Iowa decision deliciously unsurprising

Alright, I admit that I’ve been a bit slow to post about the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision, which struck down that state’s legislative ban against same-sex marriage. Yes, it’s huge news. And every blogger in the world had something up about the decision immediately. Except me.

Not that I wasn’t excited. I am very excited about the ruling. And I am also very excited about the fact that same-sex couples will be allowed to marry in Iowa for probably two years before any effort can successfully get a constitutional amendment on the state ballot to rescind the decision. By that time, what would be the point of such a constitutional amendment? It certainly would not be an altruistic desire to protect marriage. By that time, such a move would be rightfully perceived as the bigoted move it was from the start.

What I found intriguing about the unanimous ruling was how the court pointedly opined that it could see no benefit to the state in maintaining a ban against same-sex marriage, marking the legislation for what it was: a cowardly attempt to keep down “a historically disfavored class.”

These justices aren’t afraid of upholding the law. I saw that in 1998 when the court issued a monumental decision in the case of Bormann v. Kossuth County, a decision that it upheld in 2004 in Gacke v. Pork Xtra. Now you may be wondering, “what do two agricultural cases have to do with gay marriage?”

The short answer is nothing. However, what is relevant is the fact that the Iowa Supreme Court has shown a decisive tendency to pay attention to what the law says, rather than to which party has the biggest bank roll. And in doing so, it has historically written very clear opinions so that its decisions will not likely be misinterpreted in the future. This is very good news in terms of the court’s decision Friday in Varnum, et al. v. Polk County.

In the Des Moines Register article I linked above, it was stated that Iowa was chosen for the same-sex marriage case because of “fair-mindedness of its residents and the courts.”

The fact that it could be as long as two years before anything can go before voters to overturn the ruling might have had something to do with the selection as well.

Which solution to support?

My apologies for being away for so long. I became aware of my negligence when I read two Op-Ed pieces in this past Sunday’s New York Times, one directly dealing with the marriage issue and the other tangentially so.

In their joint commentary “A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage,” writers David Blankenhorn and Jonathon Rauch offer a compromise of sorts that seeks to find middle ground in the debate over same-sex marriage. I laud their attempt and regrettably admit that this might be the best solution for the time being. Having said that, I must repeat that any solution that is short of marriage really only weakens the institution of marriage and unnecessarily complicates matters.

In the other Op-Ed piece, William Saletan offers in “This is the Way the Culture Wars End” an argument for same-sex marriage that reflects this conundrum created by civil unions. Although his piece is primarily focused on the abortion debate, at the end he comes out solidly in favor of same-sex marriage.

“Commitment, unlike sexual orientation, is a choice and a virtue,” Saletan writes. “Same-sex marriage binds gay couples to the same ethic of mutual support and sacrifice that Mr. Obama has praised in straight marriages. The cultural imprimatur of marriage makes the gravity of the bond stronger than a civil union or domestic partnership… Let those partners marry. In fact, let’s encourage them to. We shouldn’t just tolerate same-sex marriage. We should promote and favor marriage, regardless of orientation.”

Hawaii 1996, Part 3

Four expert witnesses were presented by the state of Hawaii during the Baehr v. Miike case, all of whom were expected to testify that children ought to be raised in a two-parent home by both biological parents. It was the ideal and most desirable environment, they told then-Circuit Judge Kevin S.C. Chang. Children raised in a gay couple’s home would be “burdened” by such an environment; hence, allowing same-sex couples to marry would harm children.

Yet, under oath, these same expert witnesses mustered by the state of Hawaii admitted that same-sex couples can, and do, provide positive nurturing home environments for children, and children raised in such households turn out just fine.

If you haven’t read the two previous posts to this, you ought to now before reading further. Begin with part one, and then read part two before returning to this post.

Psychiatrist Kyle D. Pruett had conducted a 10-year longitudinal study of two-parent families with young children in which the father had a primary role in raising the children. Pruett concluded that children raised primarily by their fathers during the early years did very well in later childhood. He also noted other significant benefits to a developing child having a father present during the child’s rearing.

“Dr. Pruett stated that same-sex relationships do not provide the same type of learning model or experience for children as does male-female parenting, because there is an overabundance of information about one gender and little information about the other gender,” Chang wrote in his decision.

That was very important information for the state to get on the record. But did the state count on what else Dr. Pruett was going to say?

“Nevertheless, Dr. Pruett also stated that same-sex parents can, and do, produce children with a clear sense of gender identity… that single parents, gay fathers, lesbian mothers and same-sex couples have the potential to, and often do, raise children that are happy, healthy and well-adjusted…that single parents, gay fathers, lesbian mothers, adoptive parents, foster parents and same-sex couples can be, and do become, good parents. Significantly, Dr. Pruett knows the foregoing to be true based on his clinical experience. More specifically, Dr. Pruett stated that parents’ sexual orientation does not disqualify them from being good, fit, loving or successful parents.”

It was very significant testimony for Chang to hear, and that was from the state’s first expert witness! It got better when Pruitt said that gay couples should be allowed to adopt, and that the sex of the parents was not the most important characteristic of having a positive influence on a child: rather, the “quality of the nurturing relationship between parent and child could, and would, outweigh any limitation or burden imposed on the child as a result of having same-sex parents.” (emphasis added)

Then came testimony from sociologist David Eggebeen, which dealt largely with what marriage is all about and why people marry.

Eggebeen presented data on how over the years the marriage rate had declined while the divorce rate had increased, as had the number of “young people” cohabiting, etc.

“It’s common today to find children in single parent families. It’s common today to find children living with a mother who never married. It’s common today to find children in remarried families. It’s common today to find children in dual earner families where both parents participate in the type of work. It is common or getting common to find children whose parents never married and they’re cohabiting,” Eggebeen testified. Having said that, however, he noted that 60 percent of children were being raised in two-parent households where the parents were married to each other and both parents were the biological parents.

Through Eggebeen’s testimony it is clear that the American nuclear family is in serious trouble. And the anti-marriage crowd likes to remind everyone of this. But that argument is easily countered with the one found in Turner v. Safley. In that case, the state of Missouri argued against allowing some inmates to marry someone from the outside because of the potential security problems such arrangements might create. The Supreme Court, however, noted that those security problems would exist regardless; to say that allowing marriages for inmates would exacerbate the situation was a baseless assertion.

In this case, Eggebeen reveals to the court that the problems with marriage existent at the time were already present, so any argument that allowing same-sex couples the opportunity to marry would exacerbate the situation, or, as some in the anti-marriage crow argue, even create such situations is spurious.

Eggebeen also tells the court something else the anti-marriage crowd loves to repeat in some form or another, and that is marriage is a “gateway to becoming a parent,” that it is “synonymous with having children.” However, Eggebeen’s testimony indicated he did not believe that such a characteristic was exclusive by any means. Rather, individuals get married without any intention of having children at all, or who may be biologically incapable of reproduction. And given that, the absence of any intent to have children, regardless of the reason, “does not weaken the institution of marriage.”

“In fact, Dr. Eggebeen recognized that people marry and want to get married for reasons other than having children; that those reasons are valuable and important; and that regardless of children, it is beneficial to society for adults to marry. Dr. Eggebeen testified that individuals should not be prohibited from marriage simply because they cannot have children.”

So, two of the state’s own expert witnesses have given testimony that undermines the state’s position. But Eggebeen’s testimony gets even better.

“Finally, and importantly, Dr. Eggebeen stated that children of same-sex couples would be helped if their families had access to or were able to receive the following benefits of marriage: (1) state income tax advantages; (2) public assistance; (3) enforcement of child support, alimony or other support orders; (4) inheritance rights; and (5) the ability to prosecute wrongful death actions. Dr. Eggebeen also agreed that children of same-sex couples would be helped if their families received the social status derived from marriage.” (emphasis added)

I will take up the state’s two other witnesses in the next installment, witnesses that include one that Chang found to be unpersuasive and unbelievable because the witness testified that he believed all social science, including psychology and sociology, is so flawed that it can never be fixed.

Calling the kettle slate gray

In his Christmas Eve column at CNSNews.com, Ben Shapiro attempts to put lipstick on an old pig of a specious argument by reminding folks that gay people are intolerant – too. His coy interjection of “too” at the end of his column’s title is a mousy attempt to note that the religious Right has been intolerant; but rather than explain that intolerance, Shapiro resorts to the most sophomoric of retorts, as if he were Pee Wee Herman asking the rhetorical, “I know you are, but what am I?”

First of all, let me say I agree with Shapiro when he opines that many in the gay community are intolerant of contrary beliefs. These intolerant queers demand respect for their position, but are not the slightest bit inclined to show any respect to a contrary opinion. With the quickness of an unthinking automaton, these militant gays resort immediately to name calling whenever someone indicates that they are against gay marriage. “Homophobe!”, they shout. And where does that get anyone?

Now that is done, I can get to the really feeble argument Shapiro presents in his column.

“Advocates for traditional morality have won virtually every electoral battle over gay marriage. The gay community has won its victories in the courtroom, calling on elitist judges to twist the words of state constitutions. It’s illegitimate, and it cuts against the most basic American value: the right of the people to decide how to regulate their communities.”

