Currently, Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts allow gay marriage. California allowed them, and then it got overturned. It seems like the country is seesawing on the edge between banning and allowing gay marriage. Not that many years ago, even these cases wouldn’t be happening.
So is this a sign that the country is starting to tip towards allowing gay marriage, is it an indication of a stronger push from the pro-gay marriage side, both, something else?
I’ve only given it a cursory reading, but it appears that the Court followed California and found that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to a heightened level of scrutiny (in Iowa’s case intermediate scrutiny), and the reasons given by the state (tradition, raising children, procreation, stability of heterosexual relations, and preservation of state resources) for the ban were not important enough and the ban didn’t advance those interests well enough.
I’m intrigued by two things I’ve seen before. First, that it was unanimous. That all 7 justices agreed is surprising to me. Second, that the court seemed to go out of its way to find that the religious reasons for banning same sex marriage are also insufficient for the court.
The tide will turn eventually, you can’t defend an indefensible position for ever. I wouldn’t be surprised if gay marriage was mostly legal by the end of Obamas second term.
Not so much turning has having turned. Kind of like the civil rights movement, we tend to think it “started” in the early-mid sixties, but that was really when it gained popular support, that was the point in time when the handwriting on the wall became apparent.
For the younger generation, gayitude is largely accepted, though still subject to sniggering humor, it is no longer regarded with horror and dismay. You are more likely to attract scorn for your preferences in music than your preferences in sex.
Yes. A dam can take years to weaken, but its ultimate rupture happens suddenly.
Note the increasing number and strength of moves to fix the now-identified civil rights problem legislatively, especially in states adjoining those further advanced in the process. It’s certainly easier to see the sky not falling and civilization surviving if it’s right next door, and not in some distant wacko-liberal-land. So maybe Illinois is next in line? Minnesota?
The lack of No votes on the ISC may merely reflect that the arguments against it have now been pretty widely studied and are now pretty widely understood to be bogus. Or it may reflect lobbying by the majority looking to create more impact, as happened in *Brown.
This is the big difference. I’m sure that if it was as easy to change as it was in California, we’d see it overturned by the public.
But as the other posters have pointed out, time does (1) help expose and disprove the untenable arguments for the anti-gay side and (2) show that moral decay does not ensue after passing laws like this.
So in the glee over the end result of this decision, nobody is concerned by this absolute raw judicial activism? Does anyone seriously believe that the authors of the relevant portion of the Iowa Constitution intended it to allow same-sex marriage?
And what is to stop 10, 20, 100 years from now another Court to be judicially active, but in a bad way?
The only assurance that our state and national Constitutions can protect any of our rights is the firm respect for what they say. When you invent something out of whole cloth because you would really like that something to be law, then you cheapen the rest of the document and all of the protections those documents contain.
Get his minions in the legislative branch to grant homosexual relationships a similar protected status as race at the federal level. (Theoretically speaking. He ain’t gonna.)
The decision isn’t based on interpreting the law in some whimsical fashion, it is based on the determination that equal protection under the law means what it says, and that no such protection can be witheld without a compelling reason. No such compelling interest obliges the state to forbid the, ah, comforts of marriage to persons of the same gender.
So when the law is passed that prohibits you from expressing such opinions, on penalty of a mandatory prison term, what will you do about it? Obey the law and keep quiet? Claim your “right” under the First Amendment? Because remember, omn your showing a judge can’t overturn a law passed by the legislature just because he sees clearly that it flies in the face of what the constitution says – that’s judicial activism!
By the way, what part of “deny the equal protection of the laws” did the justices make up out of whole cloth? Most people can see that written in the constitution – too bad your copy has it blotted out (probably by Mr. Bork).
