Iowhat?

Being a California native who has lived all of my life in California and has taken an interest in state and local politics, I know much more about the laws of California than I do about the laws of Iowa. However, I still wanted to write a bit about the Iowa’s court decision to force neutered marriage licensing on the people of Iowa, and analyze some of the news coverage.

[Go below the fold if you care to read it.]

Jessica Garrison and Maura Dolan had this Los Angeles Times article.

The Iowa Supreme Court, citing California's historic marriage decision, overturned a ban Friday on same-sex marriage in a ruling that emphasized the need for courts to protect minorities even when public sentiment is against them.

First of all, like most other articles, this one makes the mistakes of referring to the laws as "bans" and referring to "gay marriage" interchangeably with "same-sex marriage". Again I ask – why are the editors so bigoted as to think that two heterosexual men should not use neutered marriage licensing?

Secondly, the Iowa court referred to a California decision that was overturned by the people of California. If courts are going to start using overturned rulings, especially from other jurisdictions, then where does it stop? Or is this valid because Iowa doesn't have a constitutional amendment reinforcing traditional marriage licensing? The state constitution probably doesn't have an amendment saying that people must be wearing clothes when they appear before the state supreme court. So what?

Finally, this mentality that "minorities" must be protected is flawed. Everyone should have their rights protected. That is what the government is there to do – protect natural rights. Even granting there is a right to equal access/treatment/protection, or what have you - that already exists under bride-groom marriage licensing. Granting new "rights" to voluntarily-formed couples or groups opens up a can of worms. Why can't my group of friends be classified as a nonprofit? Send your checks to us now! Plus, any group that is a group based on the fact that the members of the group engage in a behavior that the majority does not engage in is a "minority", yet I'm sure I could name "minorities" that fit that definition that the court would not see fit to "protect", nor would any of the homosexuality advocacy organizations pushing to neuter marriage licensing based on this reasoning.

Gay rights activists and a legal scholar said Friday's ruling could provide ammunition for overturning Proposition 8, either in court or at the ballot box.

I don't see why. The people of California amended the California constitution. Why should a California court use the opinion of another state's court issued after their own hearing? The California court is ruled by the state constitution.

In the Iowa decision, Justice Mark Cady wrote: "We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective.

And this is one the basic flaws of the ruling. Nowhere do the laws ban GLBTQQ? people from the institution of civil marriage. Haven't we all heard of such individuals who have, indeed, participated licensed marriages over the years? That the plaintiffs do not want to participate as it exists does not mean the state is excluding them. They are excluding themselves.

"The Legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

What makes that civil institution important? 1) It unites both sexes into a microcosm of society. 2) It licenses the only kind of coupling that can naturally produce the next generation and provide that generation with a role model from each sex, thereby perpetuating society in favorable conditions. These things do not apply to couples who are absent a bride or a groom.

Legal experts said the Iowa ruling, written by one of the two Republican appointees on the seven-member court, was striking in that it was the first unanimous decision backing same-sex marriage rights.

Right – the people of a state have never voted to neuter marriage licensing. The decisions have always been made by courts. And this is the first court not to be split.

The Iowa court also cited California's marriage ruling to buttress its decision.

As I noted, the California ruling was overturned by the people. If these courts are going to use each others' opinions instead of sticking to their own state constitutions, then error will beget error. Precedents aren't perfect nor should they always stand. If they were, we'd still have slaves who would be property of owners.

Some gay rights advocates said the decision showed that gay marriage was becoming increasingly accepted across all sectors of American society.

"Iowa is Middle America. It is the heartland," said Marc Solomon, marriage director for gay rights group Equality California. "I think this will be an 'a-ha' moment."

I'd hardly call a handful of courtrooms, badgered by lawyers from New York, "all sectors of American society".

Paul Thornton checked in on the ruling on the LATimes.com opinion blog.

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.

Interesting, since slavery was about forcing people to do things against their consent (or without compensation), and now the court is forcing the people of Iowa to neuter their marriage licensing against their consent.

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..."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."

Okay, so why didn't they get the state out of marriage licensing entirely?

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.

See how this works? It is essentially this: "Yes, marriage is a religious issue, and the government can't get involved in religion, so we can't heed those who say religious tradition reinforces that marriage unites a bride and a groom. Yet the government can license marriage and courts can make changes to that licensing." The problem here is that the state did not create marriage. It recognized marriage and licenses it, per the people. Changes to that licensing should be left up to the people.

Finally, Melinda over at Stand to Reason has this interesting observation:

From the Iowa Supreme Court ruling rejecting a state law that restricted marriage to a man and a woman, footnote 26:

The traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.