo-EEE. I never knew someone could type such irritated patients.
She'll probably correct me for this post too.
I knew I found the site I'd been looking for. Welcome, and keep your head down
CS
I see you “welcomed” another newcomer. At least she knew what she was getting into through the other blog. I wasn't that lucky
Christine and I have had a few knock down-drag outs, Internet virtual style. We both have strong opinions and they happen also to be completely opposite opinions on a couple of issues that we both care deeply about.
Then again, that's why she and I can joke around a little bit, because we know each other's arguments and where we're coming from.
Christine wasn't the one who gave me my first slam here, but if she had been it would have been a comfortable, familiar slam from someone I know. Sort of.
Heh, I seem to be developing a reputation here for tenacity. I can live with that.
In the past, a few of us have described these long exchanges between people of strong, opposing convictions as reminscent of the Warner Bros. cartoon with the sheepdog and wolf- each of them spends the entire day trying to outwit the other, and at the end of the day each punches his timecard and bids a friendly farewell to the other.
When the debates are heated but not meanspirited, and people's motivations aren't impugned, it feels a lot like that, doesn't it?
Exactly CS
As I said before. Finding smart, well reasoned debates about real, important issues is why I keep coming back.
I'd disagree that you are tenacious, but we both know where that would lead….
The point of a good debate is not to win, but to learn.
HemmD – Tenacious is bad?
1. Holding or tending to hold persistently to something, such as a point of view.
2. Holding together firmly; cohesive; not easily pulled asunder; tough.
3. Highly retentive: a tenacious memory.
Tenacity is fine as long as it's balanced with introspection.
Analyzing one's own thoughts as rigorously as those of your opponent is the plenary reason for debate.
A smooth sea never made a skilled sailor.
I feel like a aphorism machine this morning.
I did forget to add in my previous post, Tenacious can be good, then become bad.
One need only look at the career arc of TenaciousD for proof!
That career went to the Devil long ago. Of all the obscure allusions I could muster, this was my pick of destiny.
Now Bob Dilan and Stones, that's tenacity.
State Supreme Court…
The 69-page opinion is here.Right-wingers are reacting as always with outraged cries that the Iowa S [...]…
Just have one (perhaps two or three) question(s):
How does, factually (not subjectively), the matter of two people of the same sex marrying, affect your marriage? Affect your well-being? Affect your rights?
How did the previously “illegal”, widely condemned marriage of two people of different races (e.g. black and white) affect our marriages? Affect our well-being? Affect our rights? How has the legalization of this matter negatively affected our society, us, our children, our nation?
How has the end of segregation in our country negatively affected our rights, our society, us, our children, our nation?
Need I go on?
If you feel “same sex” marriage is “different,” please explain. However, if you can, please leave religion out…And please don't be selective…answer all questions