Iowa Court Approves Gay Marriage, Vermont Passes Same-Sex Bill
The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously decided Friday that a law declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman is unconstitutional, making its state the first in the Midwest to approve same-sex marriage.
Iowa's court ruled that same-sex marriage would become legal on April 24, and the law would apply to any couple who wanted to travel to Iowa. The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only alternative for opponents appears to be a constitutional amendment, which would be considered in 2011 at the earliest.
To change the Iowa Constitution requires a resolution to be adopted in the exact same form by the House and the Senate of two consecutive General Assemblies before the issue would go before voters for ratification, according to the Cedar Rapids Gazette.
The Vermont House voted this week to allow same-sex couples to marry in the state, but the governor is expected to veto the decision next week. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California State Supreme Courts also moved to legalize same-sex marriage, but voters in California overturned California's decision in November 2008.
“California’s vote came much quicker, so I suspect they had a much easier time,” said Kim Conger, a political scientist at Iowa State University. “I think it’s going to be harder fight three years from now because there will be a lot of gay, married people in the state.”
An Iowa Poll in February 2008 showed that 62 percent of Iowans believed marriage should be only between one man and one woman. Thirty-two percent said they believed same-sex marriages should be allowed, while 6 percent were unsure, according to the Des Moines Register.
In its opinion, the court addressed religious opposition to same-sex marriage, saying that a religious denomination can still define marriage as between a man and a woman, but civil marriage “reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law.”
“While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the notion of same-sex marriage unsettling,” the seven justices said in a summary of their opinion. “Civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individual.”
The court said that its desire to protect religious freedom is consistent with preventing government from endorsing any religious view, which opponents found troubling.
“The notion that the only reason one could have an opposition to same-sex marriage is because of religion is pretty preposterous,” said John Eastman, dean of the law school at Chapman University in California. “And to discount religion or to say it’s not a legitimate part of the discourse is not only erroneous but dangerous.”
The justices referred to Iowa’s history on several landmark decisions in its opinion. “Since territorial times, Iowa has given meaning to this constitutional provision, striking blows to slavery and segregation, and recognizing women’s rights,” the justices wrote. “The court found the issue of same-sex marriage comes to it with the same importance as the landmark cases of the past.”
Iowa’s court case began in 2005, when six same-sex couples filed a lawsuit because a county recorder would not accept their marriage license applications. The decision still surprised many because it was the first state in the Midwest to approve same-sex marriage.
“It is known as a socially conservative state, but it has socially liberal pockets as well,” said David Masci, senior research fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. “I think you’ll see evangelicals and social conservatives start to mobilize. For people who are supportive of same-sex marriage, it has to be a very positive development in terms of mainstreaming the debate.”
Copyright © 2009 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Related Elsewhere:
Christianity Today will also follow developments on the politics blog.
Sidelining the Stigma of Mental Illness
Starting a Dialogue with Hip-Hop
The Latest in Movie News, June 17, 2013
It's the Thoughts That Count
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 11 comments
See all comments
Scott
Pilgrim: If you have never encountered a Christian (or one who claimed to be) that hated gays then you need to get out more. It's fine if Christians oppose homosexuality - whether for biblical, "moral" reasons or simply because it makes them squeamish. I have no issue with them opposing homosexuality.... for themselves. Unfortunately they don't stop there. They insist that the rest of the world and the lives of their fellow human beings mirror their own personal belief system. They want our laws to deny freedoms and protections to people who don't live their lives according to their own personal set of rules and they'll spread lies and hate in their relentless crusade to achieve that goal. They have a warped idea of the meaning of religious freedom. It's unacceptable and society is rejecting it more and more.
godswordis real
First rule when dealing with the issue of gay marriage: Never trust the comments of anyone who is connected with media or entertainment. They would sacrifice their own mothers/fathers for a dollar. Truth is not their forte. Next: As long as there are people who believe in evolution vs. creation, or those who do not believe in God, or Christianity, we, the people (as a whole), will never make the connection between why our world continues to deteriate. Many will never make the connection between what God says will destroy us. Many will never make the connection in what God considers to be in direct conflict with his reasoning to create woman, which was/is to accommodate man in procreation and continue with his original invention of the human species. Life will never rise out of feces. And if it did, it would stink to the high heavens. Revelations tells us that humans are damn to destroy themselves and how, in conjunction with Satan, it will be done. Fools are we.
Anna
Nice to be able to post again. I need to correct a statement I posted as I can see that people are using my previous posting to advance their theories. I forgot that the State has itself involved in the marriage act by issuing marriage licenses to collect money. As a result since what the homosexuals want is state legalized marriage, it doesn't matter what church a homosexual goes to get married in unless he's looking to change the beliefs of the church which is an issue separate from the state issuing licenses. For some reason homosexuals equate marriage with the church when there are many judges and city mayors, etc. who are willing to marry and many States have civil union. But this isnot what they really want. They want that church marriage and as such, they want the Church to change it's beliefs for them. Why they think they're different than any one else, I don't know. Everyone of us has had to change ourselves to the Church not the other way round. God is the boss not us.