Iowan Sensibility

The Iowa Supreme Court made a landmark decision in regards to marriage equality on 04/03/09. And yes, folks, the earth is still spinning appropriately on its axis.

After reading the full text of the Court's [*giggle*] 69-page, incredibly thoughtful and well-written decision, a particular section near the end seemed real goodly to me. (Sorry--couldn't resist that urge! lol!) In all seriousness, however, a particular section of the written ruling really nabbed my attention and reminded me of the sensibilities that exist among many Iowans. It is personally humbling and inspiring to have lived and grown up among such similar-minded, good-hearted people. For many reasons, I have always been proud to call Iowa my home--especially considering the sensibility in the following words from the Iowa Supreme Court's decision in Varnum vs. Brien (see the link for references mentioned in article):

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 07–1499
Filed April 3, 2009

I. Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage.
Now that we have addressed and rejected each specific interest advanced by the County to justify the classification drawn under the statute, we consider the reason for the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage left unspoken by the County: religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The County’s silence reflects, we believe, its understanding this reason cannot, under our Iowa Constitution, be used to justify a ban on same-sex marriage.

While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the notion of same-sex marriage unsettling.29 Consequently, we address the religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate as a means to fully explain our rationale for rejecting the dual-gender requirement of the marriage statute.

It is quite understandable that religiously motivated opposition to same-sex civil marriage shapes the basis for legal opposition to same-sex marriage, even if only indirectly. Religious objections to same-sex marriage are supported by thousands of years of tradition and biblical interpretation.30 The belief that the “sanctity of marriage” would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples bears a striking conceptual resemblance to the expressed secular rationale for maintaining
the tradition of marriage as a union between dual-gender couples, but better identifies the source of the opposition. Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained--even fundamental--religious belief.

Yet, such views are not the only religious views of marriage. As demonstrated by amicus groups, other equally sincere groups and people in Iowa and around the nation have strong religious views that yield the opposite conclusion.31 This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .”). The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil contract” and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code § 595A.1. Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage.

We, of course, have a constitutional mandate to protect the free exercise of religion in Iowa, which includes the freedom of a religious organization to define marriages it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general assembly shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] . . . .”). This mission to protect religious freedom is consistent with our task to prevent government from endorsing any religious view. State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation. Knowlton v. Baumhover, 182 Iowa 691, 710, 166 N.W. 202, 208 (1918). This proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state.

As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more. The only legitimate inquiry we can make is whether [the statute] is constitutional. If it is not, its virtues . . . cannot save it; if it is, its faults cannot be invoked to accomplish its destruction. If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned. Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 483, 54 S. Ct. 231, 256, 78 L. Ed. 413, 452 (1934) (Sutherland, J. dissenting).

In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.

Married

I've been officially married for one month now.

In October 2008, with the election just a few short weeks away, Mark and I decided that the situation in California surrounding Proposition 8 was too volatile for comfort. Instead of waiting to see how the dust would settle regarding this [wholly unfair and discriminatory] ballot initiative, we chose to act in our best interests and legally get hitched before marriage equality was potentially stolen. After scheduling an appointment at the County Clerk/Recorder's Office for October 20th, we breathed a collective sigh of relief. Our happiness was short-lived, considering the outcome of Proposition 8 on Tuesday, November 4th, election day.

Don't get me wrong--I'm happy to be married, it's just unfortunate that the circumstances surrounding our marriage are so bittersweet. There was no time to plan any sort of ceremony, no time to invite any friends and family, and no time to plan a celebration tailored to the happy couple. It has also been somewhat difficult explaining our decision to elope to friends and family without slightly bruising their feelings in the process.

The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear new lawsuits filed since Proposition 8's passage. I'm hopeful that the Court will nullify Proposition 8 on the grounds that it is an illegal revision of the State Constitution, one so drastic that it can only take place by legislative channels as opposed to simple popular vote. I've heard enough of the "activist judges" excuse offered up by proponents of 8. Give me a break! Courts evaluate the constitutionality and fairness of laws all the time--it's their job and part of the system of checks and balances in the United States. Just because a majority of voters agree on an issue doesn't mean they've made a fair or just decision. If Proposition 8 isn't an example of unjust and unfair law, then what is?

Proposition H8

How awful that discrimination is alive and well in this day and age.

Hoping for a favorable outcome

Election day. To be technical, I voted weeks ago. Because I'm registered as a vote by mail person, I received my ballot in the second week of October. So I've been playing the waiting game since that time. I'm hoping for a much different outcome than the two previous presidential elections I've been able to participate in:

2000 was the first year I was eligible to vote in a presidential campaign. I was living in Iowa and was a Gore-Lieberman supporter. *sigh* Four years later in 2004, and still living in Iowa, I cast my vote for Kerry-Edwards. *sigh*

Do you have any idea how frustrating it has been to have Dubya win every presidential election you've ever voted in? I'm really pulling for Obama-Biden in 2008. So help me, if the Republican ticket pulls off another victory...I shudder at the very thought.

What I'm most concerned about today, however, is Proposition 8 in my state of California. It deeply saddens me that it even qualified for the ballot in the first place, not to mention the fact that the outcome seems to be too close to call. This ballot initiative is a classic example of intolerance and discrimination. In my heart I hope that the majority of voters will reject this hurtful ballot initiative and vote in favor of tolerance and equality.

Halloween

Halloween was fabulous! Mark and I decided on a group costume with our friends Kiet and Kendall, and the four of us dressed as The Golden Girls.

Dorothy, Blanche, Sophia, and Rose went out on the town on Halloween night to two house parties. The costumes were a hit and we took lots of pictures.

I want nothing more than for Halloween to happen more than once a year! Is there a better holiday?