If I had bet on which state would be the first to legalize gay marriage, I feel confident that Iowa wouldn't have made it into my top 5. In fact I doubt it would have made it into my top 10. America's Midwest doesn't exactly conjure thoughts of liberal politics, gay-friendliness, progressiveness, etc. Sure there are certain cities like Chicago that are shining examples of many if not all of those things, but Iowa isn't one of them. Imagine my surprise when Thursday, April 2nd, the Iowa Supreme Court held that banning same-sex marriages violated the state constitution. Even more shocking was that the vote was unanimous. The state is now in the company of Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only states to legalize gay marriage.
Not many people know that this isn't Iowa's first foray into the fight for equal rights for everyone. I myself had no idea that on one occasion in the 1800s the state refused to support slavery, and on another occasion refused to uphold a law banning women from becoming lawyers. In an article in the Townhall writer Ken Klukowski that these particular cases in the states history actually undermines the Supreme Court's decision. The Iowa Supreme Court insists that it came to the decision "dispassionately", but the comparison to previous judicial moves by the state shows the personal beliefs by the justices having some influence in the decision.
It also doesn't help Iowa's Supreme Court when it argues that it is following the example set by the U.S. Supreme Court, when in fact it did the opposite. The example referred to was the 1996 case of Romer vs. Evans in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "heightened scrutiny" (a stringent standard of judicial review that arises when 1) a "fundamental" constitutional right is infringed or 2) when government action involves use of a "suspect classification") does not apply to gays. Iowa ruled the opposite and decided that heightened security was necessary for cases involving homosexuals.
A lot of people anticipate Iowa's move to be the first of many in the Midwest, but that is yet to be seen. While I think that it has opened the door for other states in the Midwest to make a move toward entering the debate of legalizing same-sex marriages, I think it's far from becoming a common practice. As discussed in the University of Wisconsin-Madison's newspaper, The Daily Cardinal, Wisconsin's recently amended constitution does not legal recognize same-sex marriages, and a state law actually makes it a crime for individuals to travel to other states for such marriages.
It also doesn't help Iowa's Supreme Court when it argues that it is following the example set by the U.S. Supreme Court, when in fact it did the opposite. The example referred to was the 1996 case of Romer vs. Evans in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "heightened scrutiny" (a stringent standard of judicial review that arises when 1) a "fundamental" constitutional right is infringed or 2) when government action involves use of a "suspect classification") does not apply to gays. Iowa ruled the opposite and decided that heightened security was necessary for cases involving homosexuals.
A lot of people anticipate Iowa's move to be the first of many in the Midwest, but that is yet to be seen. While I think that it has opened the door for other states in the Midwest to make a move toward entering the debate of legalizing same-sex marriages, I think it's far from becoming a common practice. As discussed in the University of Wisconsin-Madison's newspaper, The Daily Cardinal, Wisconsin's recently amended constitution does not legal recognize same-sex marriages, and a state law actually makes it a crime for individuals to travel to other states for such marriages.
No comments:
Post a Comment