Iowa Legalizes Gay Marriage, Vermont Would Do Well to Follow

April 3, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (32)

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Iowa's Supreme Court ruled this morning that a state ban on gay marriage violates the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians. Good for the court.

That brings to three the number of states where people of the same sex can get married. A fourth, Vermont, has a bill legalizing same-sex marriage that has passed both houses of its legislature and now awaits the governor's promised veto. Bad for the governor (and I say that as someone who spent his college years in the Green Mountain State).

The same-sex marriage issue makes me crazy because it seems to me such a clear-cut issue. Yes, marriage is a religious institution and the notion of two men or two women marrying flies in the face of some religions (or more precisely flies in the face of the way some practitioners interpret their religion's tenets). But marriage is also a civil institution, with all sorts of legal implications regarding inheritance, hospital visitation rights, and so forth.

So if some religious institution wants to be bigoted ... well that's their business. But the state should not affirm that sort of bigotry.

Of course, the Iowa decision will set off a firestorm as conservatives and preening demagogues try to use the issue to work their supporters into a lather.

On Facebook? You can keep up with Thomas Jefferson Street blog postings through Facebook's Networked Blogs.

Tags:
LGBT rights,
Vermont,
marriage,
Iowa

Reader Comments Read all comments (32)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The court have made a decision in the gays favour, i said give them a chance to live in peace. Bwsides , they are still living together like a normal couples any way with out marriage.

kevin@marriagebooks of NY 11:10PM December 28, 2009

Amending the Constitutional righs to afford special consideration to a group that is politically connected to the judiciary by infiltration is not democracy. It is the tyranny of the power of authoritarian rule. Bare in mind that Hitler's implementation of National Socialism was implemented by the judiciary and the police power of the state. The judiciary by US Constitution purpose is supposed to be an informative body to the legislature in redirect legislation that violates the laws of the US Constitution. But the US Supreme Court established the precedent that with activist rulings overstepping the advisory and informative legal opinions that should have confined itself to rewriting of poorly written and incorrect legislation by the US Congress. As such the US Congress has abdicated their authority to the US Supreme Court. By Doing so the State Superior Courts have followed suit and now we have the police power of the country being wielded as a rapier across this country in complete violation of the very US Constitution that these bozos swaore on the Bible to uphold with their very own lives.

rmirod of CA 4:36PM April 08, 2009

So you're saying it's not the state Supreme Court's role to rule on constitutional issues? The Supreme Court's role is to schedule a referendum for voters to decide matters of constitutional law?

Yes, I guess we've all missed that point, alright.

Mike Eldred of VT 11:14AM April 06, 2009

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger is managing editor for opinion at U.S. News and World Report, overseeing all opinion editorial content. He is the author of "White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters." E-mail him at rschlesinger@usnews.com. Follow him on Twitter: @rschles.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement