Gay Marriage in Iowa

The Iowa Supreme Court just ruled that a gay marriage ban is unconstitional under the Iowa state Constitution's equal protection requirement. I'm not familiar with the Iowa state Constitution so I'm not going to argue the legal issue but I would like to address some comments in the article. One of the plaintiff's attorneys is quoted as saying that this represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage. Unfortunately, that is not the case. What it represents is the court overruling a popular law. Gay marriage is still opposed by a majority of Americans. Racism and sexism were made illegal by laws passed by the legislature and then supported by the courts. What we are seeing with gay marriage is that it is being made illegal by the legislatures and then overruled by the courts. To me, this is not the best way to handle the mainstreaming of gay marriage. I suspect that by using the court system to overrule the legislatures, gay marriage supporters are alienating people rather than gaining support. Until proponents of gay marriage began using the courts to "legalize" gay marriage, there were no laws banning gay marriage. By making an end run around the legislators, gay marriage supporters have provoked a backlash resulting in the passing of laws banning gay marriage.

This seems to be an increasing pattern, where a group believes that something is unfair and rather than campaigning for law changes, they use the court system to change the law. The courts have encouraged this by "legislating" from the bench, stretching and bending the Constitution beyond what it was meant to do. It is much better if changes are made through the people and the legislators.

And for the record, my own view on the issue is that the government should get out of the marriage business and sanction a civil union/domestic partnership between any two people for the purpose of maintaining a household. The details would have to be worked out, but such a system might even have several different levels (a light version for those who share a residence and a strong version for those who wish to raise children together, for example). This contract would be open to any two people, even siblings are parents and children. It would not imply a sexual or romantic relationship. Then churches and other religious organizations could "marry" whoever they want to or don't want to, just like they can baptize, ordain, or otherwise perform religious ceremonies on whoever they want or don't want.

I believe this would satisfy both sides as gay couples would have the same rights as straight couples and the religious sacrement of marriage would no longer be subject to government regulation. But my proposal is logical and actually addresses the problems and thus would never actually be implemented.

Technorati: Courts, Marriage, Religion