![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thatcrazycajunJust in case you've been living on a moon of Jupiter the past week and didn't hear, Iowa's state Supreme Court yesterday struck down that state's ban on licensing same-gender marriages—unanimously. CNN reports the story here. (Oddly enough, only on its US-news page, not on its homepage; one would think this would be a sufficiently big story to put right up front, above the fold. Either it's that nasty liberal media bias conservatives keep ranting about, burying a story they know will alarm their right-of-center viewers...or a sign of progress in the advancing normalization of the idea.)
The utterly predictable cries from the right for amending the state's constitution—and the federal one as well—to undo this ruling and keep gay and lesbian couples' grubby mitts off the "sacred" institution of marriage have already begun. Mark my words: we are about to see an effort in the Hawkeye State frighteningly similar to the Proposition 8 campaign last year after the Iowa Supremes' California counterparts attempted to do this very same thing. A ballot question will be ginned up, TV ads will be aired, op-ed columns and direct-mail screeds will be printed, rallies will be held...and the half-truths, distortions and outright lies about "the gay agenda" and what allowing marriage equality will bring are going to make us shudder all over again. In fact, a Des Moines TV station reports as much here, quoting anti-equality Christers as saying they prefer trying for a constitutional amendment to attempting an appeal to the US Supreme Court. And one conservative commentator on BeliefNet.org (referred by way of this blog, with thanks to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
supergee for the link) laments that the decision presages our becoming a nation where it will be impossible to be an open Christian and stay employed—assuming your notion of "being Christian" includes witnessing to your sinful pervert co-workers about God's hatred of gay marriage. (As one commenter notes, he should try being openly gay and keeping his job if he wants to experience real discrimination.)
Given that the state has announced it will not ask for a rehearing or its own appeal, GLBTQ couples could start getting issued marriage licenses as early as the end of this month. We'll see if it lasts any longer than California's brief honeymoon of equality did. For now, we can take solace in knowing that the state of James T. Kirk's future birth is one of the few states actually pointing the way to that future...a future where nobody's basic civil rights and equality under the law get put up for popular vote simply because they happen to be members of a group a bunch of other people despise.
The utterly predictable cries from the right for amending the state's constitution—and the federal one as well—to undo this ruling and keep gay and lesbian couples' grubby mitts off the "sacred" institution of marriage have already begun. Mark my words: we are about to see an effort in the Hawkeye State frighteningly similar to the Proposition 8 campaign last year after the Iowa Supremes' California counterparts attempted to do this very same thing. A ballot question will be ginned up, TV ads will be aired, op-ed columns and direct-mail screeds will be printed, rallies will be held...and the half-truths, distortions and outright lies about "the gay agenda" and what allowing marriage equality will bring are going to make us shudder all over again. In fact, a Des Moines TV station reports as much here, quoting anti-equality Christers as saying they prefer trying for a constitutional amendment to attempting an appeal to the US Supreme Court. And one conservative commentator on BeliefNet.org (referred by way of this blog, with thanks to
supergee for the link) laments that the decision presages our becoming a nation where it will be impossible to be an open Christian and stay employed—assuming your notion of "being Christian" includes witnessing to your sinful pervert co-workers about God's hatred of gay marriage. (As one commenter notes, he should try being openly gay and keeping his job if he wants to experience real discrimination.)Given that the state has announced it will not ask for a rehearing or its own appeal, GLBTQ couples could start getting issued marriage licenses as early as the end of this month. We'll see if it lasts any longer than California's brief honeymoon of equality did. For now, we can take solace in knowing that the state of James T. Kirk's future birth is one of the few states actually pointing the way to that future...a future where nobody's basic civil rights and equality under the law get put up for popular vote simply because they happen to be members of a group a bunch of other people despise.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 05:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 05:08 pm (UTC)And it seems odd to me that they wouldn't try for a US Supreme Court appeal, given that their side has a majority on the high court now. Do you suppose they know that the decision and its legal rationale are so rock-solid that even John Roberts and his right-wing wrecking crew can't gainsay it? (I can't believe they'd refuse to hear it at all, knowing them.)
no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 06:29 pm (UTC)Yes, they know very well and that's exactly why.
I read some of the opinion(s) issued by their court and they're saying *everything* that has been my argument all along for this:
-There is NO compelling reason for the State to deny these rights to some people and not others
-and they TOTALLY called out the fact that the principal objections to gay marriage rights are tending to come from certain Religious Denominations. They specifically mention that the denominations tend to be Christian and that NOT ALL Christian Denominations object to this and THEREFORE to advance these objections into law CLEARLY favors one religious groups' rights over others' and to impose these laws unilaterally is a clear Constitutional problem.
They had their asses handed to them by a unanimous court.
And yes, the battle is commencing, but between now and 2012 an awful lot of people can get married. And here's where that gets good: if the movement is to outlaw gay marriage, then the more people who are effected, the better. Undoing lawful marriages and all the associated paperwork and legal status stuff is going to be even uglier than the argument. And the larger that mess is made, the more the State beaureaucracy is going to come out against it.
The people who want to get married should DO IT NOW!
Because a large part of this fight is also going to be against people who say allowing it will bring on all sorts of unpleasantness and the longer the rest of the people have to see gay people legally married, the more used to the change they can get, and the more resistant they will be to taking that status away from them.
Plus (and here's where it gets really delicious) EVERY legislator who was interviewed on the possibility of constitutional repeal has said something to the effect of their then needing to be recognition of civil unions put into place so that the state is not discriminating.
And that's highly likely to pass if it's used as a compromise.
So even if the Constitution is ammended, and all those people are retroactively no longer married, there is likely to be recognition of Civil Unions, that while a setback from their status as of yesterday, will be an advancement on their status from the day before.
So, as of that ruling, the most the disgruntled Christians can get out of this is to make the victory somewhat less. But even less of a victory still adds up to a net gain. But no matter what, they very likely can't undo it completely, and the soonest that they can get ANYTHING is 2012.
And in the meantime, an awful lot of people, just by going to the courthouse, can make their job more and more difficult.
It's going to be a fight, but people, especially gay people and their loved ones, are really going to have to engage the opposition and do their level best to win the hearts and minds of the public on this issue.
It's gonna happen. It's just a matter of time. If the battle is fought harder, it can happen sooner.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 06:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 07:03 pm (UTC)Here's a couple of phrases that I'm trying to memeify in this argument:
"What is the COMPELLING STATE INTEREST in denying these people these rights?"
Every answer I've heard to that question comes down to asserting values that are demonstrably non-homogenous and are demonstrably biased to certain sects of certain religions. THAT needs to be highlighted, because it forms a clear constitutional problem to impose unilateral societal restrictions on one class of people based on the values of only certain religions.
"Even the worst of the worst of our society- convicted felons: murderers, rapists, the greedy who ruin people's lives wholesale, arsonists, spies, and terrorists, are all allowed to marry. What is it about gay people that makes it permissible to exclude them from this institution and not the worst of our society?"
no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 11:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 06:53 pm (UTC)If they do, I hope we take their tax exempt status away from them once and for all.
Hey!
Date: 2009-04-04 10:06 pm (UTC)YIPPEE!
Date: 2009-04-04 10:07 pm (UTC)Re: YIPPEE!
Date: 2009-04-04 11:04 pm (UTC)Thar's gold in them thar weddings!