Courtesy of The Washington Blade

The Supreme Court Justices of Iowa need to be praised for upholding individual rights.  Their decision on April 3rd stating that preventing gay marriage is unconstitutional was a huge milestone for gays, and just as importantly, for all individuals. 

Before I get into this ruling, I need to make it clear that I’m not a lawyer and know little law stuff.

Some, such as Newt Gingrich, will state that the justices went beyond their authority in making this decision, that they went against the people of Iowa, that they are making laws in the courtroom.  Newt, I’ve liked you in the past for your fiscal conservatism, and I thought of you as a peer when it came to favoring individual rights, but you lost me on this.  How could you honestly stand on your soapbox, proclaiming that the Iowa SCJ’s overstepped their duties.  Their duties consist of checking the other two branches of government and ensuring the legislature makes no laws that go against the state constitution.  You have narrowed the job description to “interpreting the law” but that is wrong.  The justice system is there to police the government, not citizens.  Remember Ayn Rand’s words when it came to the U.S. Constitution (and I am extending it to state constitutions):

“Ours was the first government based on and strictly limited by a written document—the Constitution—which specifically forbids it to violate individual rights or to act on whim. The history of the atrocities perpetrated by all the other kinds of governments—unrestricted governments acting on unprovable assumptions—demonstrates the value and validity of the original political theory on which this country was built.”  -from Philosophy:  Who Needs It? by Ayn Rand

That is exactly what they did.  As stated in their summary, “The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion.”  How is that inconsistent?  The law, as enacted, attempted to treat some people differently than others based solely on their sexual orientation.  How could anyone defend that?  And even more importantly, the justices did something admirable by suggesting that the definition of marriage should not and can not be defined by the government.  That would just open the door to more government involvement in our personal lives.  They evade my space enough.  I don’t want to provide them with the right to decide who I can and cannot marry.

Now, those that were defending the infringement of individual rights were hoping to convince the justices that it would hurt the stability of opposite sex marriages, that children would be hurt by same sex marriages, and that it would increase the costs to the state government.  Let’s take these one at a time.  I’m straight and happily married to Mrs. H (not Mrs. Hart from Hart to Hart but someone even more sexy and elegant than Stefanie Powers).  If I read the summary opinion correctly, the defendants were arguing that I may be at risk of leaving my wife if same sex marriages were legal.  News Alert:  THE LAW IS NOT PREVENTING ME FROM LEAVING MY WIFE FOR A GUY.  I’m not gay and making gay marriage legal won’t “turn me.”  Concerning the second issue of putting children at risk by allowing gay mariage makes no sense to me.  There are way too many crappy straight parents that should be outlawed before we even think of worrying ourselves about gay parents (yes, Angela Suleman, I’m thinking of you).  Lastly, gay marriages will cost the government too much money?  Please.  Willing to sacrifice basic human rights to save a buck?  Was that used to justify slavery?  The lawyer that put that in should be bitched-slapped.

Lastly, let’s talk about Newt’s comment that the court went against the people of Iowa.  According to a Big Ten poll conducted in Decemeber, only a third oppose recognizing gays’ individual freedom to form a legal bond with a person of the same sex.  Call it ‘marriage’ or ‘civil union’.  It doesn’t matter.  The majority of Iowans believe it is none of their business to get involved in a relationship between two consenting adults.  And you, Newt, should too.

One Response to “Congratulations Iowa Supremes: Check and Mate.”