Iowa Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage
In a unanimous decision by the Iowa Supreme Court, justices upheld a 2007 decision by a Polk County judge which stated that marriage should not be limited to one man and one woman.
Today’s decision makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the third in the country, to allow same-sex marriages. Lambda Legal, a gay rights group, financed the court battle and represented six couples who challenged Iowa’s 10-year-old ban on gay marriage.
Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady, who wrote the unanimous decision, at one point invoked the court’s first-ever decision, in 1839, which struck down slavery laws 17 years before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of a slave owner to treat a person as property.
Iowa’s gay marriage ban “is unconstitutional, because the county has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage,” Cady wrote in the 69-page opinion that seemed to dismiss the concept of civil unions as an option for gay couples.
“A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution,” Cady wrote.
This is where my libertarian-leaning beliefs conflict with that of the Religious Right and what many believe to be a major tenet of the Conservative movement. I would tend to disagree. I plan to – at a later date – further elaborate on this issue.
Please take a moment to answer this poll. I will post the results in a few days.
5 comments
[...] Iowa Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage [...]
I am a classic liberal. Being one, I believe the Federal Government needs to get out of the issue. Like any traditional Baptist I believe that morality is taught and upheld by the Church. By allowing the government into the issue of marriage or any other issue of the sort the Church becomes subject to Federal stipulations for marriage. This is why as a Christian who believes that not only homosexual but non-Christian marriage should not be instituted, I support the government going back to its original position, getting out of the marriage issue completely–hetero and homosexual marriage. Then marriage would be left up to private bodies/congregations. I know no church I would be a part of would allow homosexual marriage and it would be subject to no government mandates saying it has to do so.
That being said I have absolutely no problem with a State banning gay marriage. This is a classic issue of Federalism. If the people of a State want to set certain laws over themselves, so be it. If other do not like it, work for change or move to a State that allows what you desire.
What I do have a problem with is activist judges exercising judicial review. Of course, on the US Supreme Court lacks this power and has unconstitutionally given itself said power. Jefferson called the unconstitutional (violates Article 3 and 6) “power of judicial review” the seed of great despotism. I do not know if Iowa’s SC has been given this power but I doubt it. If so, so be it. Otherwise, it has acted against the compact agreed upon by the people. It has also violated the people’s rights according to the 10th Amendment. That is tyranny and a tyranny that must be combated.
That is the Classic Liberal, libertarian, true conservative response.
Oh, Mr. Hurtt i do believe you have given your position on this topic: http://media.www.mtsusidelines.com/media/storage/paper202/news/2006/02/13/Opinions/Homosexuality.Does.Not.Fit.Others.Should.Not.Be.Made.To.Accomodate.Gay.Marriage-1609674.shtml
And to Daryl churches wouldn’t be mandated by the government to allow same-sex marriage. Obama himself said it is a State’s right. We have two types of marriages in this country. You can have your traditional marriage with the big white puffy dress (the church) or you can just go to the court house (state).
“activist judges exercising judicial review” this same thing was said about blacks during their civil rights movement just because we move from on group of people to another it’s alright to say the judges are “activist”?
You’ll notice my writing has greatly improved since my first stint at MTSU’s rag, Brandon. I might ask you if you’ve ever changed your mind on an issue because you’ve learned more about it – become more educated, so to speak.
It is ignorant to suggest that one would maintain a set of beliefs one held at age 18 for the remainder of his life.
You would do well pursue other policy issues here.
Brandon. My first point is valid. Though now a church mustn’t bow to the state’s will on the marriage issue. The government could if it wished force a Church to either marry all or marry none by “unconstitutionally” invoking the 14th Amendment or the “commerce clause.” It has happened on similar issues and there is no reason it couldn’t happen again.
Obama is no fan of the 10th Amendment! However, he has done nothing on the issue of marriage to warrant major criticism. Though he still wants the government in the business of defining and issuing marriages–something not done until the first quarter of the 20th Century.
As for the use of “activist judges” I am correctly using the term. An activist judge according to Constitutional Law dicta is a judge who overturns the work of the other branches of government. It can be conservatives as in Lochner v. NY or liberals as in US v Darby Lumber. I call them activists not because of the positions they hold, but because of the actions they carry out–overturning legislation.
Leave a Comment