As California goes on gay marriage, will Iowa?
Perhaps, but it'll be a much tougher battle for gay marriage foes in the Hawkeye State to amend their constitution in the name of enshrining "tradition." First, the news: Where justices of California's Supreme Court were split last May, Iowa's were unanimous:
Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady, who wrote the unanimous decision, at one point invoked the court’s first-ever decision, in 1839, which struck down slavery laws 17 years before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of a slave owner to treat a person as property.
Iowa’s gay marriage ban “is unconstitutional, because the county has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage,” Cady wrote in the 69-page opinion that seemed to dismiss the concept of civil unions as an option for gay couples.
“A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution,” Cady wrote.
The ruling, however, also addressed what it called the “religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate,” and said judges must remain outside the fray.
Some Iowa religions are strongly opposed to same-sex marriages, the justices noted, while some support the notion.
“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them,” the opinion says.
I appreciate the religious angle of Cady's opinion: The morality of gay marriage is essentially a debate among religious groups, and the Iowa government and courts are barred by law from settling such disputes.
What happens now? Like gay Californians did between May and November 2008, will same-sex couples in Iowa have to rush to the altar (or, more likely, the courthouse) to tie the knot with a traditional-marriage revolt looming at the voting booth? Hardly. According to the Des Moines Register article linked above, Iowa requires more than the momentary populist backlash needed in California to put a law beyond judicial review by passing a constitutional amendment. Changing the Iowa constitution requires that a proposed amendment be approved in two consecutive state legislative sessions before going to the voters. At the earliest, voters could overrule the Iowa high court's decision in 2012. California's same-sex couples had a six-month window to get marriage; Iowa's will have several times' that.
So we finally get a true gay-marriage laboratory in America -- and in a state that voted for George W. Bush in 2004, the year in which the former president called for a so-called marriage-protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If a gay-marriage ban does go up for a vote in Iowa, it'll be interesting to see whether heartland voters who've actually lived with same-sex unions for a while are more comfortable with marriage equality than we left-coasters were last November.
Marriage is a state licensed institution. Religion has nothing to do with it. It is an inalienable fundamental right, and is not restricted to heterosexuals.
Posted by: dr. bob | April 13, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Civil unions are NOT the same thing as marriage. To all the heterosexuals out there, if you had a California civil union instead of a marriage you would find yourselves with the following legal problems:
- There is no federal category of "civil union" so you are not able to file joint taxes, get federal benefits, inheritance, succession etc. unless you are "married". Some countries in Scandiavia and the UK have serious civil unions that DO bring all the thousands of federal benefits of marriage. But are Americans really organized and thoughtful enough to harmonize thousands of regulations to a new palallel institution? I think not.
- Other states don't have civil unions, so if you move outside of California, you're single. A very big deal for contracts, hospital visitation, unsurance. But a married status is portable (assuming the US had a genuine full faith and credit clause)
- What if a gay couple wants to travel internationally or emigrate? If I move to Europe or Canada for a job, I am allowed to bring my "spouse" with me. I have to show the European or Canadian authorities an American marriage certificate for them to issue a residence visa to my spouse. Many countries that have gay marriage don't have a "civil union" category and are not required by international treaties to treat civil unions the same as marriage.
It's not just a difference in name only, "marriage" is an internationally recognized legal status, "civil union" will always equal legal chaos.
Posted by: Rocco | April 07, 2009 at 03:52 PM
Friday a remarkable thing happened. Iowa declared same sex marriage to be legal. I caught someone I knew to be gay on the street and said "we're legal in Iowa!" He got this wildly confused look on his face like a kid who expected mashed potatoes but got a mouthful of mashed turnips. "Iowa?"
Pretty funny. Iowa. Missouri's neighbor to the north. Corn, salt of the earth, farmers, dirt. Isn't it odd that this corn fed midwestern state staked out a serious claim to gay marriage? Did anyone see this coming? Hint: This is bigger than California.
The religious right, fortified by Focus on the Family's own Jim Dobson pushed the republicans far to the right and wanted constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in all 50 states. Their justification for this was their interpretation of the bible. They wanted their narrow view of humanity chiseled into law in a land where nearly every religion known to exist in the world...almost 5,000 are practiced.
In 2005 Lambda Legal filed a suit in Polk County, Iowa over the passage of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. So what happened in Iowa?
