Iowa leading the way
originally reported by webquatch
I'm sure the hankies are out, the teeth are being grinded and the hands are bring wrung tonight in Iowa but ultimately the Iowa Supreme Court just lead the way.
Supreme Court of Iowa Opinion on the rights of Homosexuals to Marry (PDF) April 3, 2009
"Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them. [...] ('The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[...]'). The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, 'Marriage is a civil contract' and then regulates that civil contract. [...] Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage.
We, of course, have a constitutional mandate to protect the free exercise of religion in Iowa, which includes the freedom of a religious organization to define marriages it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman. [...] ('The general assembly shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion][...]'). This mission to protect religious freedom is consistent with our task to prevent government from endorsing any religious view. State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation. [...] This proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state.
As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more."
What brings this on? Apparently the issue of the right of homosexuals to marry was brought before the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Unanimous Ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman
Basic fairness and constitutional equal protection were the linchpins of Friday’s historic Iowa Supreme Court ruling that overturned a 10-year-old ban on same-sex marriage and puts Iowa squarely in the center of the nation’s debate over gay rights.
The unanimous, 69-page decision maintains a church’s right to decide who can be married under its roof, but it runs counter to the expressed opinion of a majority of Iowans who believe marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.
The landmark ruling is guaranteed to send shock waves through politics in Iowa and beyond. With no appeal as an option, opponents say their only hope to overturn Friday’s decision is an almost-certain bid to amend the state constitution. But that path, which would eventually require a public vote, would not yield results until 2012 at the earliest.
You can expect a Constitutional Amendment to follow of course. I don't know the rules for Iowa to do so, but there is some controversy over whether or not California's host of religious bigots followed proper procedure when they decided to take the rights of American citizens away. However, the Supreme Court of the state has already decided and it's unlikely that the bigots out there will be able to frame what they're doing in such a way that a Constitutional amendment taking away the freedom of expression and equal protection clauses for X group of people so that the majority of people think it's a good idea. Barring an Iowa state Constitutional amendment the only thing that can stop this now would be a federal court battle - which may well take place, ya never know.
We should naturally keep an eye on this, but I hope that this will establish precedent and begin moving through the states.
This heartens me though. Because if a court somewhere in the land can protect the rights of the most unpopular group in the country with such a logical, well thought out and reasonable fashion than perhaps there IS hope that freedom can actually exist here. I realize that this is a monumental event to my GBLT brothers and sisters out there. But most people do not look at the issue properly. If you can take away someone's rights because you don't like them. Then it can happen to anyone. Tomorrow you could lose your right to be equal before the law because you don't have the right hairdo or because your feet are too big. This should be viewed as a personal issue for everyone because it is. The Bible bangers should realize that this means that if any other group becomes louder and more political powerful - that group can't turn around and say "Christians are not allowed to marry".
It's about fucking time that everyone who doesn't fall into the 'cool club' of white anglo-saxton protestant heterosexual started to get representation from their government.
I'm sure the hankies are out, the teeth are being grinded and the hands are bring wrung tonight in Iowa but ultimately the Iowa Supreme Court just lead the way.
Supreme Court of Iowa Opinion on the rights of Homosexuals to Marry (PDF) April 3, 2009
"Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them. [...] ('The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[...]'). The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, 'Marriage is a civil contract' and then regulates that civil contract. [...] Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage.
We, of course, have a constitutional mandate to protect the free exercise of religion in Iowa, which includes the freedom of a religious organization to define marriages it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman. [...] ('The general assembly shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion][...]'). This mission to protect religious freedom is consistent with our task to prevent government from endorsing any religious view. State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation. [...] This proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state.
As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more."
What brings this on? Apparently the issue of the right of homosexuals to marry was brought before the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Unanimous Ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman
Basic fairness and constitutional equal protection were the linchpins of Friday’s historic Iowa Supreme Court ruling that overturned a 10-year-old ban on same-sex marriage and puts Iowa squarely in the center of the nation’s debate over gay rights.
The unanimous, 69-page decision maintains a church’s right to decide who can be married under its roof, but it runs counter to the expressed opinion of a majority of Iowans who believe marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.
The landmark ruling is guaranteed to send shock waves through politics in Iowa and beyond. With no appeal as an option, opponents say their only hope to overturn Friday’s decision is an almost-certain bid to amend the state constitution. But that path, which would eventually require a public vote, would not yield results until 2012 at the earliest.
You can expect a Constitutional Amendment to follow of course. I don't know the rules for Iowa to do so, but there is some controversy over whether or not California's host of religious bigots followed proper procedure when they decided to take the rights of American citizens away. However, the Supreme Court of the state has already decided and it's unlikely that the bigots out there will be able to frame what they're doing in such a way that a Constitutional amendment taking away the freedom of expression and equal protection clauses for X group of people so that the majority of people think it's a good idea. Barring an Iowa state Constitutional amendment the only thing that can stop this now would be a federal court battle - which may well take place, ya never know.
We should naturally keep an eye on this, but I hope that this will establish precedent and begin moving through the states.
This heartens me though. Because if a court somewhere in the land can protect the rights of the most unpopular group in the country with such a logical, well thought out and reasonable fashion than perhaps there IS hope that freedom can actually exist here. I realize that this is a monumental event to my GBLT brothers and sisters out there. But most people do not look at the issue properly. If you can take away someone's rights because you don't like them. Then it can happen to anyone. Tomorrow you could lose your right to be equal before the law because you don't have the right hairdo or because your feet are too big. This should be viewed as a personal issue for everyone because it is. The Bible bangers should realize that this means that if any other group becomes louder and more political powerful - that group can't turn around and say "Christians are not allowed to marry".
It's about fucking time that everyone who doesn't fall into the 'cool club' of white anglo-saxton protestant heterosexual started to get representation from their government.