![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Iowa Supreme Court has declared its state's same sex marriage ban unconstitutional.
Frankly, I don't know if this case that had been working its way through the court system since 2005 was ever on my radar. I'm surprised that there was a case, but I'm not surprised by the verdict. A rational and considered evaluation of the legal arguments against same sex marriage show that they can't possibly withstand the equal protection rights conferred by a state constitution. Most arguments of compelling state interest for disallowing same sex marriages would render some opposite sex marriages illegal too. (e.g., marriage for the purposes of encouraging procreation.) However, no one ever argues that those opposite sex marriages that also do not further the compelling state interest should also be illegal.
This is an instance of the checks and balances of the American style democratic republic at work. The legislature passes a law or the public passes a referendum doesn't say any more about a law or referendum than that a bunch of people wanted it. If it's fair, workable and consistent, then it ought to pass the scrutiny of a high judicial body. District Courts and state Supreme Courts have affirmed over and over again that banning same sex marriage is inconsistent with the society we imply with our state constitutions. (I note that, unlike Massachusetts, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling.)
It's probably still too much to hope that people will put aside their own personal discomfort and allow all Americans the same rights, I suppose? And I get that people are genuinely uncomfortable. But you know what? In the (few) states that have allowed same sex marriage, civilization has not collapsed. Life has gone on as it always has and we are no less moral or ethical people for it.
(In the case of MA, the SJC allows same sex marriage, then the Red Sox break the curse winning the world series for the first time in 86 years. Who knew? :-) )
On one specific axis, we may be more moral because we are not explicitly preventing people to commit to each other for life. I've never understood how it makes for a better society to prevent two people who love each other to create a legal relationship where none had previously existed just because doing so might make someone else uncomfortable. Yes, I've heard all the arguments, and I mean all the arguments. Those arguments all, at heart, boil down to "because it make me uncomfortable", as if the marriage of two people is really about the 3rd person on the other side of the state who doesn't know those two people from a piece of rock on the ground. I acknowledge their discomfort, but I don't acknowledge that their discomfort rises to the level of denying people their basic rights.
So, yes, I suspect there are a bunch of sad and uncomfortable people in Iowa right now. However, in three weeks when the decision takes affect, Iowans which had rights denied to them will have them. I hope the sad and uncomfortable can take solace in that if their rights are ever denied, people will fight to grant those rights to them too.
Frankly, I don't know if this case that had been working its way through the court system since 2005 was ever on my radar. I'm surprised that there was a case, but I'm not surprised by the verdict. A rational and considered evaluation of the legal arguments against same sex marriage show that they can't possibly withstand the equal protection rights conferred by a state constitution. Most arguments of compelling state interest for disallowing same sex marriages would render some opposite sex marriages illegal too. (e.g., marriage for the purposes of encouraging procreation.) However, no one ever argues that those opposite sex marriages that also do not further the compelling state interest should also be illegal.
This is an instance of the checks and balances of the American style democratic republic at work. The legislature passes a law or the public passes a referendum doesn't say any more about a law or referendum than that a bunch of people wanted it. If it's fair, workable and consistent, then it ought to pass the scrutiny of a high judicial body. District Courts and state Supreme Courts have affirmed over and over again that banning same sex marriage is inconsistent with the society we imply with our state constitutions. (I note that, unlike Massachusetts, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling.)
It's probably still too much to hope that people will put aside their own personal discomfort and allow all Americans the same rights, I suppose? And I get that people are genuinely uncomfortable. But you know what? In the (few) states that have allowed same sex marriage, civilization has not collapsed. Life has gone on as it always has and we are no less moral or ethical people for it.
(In the case of MA, the SJC allows same sex marriage, then the Red Sox break the curse winning the world series for the first time in 86 years. Who knew? :-) )
On one specific axis, we may be more moral because we are not explicitly preventing people to commit to each other for life. I've never understood how it makes for a better society to prevent two people who love each other to create a legal relationship where none had previously existed just because doing so might make someone else uncomfortable. Yes, I've heard all the arguments, and I mean all the arguments. Those arguments all, at heart, boil down to "because it make me uncomfortable", as if the marriage of two people is really about the 3rd person on the other side of the state who doesn't know those two people from a piece of rock on the ground. I acknowledge their discomfort, but I don't acknowledge that their discomfort rises to the level of denying people their basic rights.
So, yes, I suspect there are a bunch of sad and uncomfortable people in Iowa right now. However, in three weeks when the decision takes affect, Iowans which had rights denied to them will have them. I hope the sad and uncomfortable can take solace in that if their rights are ever denied, people will fight to grant those rights to them too.