A small section of their constitution that guarantees equal protection got in the way and their supreme court rightfully and unanimously agreed that it is not right for the majority to identify a subset of humanity and remove their basic human rights. The supreme court by the way did their job. They did not legislate from the bench, they answered a simple question. "Is this amendment legal?"
Turns out it was so wildly illegal all the justices were forced to agree.
Oddly enough one aspect that has been paramount in the gay marriage argument today was missing in the Iowa case: religion. Why? Because no matter what you believe or don't believe religion has nothing to do with gay marriage. You can be married in your living room with the justice of the peace. Legally it's nothing more than a contract between the government and a loving couple. Religion simply did not come up in the appeal. How incredibly refreshing!
The right would just as soon shun gays out of existence.
We conveniently forget that such shunning is part of the reason why LGBT youth who are raised in shunning families are more than 8 times more likely to commit suicide than LGBT youth who are raised in loving, supporting families.
Saturday, Half a world away in a slum in Baghdad, two homosexuals are hunted down and brutally murdered. Friday a Shiite cleric, Sattar al-Battat repeatedly condemned homosexuality during prayers, saying Islam prohibits homosexuality. Such acts are punishable by up to seven years in prison in Iraq. Seven years in prison, not sudden, unexpected death in my slum.
Also, let's recall Friday's headline in Ohio. Another young man, gay, commits suicide. He is repeatedly taunted and bullied in public school. He joins two other students, both gay from the same school who committed suicide for the same reason in the last year. Why? Ohio does not have a hate crimes law. teachers and administrators watched while the bullying happened to these young people. Nothing was done. Nothing was said. No one was taken to the principals office. No one got a time out. The majority had full reign to dish it out and the minority just had to take it. But these kids couldn't take it. They didn't know how to take it. So they chose the only way to end the taunting and bullying. They killed themselves. In Ohio, as in Baghdad that's ok.
After 10 years of heavily conservative rule when a majority takes it upon themselves to shun, shame, make transparent, bully and lie (yes and through their teeth) to get their way we allow them room.
The mainstream religions step aside. They whisper and at their annual conventions they debate but they cannot pass rights and priveledges for LGBT preachers and congregation members. It might upset things. A genuine concern, indeed while youth across our nation are jamming knives into their guts, slitting their wrists, pulling triggers and taking pills because they don't understand "why" and they are too afraid to ask.
In the world around us we don't see the oppressed because they are hiding in the corners.They fear for their lives in Baghdad and in Ohio. They will continue to fear for their very lives in Des Moines regardless of their legal status. the hatred will still continue. We may well be at the breaking point where another shunned minority will gain equal status. But we must learn a lesson from our African American brothers and sisters who are still, after 40 years oppressed in America.
Posted by: Tom Harris | April 06, 2009 at 04:50 AM
It's obvious that marriage is religious...and so pervasive that there are special benefits for the married in many spheres of life -- such as the tax structure, in insurance (even for the man-woman relationship I am in, I had to marry my gal if I wanted to put her on my insurance) and especially in emergency rooms.
So here's a radical idea: If we can't agree that same-sex couples can be married, maybe it's time the state got out of the distinctly religious business of marriage in the first place! That is, instead of a "married, filing jointly" income tax status, we have "household or family with two taxpayers of working age".
The original reason the state got involved was, at the time, eminently practical: to prevent people who are too closely related from creating genetically unhealthy children, as did intermarrying European royalty in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Posted by: Eric Christenson | April 06, 2009 at 12:59 AM
This issue is not, nor will it ever be about "equality". If equality is important, then the "gay marriage" folks have to defend this couple........
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6424937.stm
Posted by: TruthTeller | April 05, 2009 at 09:51 PM
As a heterosexual woman from the baby boomer generation I would like to comment on the reason a large portion of the the 65% of the heterosexuals get married. In places other than the bible belt, 90 percent of the people who get married do so in a civil ceremony, and often after a period of cohabitation, and for many it has to do more with getting legal rights as a spouse than any moral consideration. I truely believe that a large percentage of the population is not "married" so much as they are in a "civil union", as my definition of marriage is "a life long commitment made in the eyes of God, in a church setting".
Posted by: Jude | April 05, 2009 at 09:40 PM
Are we obligated to redefine our institutions only to accommodate everyone's self-image, emotional issues, morality, and eccentricities for the sake of inclusion? Is that even remotely possible? Where do you draw the line on inclusion? And who sets the boundaries? What foundational values unite us? Where do our inalienable rights come from – society or our Creator? Either way, doesn't the Prop 8 victory only confirm that society, history, and religion are all in agreement as to the definition of marriage?
