As you've probably heard by now, District Judge Robert Hanson down in Polk County single handedly decided that Iowa would recognize gay marriage. The actual ruling is here, thanks to Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online today (see below). A stay was issued today, but not before 21 licenses were handed out, with one couple from Ames actually getting married before the stay was put in place. Jonathan Martin has a piece up on his blog at The Politico.com about this, and has a map depicting what states allow same-sex marriage, civil unions or partnerships. Notice that the highlighted states are on the coasts, except for Iowa, right in the middle.
Kudos to Mitt Romney for sending this message out fairly soon after the announcement: "The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."
According to Jonathan Martin at the above link, John McCain issued a press release saying that "the decision "a loss for the traditional family,' and noting that he supports 'the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."
Chris Rants issued this release:
“Judge Hanson’s shocking action today has reversed the will of the people of Iowa, the will of the Legislature,” said Rants. “Democrats, in trying to appease special interest groups, allowed this to happen with their opposition to a marriage amendment. If Gov. Culver and Legislative Democrats proceed with a special session regarding the date of the Iowa caucus, Democrats need to step up and put this issue to rest by introducing a marriage amendment to Iowa’s Constitution.”
Rants added that House Republicans would support a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage in the state of Iowa. “The over-stepping and stunning action taken by this court today proves that work on a Constitutional marriage amendment must begin immediately.”
And Governor Culver, a little surprising I might say, issued this release: “While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
“I also believe in the rule of law and respect for the judicial process. I have not had the opportunity to review today's opinion from the Polk County District Court. I understand this ruling is one step that is subject to appeal, up to and including the Supreme Court. I will continue to follow this matter closely as it continues through the judicial system before determining whether any additional legislative actions are appropriate or necessary."
This ruling should outrage everyone. There are several different aspects of this case that can be discussed.
The first obvious issue is gay marriage. Is marriage to remain as one man and one woman, or can/could/should the definition of marriage be changed to same sex or anything else? Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online today brought this up. He opened his post with this: I’ve only glanced at the Iowa decision, so this is nothing like a final or fully considered analysis. Still, I was struck by one particular phrase in the decision: "In addition, their [i.e. same-sex couples’] exclusion [from marriage] defeats the state’s admitted interest in the welfare of all [emphasis original] of its children, regardless of whether they are parented by different-sex couples, same-sex couples or any other family unit [p. 58, my emphasis]. Its a good post that I recommend you read, as well as the "Beyond Same Sex Marriage" manifesto he links to. He brings up an important point. Opponents of same sex marriage have argued almost from day one about the slippery slope---same sex marriage leading to polygamy, or something else. It appears that the slope is more real that some would have you believe.
Second, and I would argue more important, is what is the role of judges in our government? Are judges there to interpret law, or make law? The constitution, both federal and state, says that the legislature makes law, while the judicial interprets that law. They don't read into the law what they want, they don't make things up and say its in there with some creative wording (Justice Douglas' "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance" in Roe v. Wade). Is Iowa going to stand by and allow law to be made from the bench, or will we, the electorate as well as our elected officials stand up and keep the right to make law only with the legislative branch?
Third is the option of constitutional amendments. It's fairly obvious that there will be a huge push for a change in the Iowa constitution. The question though is how many states will likewise see a push for constitutional amendments (currently there are twenty-six states with the amendment), and will there be a new push for a federal amendment? It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out with the presidential candidates. Mitt Romney supports a federal amendment, while John McCain and Fred Thompson have voiced their support for individual state amendments instead. I'm not sure where the other candidates stand on the issue, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.
Finally, this is an issue that is going to energize Republicans across the state. In Iowa, a constitutional amendment needs to be read in the legislature during two consecutive sessions before being passed onto a state wide referendum. So while an actual amendment won't be on the ballot in 2008 (unless a special session would count as one session, then the 2008 session as number two), Republicans will come out in force to vote against anyone who doesn't support an amendment. Everybody running for office this cycle, from presidential candidates all the way down to the local level, is going to be asked repeatedly what his or her stance is on this and if they will support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Their responses need to be recorded and distributed so everyone knows. Even those not facing reelection this cycle need to be repeatedly asked about this.
The effects of Robert Hanson's actions won't only be seen here in Iowa however. It's going to be felt across the county. Before, the only states anyone saw this happening was in California, Massachusetts, and other bastions of liberalism along the coasts. Again, see the map posted in the first paragraph. Nobody expected this to happen in Iowa. Iowa was probably the last place, outside of the south, where someone might expect this. But it happened. And if it can happen in Iowa, it can happen anywhere.
-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment