A Blessing on Gay Marriage from Iowa

The Iowa Supreme Court did the just thing last week when it found laws prohibiting marriage between people of the same gender unconstitutional. The court gave a UNANIMOUS opinion displaying a moral clarity on the subject which other states and ultimately the nation will surly follow. The following is from the summary that the court released about its finding:

In addressing the case before it, the court found one constitutional principle was at the heart of the case--the doctrine of equal protection. Equal protection under the Iowa Constitution "is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." Since territorial times, Iowa has given meaning to this constitutional provision, striking blows to slavery and segregation, and recognizing women's rights. The court found the issue of same-sex marriage comes to it with the same importance as the landmark cases of the past.

As a minister who largely does heterosexual weddings but occasionally also performs same sex wedding ceremonies and civil unions I can cooroberate the findings of the court from the religious side. I see no qualitative difference between the love and commitment of same sex couples and heterosexual couples. Both undergo a great deal of mental, emotional and spiritual preparation before arriving at the conclusion that they would like to be joined together - if anything homosexual couples have to put in more thought as the step of marriage is still not an obvious one. Homosexual couples deserve the equal protection and the rights that the court in Iowa recently afforded them.

Regardless of this reality, many of my clergy colleagues will refuse to perform these ceremonies using the shelter of religious tradition to account for their discrimination. That is their right - this law forces no clergy to perform any weddings against their will and it shouldn't. Most Rabbis won't marry a Jew to a non-Jew - that's their right. But it doesn't mean that Jews shouldn't have the constitutional right to marry non-Jews just because a Rabbi says so.

Much has been made by gay marriage opponents of how this goes against the will of the majority of people. That is probably still the case, but that majority is getting slimmer every year and soon it will be the minority. Few, though some, would still argue for segregated schools in the south, but there was a time when that was a "moral" principle deeply embedded in the majority of citizens. The courts are meant to protect the rights of the minority populations from the tyranny of the majority, not because it is popular but because it is the right thing to do.

In response to the Iowa ruling Rod Dreher of Crunchy Con predictably lamented:

This morning, I had breakfast with some guys, including a lawyer. We weren't aware of this decision, but we talked about this issue. The lawyer said that as soon as homosexuality receives constitutionally protected status equivalent to race, then "it will be very hard to be a public Christian." By which he meant to voice support, no matter how muted, for traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality and marriage.

First of all, equating being a public Christian with being anti-gay is simply not accurate as millions of us are public Christians without beating up on gay people. Second, anyone can voice support for anything they want - "traditional Christian teachings on homosexuality"; racial purity; the superiority of Christianity over Islam and other religions - people still voice support for these things publicly and the courts will support thieir ability to do so.

And the rest of us can publicly disagree.

Cross posted from Beliefnet's Progressive Revival

Comments

[yuenzzzz]

Leave it to Vermont and Iowa to be the most progressive states in the nation, shame on us here in California for passing Prop 9. Whether you call it Gay Marriage or Civil Union, the basic premise is that every person should have equal rights. It’s good to see that some states are progressing, I made a list on my site of the states I think will legalize Gay Marriage first: http://www.toptentopten.com/topten/first+states+that+will+legalize+gay+marriage

[SJBrown]

"Few, though some, would still argue for segregated schools in the south, but there was a time when that was a "moral" principle deeply embedded in the majority of citizens."

Segregation was about white supremacy. Yes, there are those that would still argue for segregated schools. BTW: Many private schools are pretty exclusive/­segregated­.

Traditional marriage is for a man and a woman in this country (a man and many women in other countries/­societies)­. Characterizing it in terms of discrimination, minority rights, segregation in schools is not honest or historically correct.

The government can do what it wants in underpinning contract, policy, benefits and/penalty to a commitment between two people; call it "civil marriage" or make up a totally new term. The government permitted legal slavery, enforced legal barriers to Constiutional freedom and rights based on gender and on race (as defined by ancestry); permitted States to legislate white supremacy into law and practice; to criminalize association based on race/ancestry; and to enact laws to deny rights that resulted from Constiutional amendments to a group of people based on race/ancestry (African).

The sacrifice and risks taken by Christians (some) to free enslaved people is well documented. Rev. Martin Luther King was a Baptist minister and the modern civil rights movement appealed to our humanity and beliefs in freedom and God. The arguments that link the church to segregation and discrimination should acknowledge the roles it played in abolishing slavery and in the civil rights movement.

.

[Willow712]

I'm a 56 year old straight woman, so its not personal for me. However, I believe that the sanctity of marriage would be more sacred with marriage equality because it will be marriage for that one reason, love. Civil unions, fine. However, equality, having a marriage, having it mean the same for the two lovebirds means wanting marriage, not civil unions. When you love someone, butterflies and giddiness mean marriage, combining, loving, not civil unions.

[Willow712]

Doesn't anybody Conservative realize that it isn't the money or the tax breaks or anything along that line? Its about love. And when a hetero couple falls in love, what do they want to do? Bind together to form a family, raise children, buy a house, declare to the world that they are a couple, for the rest of their lives (hopefully). Its innate in humans to want connections, acceptance, love. If hetero couples were denied basic rights, for example African Americans marrying caucasians in the South, what is the one thing they want? The right to be married, raise a family, etc. Why should anybody be able to deny that to people that love? Its all about love, its about nothing else. I like to call it marriage equality because its not about gay or straight, its about someone loving someone else enough to want to marry them forever.

[SJBrown]

"Bind together to form a family, raise children, buy a house, declare to the world that they are a couple, for the rest of their lives (hopefully)."

I think a man and a woman ideally (your context) want to have children together via sexual intercours­e/exchange of DNA. Yes, that ideal is not always attainable, but it's not about "raising" children. Why do we have to pretend it's the same. We all know it isn't. It makes the argument seem fabricated. What's wrong with being different but as valuable?

And that comment on African Americans marrying whites. I don't think that was a top issue in the civil rights movement. White men fathered black children from the beginning of slavery in this country and denied those children/created laws to deny birthrights and inheritance to those children. Yes, there were exceptions. Growing up in the 1960's, 70's and 80's I know interracial marriage was not popular. Both blacks and whites would deny/turn away from their children for dating or marrying outside of their race. I remember black woman would be accused of sleeping in the Master's bed. It is a different time now, but don't rewrite history. Interracial marriage wasn't the same sex marriage equivalent. Besides, miscegenation was criminalized.

[mercury613]

"Interracial marriage wasn't the same sex marriage equivalent."

Then why are the arguments used against same-sex marriage virtually identical to those that were used against interracial marriage?

I'll stop comparing same-sex marriage to interracial marriage when same-sex marriage opponents stop using those tired, old, irrational arguments.

[HelloDollyLlama]

Heterosexual couples enjoy many rights which gay couples don’t.

First, “Other People’s Money”. This means that government changes a policy so corporations must fork over money to gays even if they don’t want to. The big item here is insurance coverage.

Second is “government money” . Government changes policy in a way that means that you, as the taxpayer, give new money to gays. Cmpensation for service-related deaths, income tax filing status and deductions, tax-free property transfers, Social Security, veteran’s pensions /disability, disabled vets tax exemptions, and relocation benefits for military families. Also survivor benefits and continuation of health care for surviving spouses.

Third is the category which means that gays get more rights under government regulations than they do now, even if no money is involved. Organ donor issues, next-of-kin status, parental rights, access to school records, alimony, child custody, adoption, foster care, homestead laws, water rights, spousal assets in determining need for aid (VA benefits, housing, educational loans, farm price supports), name changes, domestic violence laws, spousal privilege for criminal witnesses, prison and hospital visitation, conflict-o­f-interest , medical decisions, funeral decisions.

Fourth: areas in which government would impose regulations on private corporations, i.e. condominium laws, bankruptcy.

Fifth --problems resolved by a consensual contract, i.e.child support, shared property, prenuptial agreements, wills, inheritance.

[SJBrown]

Oh, if it was so easy. At some point the reality of easy to get married and hard (costly) to get divorced will come into play. All those laws/policies you refer to change every year. Given the hugh legacy costs of benefits, the odds of a move to give more benefits to any group are slim to none. I'm waiting for the one size fits all solution that is surely coming. Change is never about more. There will be marriage neutral benefits.

[Jane Minogue - Huffpost Blogger]

Agreed. You describe the trends very well. The benefits should be marriage-neutral.