Whoa. Just, whoa.
The Iowa Supreme Court decided, in an unanimous ruling, that a state law recognizing marriage as being solely between one man and one woman was unconstitutional.
What makes this news item qualify as a “whoa” is the fact that this occurred in Iowa. Conservative-leaning, quite-religious Iowa – I mean, Massachusetts we can all understand. But Iowa?
The justices stated in their ruling:
Equal protection under the Iowa Constitution is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. Since territorial times, Iowa has given meaning to this constitutional provision, striking blows to slavery and segregation, and recognizing women’s rights. The court found the issue of same-sex marriage comes to it with the same importance as the landmark cases of the past.
This is amazing stuff. We should read that paragraph and recognize the significance of what is happening: the justices have, more or less, equated the struggle of homosexuals for equal rights with the struggles of African-Americans and women. Gender and skin color are genetically determined – has the court now agreed with many that homosexuality is a matter of nature, and not nurture, as many on the religious right would assert? This is progress indeed!
The only downside to this is the potential for the reactionary religious nutters to push for an anti-gay marriage amendment in the Iowa constitution, which they are already espousing. But on the whole, this decision is a great victory for the advancement of equality in our country.
Well done, Iowa!
2 comments:
They are trying to pass "gay" marriage here and it's interesting because now polygamists want to be allowed to marry and a small group of bestiality individuals want to be recognized as having the right to marry. It is all going under the sexual orientation. One person was quoted, "I have always been sexually oriented to my sheep and my sheep love me so I want the same rights as heterosexuals"
You can't justify sexual relations, much less a marriage contract, with a being unable to rationally consent to either. Hence, children and non-human animals are not eligible for such arguments.
Post a Comment