Not So Fast!

Iowa's surprising move to legalizing same-sex marriages has both sides of the argument in a frenzy. Many of those in favor of the legalization are optimistic that more states will follow Iowa's (and Massachusetts, and Connecticut's) lead, and soon same-sex marriage will be legalized nationally. Opponents of the issue are trying to rally more support to rewrite state constitutions so that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, and to keep the measure from reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

I don't doubt that I wasn't the only one surprised by Iowa's decision. Not known for the liberal mindset that is typically associated with proponents of same-sex marriage, Iowa knocked many of those following the issue off guard. For the longest time gay rights seemed to only be issue for the "metropolitan" states to deal with, unless you count the rampant disapproval of states in the Bible Belt. It was always associated with places on the east coast or the west coast, the Midwest was never really thought about as being apart of the controversy... especially not Iowa. I think it was that status as a "nonentity" that made its decision have so much impact on both sides of the spectrum. Many people are seeing it as a sign of things to come. If some place as obscure as Iowa supports same-sex marriage, what will stop the rest of the country from following suit? The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has actually released a promo warning against the effects of same-sex marriage on American Society.

I think this optimism/fear (depending on which side of the issue you're on) is premature. In an article by Andrew Cohen on the CBS News website, there are several reason why the U.S. Supreme Court isn't ready to choose a side. The Supreme Court does not like to make a habit of solving issues until there's an absolute need for it, and at this point there doesn't seem to be any pressure for them to act. The nation is still equal split on the issue, with no clear indicator that the public is heavily in favor of either option. Until the public overwhelmingly chooses a side, the U.S. Supreme Court can stay safely out of the fray.

When I Think "Progressive", I Think... Iowa???

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.

A Look Back at the Journey

According to an article in the Des Moines Register, an Iowa court decision will be made tomorrow morning that will tip the scales in the gay rights movement in the United States.

In the case of Varnum vs. Brien, six same-sex couples in Iowa were denied marriage licenses in 2005 by the office of Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien. The couples filed a lawsuit against Brien, and while Polk County District Judge Robert Hansen sided with the them, he suspended his decision until the case could be heard by the higher court.

If the Iowa Supreme court finds in favor of the six couples, Iowa will become the first state in the Midwest to allow same-sex marriage, and the fourth in the nation.

Here's a video to chronicle all the new strides in the gay rights movement.

Govenor Plans to Road Block Bill

After weeks of refusing to comment on Vermont's Freedom to Marry Act, Republican Governor Jim Douglas has announced that if the bill passes the House of Representative vote on Thursday, March 26th, he will exercise his right to veto it.

Governor Douglas supports civil unions for same-sex couples, saying a New York Times article that the same state rights and benefits given to them in unions is enough. Douglas argues that the issue of same-sex marriage takes the focus off the bigger issues that are plaguing our country:

"During these extraordinary times, the speculation about my decision has added to the anxiety of the moment and further diverts attention from our most pressing issues, and I cannot allow that to happen."

What's fascinating to me is that in the same interview the governor speculates that the the legislative body would not have passed the bill in the first place if they did not think they would be able to override his veto. This makes me think that Douglas's veto is more a means for him to show that he does not support the measure, and to show his supporters that he is sticking to his guns. Even if his veto is overridden and put into law, he will have publicly opposed it.

The bill passed through the Vermont senate in a 26-4 vote on Monday, March 23.

Vermont Chooses A Side

In an overwhelming vote by the Senate on Monday, March 23, Vermont approved a measure to legalize same-sex marriage. Senators voted 26-4 in approval of the bill, and the House of Representatives is schedules to vote on the bill, The Freedom to Marry Act, by Thursday, March 26th. If it passes, Vermont will join Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only states that legally recognize same-sex unions.

The issue was contended the same as it has throughout the country, with the opposition arguing the damage such a bill could have on the traditional institution of marriage. Bishop Salvatore R. Matano told The Catholic Spirit that it was a "duty to uphold and to defend the traditional definition of marriage as it has been upheld and revered over the ages", and had nothing to do with hate or understanding.

This doesn't stray far from the basic foundation of the argument by opponents of same-sex marriage. It's all about protecting the "tradition", which usually translate into "religious tradition". Every argument I've heard against same-sex marriage focused on demonizing the act of homosexuality, attacking the "unholiness", and shaming the public for supporting such "unnatural" behavior. Personally, I was getting tired of it and thought it was hurting their cause than helping. It started to sound a lot like hate speech and intolerance, reminiscent of the fight for civil rights... very ugly. But it seems just when their arguments have started to sound like a broken record, some opponents are changing their argument. Their new tactic seems to be to express that their protest is in the interest of protecting the rights of those who have chosen to practice the "traditional" form of marriage, as if by allowing same-sex marriage the state is disrespecting the beliefs of heterosexual married couples. Bishop Matano said this in his interview with The Catholic Spirit:

"The union of husband and wife is a distinct vocation and using the law to alter or to redefine marriage is an injustice to those who have embraced this state in life and negates its long history of benefit to society and the justified acknowledgment that it has received from the very beginning of history."

That's a pretty broad assumption that every heterosexual couple that marries holds the same belief as the Church.

Opposition of same-sex marriage isn't necessarily as black & white. Rarely is it a blanket disapproval of homosexuality, so much as it is disapproval of recognizing it in the traditional union of "marriage". In an article by College News Vermont's Republican govenor, Jim Douglas does protests same-sex marriage, but supports the state's current civil union law. Like many others, Douglas distinguishes "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman.

Coincidentally the bill does not incroach on the clergy's right to refuse to solemnize a marriage if it to do so would compromise the clergyperson's religious beliefs and practices. The bill works very hard to separate the the rights of a relgion to practice its beliefs from the rights of an individual.

Proposition 8 Review

The California Supreme Court began to hear arguments this morning on the initiative passed by voters in November 2008, Proposition 8. Heavily attended by about 700 supporters and proponents of the measure, the hearing is scheduled to last for three hours, and the justices will have 90 days to make a decision.
Because Proposition 8 requires fundamental change to the state constitution it requires either two-thirds approval of each house in the Legislature or a constitutional convention.

A Growing Debate

The issue of gay-marriage ran a close race in the 2008 presidential election, placing second only to the overwhelming issue of America's failing economy and all the issues connected with it. The legalization of same-sex marriage was pushed into the spotlight on November 5th when the tallying of votes in California revealed that Proposition 8 was approved. The measure proposes an amendment to California's state constitution that would make marriage between same-sex couples illegal by defining "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman. According to the Los Angeles Times voters approved Proposition 8 52% to 43%.
It seems that a majority of the public who are anti gay marriage are more receptive of civil unions. In my opinion while civil unions are a step in the right direction, they're kind of the diet Pepsi of compromises... just one calorie not Pepsi enough. On one had I recognized that many of the rights we have today did not come about full force. It was a process, step-by-step. But on the other hand, I can't help but think that we as a society to should be able to move faster when it comes to the rights of a people.
As of today there are 5 states that legally recognize same-sex marriage (California's Supreme Court is in the process of reviewing an appeal of Proposition 8), and 4 states have legalized same-sex civil unions.