Same-Sex Marriage in the Heartland

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (8)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  I am an Iowa native although living elsewhere now. What the writer neglected to report in her extremely one sided piece is that 65% of Iowans expressed opposition to same sex “marriage” as recently as in a 2008 poll. Iowa did not vote to allow it. Seven judges on a court did, evidently convinced they know better than their fellow citizens. Read the 65 page opinion by the majority and marvel at how vacuous and juvenile their “reasoning” is. Evidently, they justified their decision on the basis that societal norms change with generations. The law they overturned was passed as recently as 1998. Generational change must come faster in Iowa than elsewhere.

  What they did not bother to address is why and how a court feels justified in redefining an institution 5,000 years old that no court, no state, no government created. Government can regulate marriage laws. Government cannot define what marriage is. It predates every government and court, including the Supreme Court of Iowa. Given the chance, the people of Iowa will overturn this decision with a constitutional amendment. I suspect many or all of the seven judges will face fierce opposition if and when they run for reelection.

  Posted by Arnold on Apr 5, 2009 at 8:59 PM

  You’re correct, Arnold. No state or government created marriage. However ,those states and governments created benefits that heterosexual people in a committed ceremony receive, and for those same sex partners in a committed relationship/ceremony, they cannot receive those benefits—income tax returns, hospital visitation rights. Call it whatever you want to to preserve YOUR definition of marriage, but then give the exact same benefits administered by the government to those who are also in a loving, committed partnership. That’s what equality under the law means. And as for the 65% of Iowans opposed to same sex marriage, we know that if they had glbtq children, and loved them, they would want every happiness for them as well. Of course, that’s if they’re honest and loving enough to admit it publicly.

  Posted by Miriam on Apr 5, 2009 at 9:34 PM

  Arnold,

  Wonderful comment with great analysis! The problem with much of the civil rights angled arguments made by the LGBT and pro gay marriage community is that it rests upon the assumption that homosexuality is an innate trait and not a behavior. Despite two decades (if not more) of television and films attempted indoctrination on the issue, many Americans do not view homosexuality as a group of people and instead view it as behavior. In addition neither nature or science has validated the claim that homosexuality is an innate character trait. Since it is not an immutable trait (using some SCOTUS language there) it should only be analyzed under the rational basis standard (as was the case when the Massachusetts Supreme Court overruled the ban), and, in my opinion, the issue of gay marriage should be left to the voice of the people and not the tyranny of the judiciary.

  In the end the people of Iowa will likely amend their state constitution to overrule the judiciary. This amendment will likely set gay rights movements even further back then where they would have eventually evolved too such as civil unions (which I prefer) via the democratic process.

  In the end, whether 5, 10 or 20 years down the road, this issue will be posed in front of SCOTUS. However I doubt we will see it done so before the court is made more liberally lopsided.

  Posted by Nathan Petersen on Apr 5, 2009 at 11:30 PM

  Hmm. I have mixed feelings. (I’m homo).  Here in Michigan I struggled with the proposal as to whether same sex partners of state employees should be offered. (it’s been a couple of years now and have forgotten the exact proposal admittedly). I know I was about the only fag that voted with the majority here and we voted it down. What made me, a fag, finally decide to vote against many of the things “gays” argue for? Well, I agree with them that everyone should be treated fairly and even have a partner of many years myself so I get it when they argue about the benefits and respect etc., but damn it, I have always felt the state (and private ins. etc) should stay the hell away from this whole business. ...it cheats ANY single person and rather than extending the benefits…I feel heteros partners should be cut off tomorrow. Think about it: why should an employer for instance burden itself with an individual who has never worked a day to make the company profitable?  And finally, these “gay” people to which I no longer chose to use the word to describe myself,  once again do not get it. People are not ready for this. I hear them say over and over how it is just a matter of time before it is legal. And, being an Uncle Tom, I dare not vocalize:  “Really?”  “I am not so certain these new gay marriage laws will pass muster in the end.”  God no. You see they seem to know the future and I resent that about them.

  Posted by gary eickholt on Apr 6, 2009 at 12:14 AM

  Re: my previous post.

  To back up my point to all those who think it’s just “a matter of time”,  I should have emphasized what recently went down out in California. Just because someone has a gay marriage availabitly one day dont mean it will necessarily stick.  (excuse text and grammar etc please…just got back from a long car trip and I’m a graying homo American).

  Posted by gary eickholt on Apr 6, 2009 at 12:30 AM

  I have always felt the state (and private ins. etc) should stay the hell away from this whole business. ...it cheats ANY single person and rather than extending the benefits…I feel heteros partners should be cut off tomorrow.

  Right on, Gary!

  I am a single guy and am tired of subsidizing everyone else against my will.

  Posted by Jiminy Cricket on Apr 7, 2009 at 4:40 AM

  Effective July 1, 2007, the Iowa Civil Rights Act (Iowa Code Chapter 216) was expanded to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected characteristics. Therefore, Arnold, it took only nine years for Iowans to recognize that marriage decisions remain with the couple taking the vows, not the state.

  A new poll from the University of Iowa found that only 37% of Iowans oppose both gay marriage and civil unions. Twenty-eight per cent support civil unions and 26% believe the right to marry should be extended to all.

  Knowing now what we know about the false axiom of separate but equal school systems, it would only be a matter of time for our nation to see the inherent inequality of civil unions versus marriages.

  Iowa’s economy is hurting. It has one of the lowest pay scales of a non-southern state, and it is hemorrhaging its young people to other states with more economic opportunity and diverse culture. This ruling wisely and unanimously decided by people trained in law, history and politics should be championed. Once again Iowa has taken a leadership role as it had when it ended miscegenation laws and desegregated its schools 100 years before Brown versus Board of Education.

  Posted by TEK from Chicago on Apr 8, 2009 at 6:45 PM

  Well let Blackhorse jump in on this one…Really this is quite simple. Common sense would dictate that this is a civil issue..therefore as citizens ; people have the right to equal protection….The emotions behind this issue are the real boogymam in the closet . Amerika has always made basic human and civil issues complicated because it is basically a repressive society. In a Industrial Military Complex type of society, the state apparatus cannot let ciitizens truthfully express themselves, because at the end of the day….that is how they; meaning the state ; be it federal ,state or for that matter local…this is how they make there money…and more importantly, control the heart’s and mind of the citizenry . I am not a gay individual , nor do I ascribe to every issue or generality that the gay community brings to the light of day…But this is a no brainer…one’s sexual orietation should not disallow them from engaging in all of the activities that others engage in…...true.

  Posted by blackhorse on Jun 26, 2009 at 8:47 PM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Jessica Pupovac

• Same-Sex Marriage in the Heartland
  Iowa becomes the first state in the Midwest to extend the right to marry to gays and lesbians.
• The Right’s New Attack on Voters
  
• The Push to Privatize PEMEX
  
• Big Oil Imperils Polar Bears
  
• Silenced in the Barracks
  The Pentagon fails to protect U.S. troops from sexual abuse
• Funding Iraqs Citizen Soldiers
  Is the Pentagon's neighborhood watch strategy protecting Iraqis or stoking the civil war?