Iowa Court Says Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

"Oh, there's nothin' halfway about the Iowa way to treat you when we treat you which we may not do at all." (Meredith Wilson's The Music Man)

Today, Iowa joined the ranks of the terminally befuddled when the state supreme court voted unanimously against marriage between one man and one woman. (AP News) This makes the third state to allow same sex marriage solely on the basis of court decisions rather than by the people's will. Even the court admits it ruled against the will of the people:

"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," said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.

What this means according to the Iowa Supreme Court, is that oligarchy rule is more important than democracy. Really. The rule of the few outweighs the rule of many. Really. This, in effect, negates the opening words of the Constitution of the United States: "We the people."

Richard Socarides, an attorney and former senior adviser on gay rights to President Clinton, said the ruling carries extra significance coming from Iowa.

"It's a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage. And it shows that despite attempts stop [sic] gay marriage through right wing ballot initiatives, like in California, the courts will continue to support the case for equal rights for gays," he said.

What this attorney says, in effect, is that Iowa is a unique case - "mainstream" - because no one expected an Iowa court to rule this way since Iowa is a more conservative state than California. He also implies that the people's vote in California is right-wing, while same sex marriage by court mandate in Iowa is mainstream.

Except that same sex marriage isn't mainstream. If it were, then gay activists wouldn't have to end run around the people and push their cases through the liberal judiciary.

"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is and we follow Supreme Court decisions," [Polk County Attorney] Sarcone said. "This is not a personal thing. We have an obligation to the law to defend the recorder, and that's what we do."

Well, that's true until you get to California's Attorney General, for example, who refused to follow California law.

Wake up and smell the manure people.

First of all, marriage is marriage - man and woman. Defining marriage as something different isn't extending a civil right, it is destroying an institution. As Brian Brown from the National Organization for Marriage put it, "There is no more a constitutional right to gay marriage than there is a constitutional right to have your cat called a dog, because after all they are both small furry animals with four legs and a tail." (Source)

Second, do we really want our government to shift from "we the people" to "those few judges," (or even to "all hail supreme dictator Obama")? Join with NOM or UFI today and get marriage in Iowa back on track with a constitutional amendment.

United Families International

National Organization for Marriage