Bottom line: Gay marriage is on the wrong side of history, irrational, unnecessary, and will never be embraced as a legitimate institution in society. Gay marriage will only introduce extraordinary confusion into our culture. Though it may be autocratically coerced (i.e. via court system edicts), gay marriage will never be truly accepted in the hearts and minds of a civilization without sound reasoning and the underpinnings of great moral wisdom. Try as they may, gay marriage will never achieve the same consensual acceptance as that which exists for ethnic and racial civil liberties – there’s just no comparison.
Posted by: Maximus Decimus | April 05, 2009 at 05:32 PM
Finally, will the supporters of gay marriage please describe the harm and injury gays suffer because I label the gay partnership a "civil union"? Again, what is the harm to gays because I hold to the historical definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife? Please provide specifics and examples of your injuries – make your case – how are gays injured? So far, the silence has been deafening.
The advocacy for "gay marriage" appears to be mostly a self-image issue for gays (i.e. psychic pain, deep insecurities, inferiority complex, etc.). It certainly isn't about the loss of housing, education, employment, opportunity, health, integration, relationships, love, and sex. There's just no observable lack of freedom and opportunity for the gay community. Please spare me the comparisons to the plight of African-Americans. About the best one can do is compare gays to the plight of other self-identified minorities such as atheists, bisexuals, communists, nudists, Jehovah Witnesses, vegans, Muslims, transvestites, polygamists, etc. who feel they are misunderstood by the majority
Posted by: Maximus Decimus | April 05, 2009 at 05:31 PM
One of the more interesting truths about so-called "gay marriage" is the fact that gays actually don't marry all that much where it is legal. Only 10% of gays get married in such places as Massachusetts, Canada, Belgium, and Netherlands. There is low demand and low motivation among the gay community to actually marry. Therefore, the reason gays vociferously protest for the formality of "marriage" must go beyond their interest in the institution itself. For the record, two-thirds (66%) of all heterosexuals enter into marriage (married, separated, divorced, or widowed).
So far, in California, approximately 18,000 "same-sex marriages" occurred. That's about 36,000 gays out of an estimated community of over 1 million. Admittedly, California stats are tough to analyze given the quirky political climate the past year. You have pent-up demand but you also had a lot of uncertainty. Typically, where gay "marriage" is legal (see Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.) you have an initial surge that drops off dramatically in subsequent years and levels off at 5% to 15% of the total gay population that marries. (note: I assume approximately 2% to 4% of the state's population would identify itself as gay.)
In other words, approximately 90% of gays choose (prefer) not to "marry". As a result, less than 0.5% of an entire population will require this "re-definition" of the historical, traditional institution of marriage. 99.5% of the population of a state/nation has no need for redefining marriage and "civil unions/partnerships" are perfectly acceptable to gays. Unless, of course, there's more at stake than actual "marriage" which would only imply some kind of “hidden agenda” such as "moral equality", transgenderism, bisexuality, alternative family constructs, and redefining other values, virtues, and morals.
Posted by: Maximus Decimus | April 05, 2009 at 05:29 PM
Gays are insecure about their own morality. Let's assume I'm an atheist and I think morality is in your own head. Then it's your guilt-trip not mine. There is no moral or value judgment being placed on a civil union vs. marriage. It's a definitional issue. Heck, for all I know, maybe civil unions are more righteous - who really cares? The gay community comes across as very insecure about their own morality. Perhaps this issue in the minds of gays is all about “moral equality” not marriage equality? If so, then the gays vs. religious are both engaging in the same moral play (i.e. defining foundational values). Hypothetically speaking, as an atheist, I find this debate silly and I find gay activists far more concerned about pushing their own moral agenda than they are willing to admit (i.e. transgenderism, alternative family constructs, sexual adventurism, etc.).
Posted by: Maximus Decimus | April 05, 2009 at 05:22 PM
It's important to put the Iowa gay-marriage ruling in perspective. There's an elephant in the room.
Gay-marriage proponents must rely on autocratic court edicts to further their cause. The reality is that a clear majority of Iowa citizens define marriage as exclusively the union of husband and wife. This is true across America. This remains the consensus of history, society, and religion. The fact is that the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) movement have not won the hearts and minds of people through sound reasoning and the underpinning of great moral wisdom. A heavy-handed approach of top-down autocratic rulings will only result in a divisive fundamental clash of opposing moral visions in our country.
Empirically, we know opposite sex unions are profoundly different and functionally superior to the partnership of two identical genders. Obviously, opposite sex unions with the complexity of complimentary genders, husband/wife roles, ability to produce life, and the creation of father/mother relationships sets them apart from same-sex partnerships. Americans intuitively recognize that same-sex partnerships vs. opposite-sex unions are inherently separate and unequal by their very nature.
That's the elephant in the room and the hurdle the GLBT movement must overcome.
Posted by: Maximus Decimus | April 05, 2009 at 05:05 PM
But golly gee willickers Andrew the sky hasn't fallen in MA and crushed everyone to death now has it?
Posted by: Shawn | April 05, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Despite being the capital of gays, Californian gays suffer because of massive conservative population with no chances of another vote before 2012. Iowa, on the contrary, is quite conservative overall with very little gay scene but many will keep a close eye on the situation that will develop there.
Posted by: Wajdan | April 05, 2009 at 07:47 AM
If people like Mr. Stevens are going to insist on using terms like "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage", then they need to also use "straight marriage" when referring to the laws which exclude my husband and me. The issue is marriage equality, not "gay marriage". It's a sorry state of affairs in America when the issue is whether a majority approves or not. Since when was it acceptable for the majority to deny equal rights to an oppressed minority?
Posted by: Keith Keilman | April 05, 2009 at 04:06 AM
Interesting that no where in your article does the word "justice" appear. Nor the word "liberty".
America used to pride itself on being the home of the "free", a place "with liberty and justice - for ALL".
America used to pride itself on conferring on "all" of its citizens the "inalienable right" to both "liberty" and the pursuit of happiness.
I simply wonder why these terms don't apply to its gay citizens.
Nor do either the Full Faith & Credit Clause (to legal gay marriages performed in States and countries that DO allow them) and the Equal Protections Clause, apparently.
"Iowa requires more than the momentary populist backlash needed in California to put a law beyond judicial review by passing a constitutional amendment"
Hmm, and here all this time I was led to believe that in order to change California's Constitution, a 2/3 majority was needed in the Legislature.
But now that Prop 8 has passed, I wonder if someone on the right could publish the complete list of just who's rights can be taken away in the future by mere 'popular vote'? Or, why anyone's rights should even be subject to a vote in the first place?
Posted by: George Olds | April 04, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Andrew: People who are determined to live their lives by polls - the opinions of others - are never thought to have actual lives of their own worth living.
By all means, wait by the phone so when someone calls you, you can tell them what you think about how others should live their lives.
It is apparent you have none of your own.
Posted by: Leslie | April 04, 2009 at 10:16 AM
I think the big point here is that Iowans will have lived with gay marriage for several years before it goes up for a vote. Those in the religious communities will have a much harder time "scaring" the average citizen into passing a ban on gay marriage when everyday folks say "hey I lived in Iowa for several years with gays getting married and it didn't have any affect on my life or my marriage." I don't see the fear mongering strategy being nearly as effective as it was in California. The majority of people just won't care. My wife and I won't - stay out of our business and we'll stay out of yours.
Posted by: Mike | April 04, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Andrew:
Regarding popular consent vs. constituitional precepts, it doesn't matter that slightly less than the majority of any population are uncomfortable in any way with equal rights and how courts rule on descrimination. It comes down to what's fair and just. Any way you look at it, all the malcontents, those who are Un-American enough to disparge the courts for upholding the most basic principals upon which this country was founded, including equal protection and the separation of church and state, are just going to have to grow up and be responsible citizens to balance the great rights and privaleges we receive for being Americans. The greatest measure of opposition to gay rights is based on religious faith (don't get me started) and has no place in determining civil law. Such would be tantamout to Sharia Law with a different label. Kudos to the ISC for declaring that separation of church and state so clearly. Faith of one group has not place codifying behavior of another group marginalized by that very religious code of faith.
Posted by: Nathan | April 04, 2009 at 05:11 AM
Wow, Andrew, that's amazing... especialy considering that according to Suffolk University's website: "59 percent said those couples should be allowed to legally marry in Massachusetts even if their home state prohibits gay marriage, while 37 percent said that gay couples should not be allowed to marry in Massachusetts if their home states do not allow it" as of August 2008 (http://www.suffolk.edu/30052.html) How very strange that 45% said that gay couples from out of state should be allowed to marry in Massachusetts, but only 45% thought same-sex marriage should be legal. Stranger still how I live in Massachusetts and hear nothing about such widespread opposition to same-sex marriage despite living in one of the most conservative counties in the state. Why might this be? Hmmm. You wouldn't be, you know... making stuff up or not understanding what you're reading or anything like that?
Posted by: Morisall | April 04, 2009 at 02:29 AM
Thank you. With all our hearts. Marriage is defined by love. Not sex (yes, that's a pun.). And it's about time the rest of the world found out about this. I just told the one I love that I loved them. We are both men. It was the easiest thing I have ever done in my entire life, by a mile. I have never been happier in my entire life. This law was passed on the same exact day.:) Finally, we are not second class citizens. Finally, we have a voice. Finally, the whole world can follow suit and everyone can be equal. Finally. At last. At last, my love has come along. And here we are in heaven. Thank. You. America.
Let's make this a day the world will never forget.
Posted by: The gay community | April 04, 2009 at 02:19 AM
The morality of gay marriage is essentially a debate among religious groups, and the Iowa government and courts are barred by law from settling such disputes.
What a red herring. First off, many issues now long settled manifest themselves as 'religious' conflicts. The anti-slavery campaign in both Britain and the US, for example, were led by the 'Holy Rollers' of the day. The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s was involved a slew of reverend this and thats.
Moreover, there is a conflict between Islam (and some renegade Mormon groups) and mainstream Judeo-Christian beliefs over just how many people can be in a marriage. Should the conflict between 'plural marriage' and our boring conception of a two person marriage be characterized by as a religious clash. By the 'logic' of the Iowa Supreme Court, yes. Thus the state has no right to withhold recognition of plural marriages or sharia marriages, which, after all, are sanctioned by a lot more tradition and make a whole lot more sense in terms of reproducing society than 'gay marriages'.
Posted by: Mitchell Young | April 04, 2009 at 01:51 AM
The flaw in your argument is that you are assuming that fear and loathing will give way to empirical results, logic and rational discourse. In a true lab, yes, the results should speak for themselves, but not in US politics. If this were the case, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
Posted by: Mike | April 04, 2009 at 01:02 AM
Gays have never in any state been singled out for exclusion from the institution of civil marriage. The laws in support of traditional marriage do not say that gays cannot get married. They can, within the limitations shared equally by all people. A gay man can marry a woman. A straight man cannot marry another man. Does that mean straight men suffer discrimination? Gay or straight, a man cannot marry his brother or sister. Are the incestuous suffering discrimination? Just because a man wants to marry another man doesn't mean his desire needs to be legally accommodated. If a man wants to marry his sister does society have an obligation to accommodate him? Gays can get all the benefits of marriage from civil unions. They can still have parties and call it marriage among themselves. They just want to force gay marriage on society to marginalize those that believe homosexuality is not right. They are desperately hoping that if gay marriage is legal, the feelings of unnatural guilt they can’t avoid will somehow go away. Well, judges forcing society to call it normal doesn’t really make it normal. Homosexuality, just like so many other common sexual perversions, will always be unnatural and abnormal.
Posted by: Peter | April 03, 2009 at 10:04 PM
"The poll found that 45% wanted either no recognition or civil unions (but not gay marriage) compared to just 50% who supported the gay marriage law." -- The popularity of equal rights is not the issue here. I'm sure a poll of people in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, and even Massachusetts 5 years after Brown v Topeka Board of Education would have found that most did not support desegregation. I'm sure 50 years later, you would still see a sizable percentage of people in those states against it.
Posted by: freddybearsf | April 03, 2009 at 08:53 PM
How does one prove they are "gay". A blood test can determine male or female. DNA tests can determine race. Does the State give special rights to someone who claims to be disabled simply because they state they are. The Govm't has lost it's mind and this "gay" rights thing is flawed logic. People lie all the time so how does one prove they are "gay"? "gays" are people and all people should have civil rights. Should a group get special rights based on their claims alone. Should a group force the rest of society to change their traditional and moral beliefs based on what they say is right. The Bible is right read Romans Chapter 1. Well the Governator and Ca. went down hill fast and even freak lightning. Let's watch Iowa and see what happens. There is no fear of God. The Ten Commandments should be posted in front of the New York Stock Exchange and the words thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not lie should be especially large. Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, and Abe Lincoln all said "We are Christian Nation". Without God's blessing we are doomed and our philosophy is "might makes right" just like the Romans and we will be doomed to the same fate they suffered.
Posted by: Randy | April 03, 2009 at 08:23 PM