I mean really, this guy is a Harvard Law School graduate and he’s writing this? The gay community has resorted to “calling on elitist judges to twist the words of state constitutions.” Really now, would that be the same elitist judges that struck down state laws that banned inter-racial marriage, such as in Loving v. Virginia? Oh wait, I know the argument, the retort: at least in Loving the marriage was between a man and woman and the opportunity for procreation existed. There is no opportunity for procreation in a same-sex marriage. So yeah, procreation is part of marriage, it’s essential. Until, mmm, we talk about Turner v. Safley, a case brought forward by Missouri prison inmates who wanted to marry. Prison officials wouldn’t allow the marriages, basing their position largely on the fact that the inmates involved would never be allowed to consummate the marriage. If there’s no sex, there’s no procreation, so no marriage.

But interestingly, the Supreme Court had a different notion about why people get married.

For one, the court opined that “any governmental objective must be a legitimate and neutral one.” In the Turner case, inmates weren’t allowed to marry unless they had the prison’s permission, and that would only be granted if there was a “compelling reason” to allow the marriage. The marriages were never allowed because prison officials asserted that such marriages would cause security problems, as well as most would never be consumated. It is worth pointing out that the court rejected the security argument fairly quickly, noting that any security problems would likely exist whether the marriage occurred or not.

But what the court said about marriage is more interesting. Several reasons for allowing the marriages were given, but first on the court’s list was this: “First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship.”

So, marriage is an expression of emotional support for the other partner, and it’s an expression of public commitment. And inmate marriages, even though some may never have an opportunity for consummation, are just like any other marriage.

And you know what case will be applicable in the review of Prop 8? I think it might be Romer v. Evans.

Yes, it is true that many in the gay community need to temper their reactions when dealing with those in the anti-marriage crowd. But the Right needs to pay attention to reality and understand that blaming “activist” judges for “re-interpreting” the constitution is a non-starter. It would do them well to read up on their Tocqueville.

Libertarian lunacy

The Web is filled with an extraordinary level of rationalizations when it comes to finding ways to justify support for gays without support for marriage rights. And this one at Code Monkey Ramblings is truly ingenious in its self-deception.

In this classic libertarian thinking, the idea is that government involvement in marriage is abhorrent to begin with, so any further expansion of this involvement should be stopped. Allowing gays to marry is not the issue with “classic” libertarians; it’s the mere fact that the government is involved that upsets them.

The problem with this is that an entire class of people is denied equal rights in this area through active support of a ballot measure (voting yes on Prop 8) while efforts to dismantle the objectionable government involvement (civil recognition of marriage) are nonexistent. These libertarians do absolutely nothing to get government out of marriage except write convoluted treatises on why it should, but they will step forward and vote for discriminatory measures like Prop 8 because “government just shouldn’t be involved in marriage.” This is lunacy!

“As it currently stands, there is nothing short of the problem of finding a pastor, priest or rabbi who is willing to perform the marriage rite that is stopping most gay couples from getting married,” writes the blogger at Code Monkey. “This issue is really about other legal topics such as power of attorney and employer benefits than marriage itself, at least on the legal front.”

No kidding! This is also a truly overused setup for injecting classic Orwellian doublespeak into the debate, and Code Monkey does this when he writes: “The fact is, proponents of state licensing of gay marriages are generally in favor of using the power of the state to force society to accept homosexuality and gay marriage.”

First, he interjects the notions that we are trying to force society to accept homosexuality, yet does not explain how that can be. And second, he creates the moniker “gay marriage,” which creates the notion that a marriage involving two people of the same sex is somehow different from a marriage that involves a man and a woman.

At the heart of the argument that allowing gays to marry would force others to accept homosexuality is fear and animus. It is also a completely fallacious notion. I do not accept in any way the beliefs of those people who align themselves with Christian Identity, yet such people are legally able to marry. The mere fact that they can marry in no way requires me to accept the ideology’s anti-Semitic thesis as legitimate. I do not accept Christian Identity theology, nor do I have to just because people of that ilk are allowed to marry. So anyone who is a homophobe, whether admittedly or unconsciously, is in no way forced to accept homosexuality as legitimate merely because gays are allowed to marry. This would extend to clergy as well, because the clergy is not required by law to perform any marriage that comes along; rather, those in the clergy are allowed to do so if it involves a union that meets his or her requirements. Marriages, after all, can be performed by judges (even ship captains), who have no vested interest in who the parties are in the marriage.

And regarding the term “gay marriage,” it is a spurious term that we need to correct every time it is mentioned. There is no such thing as a “gay” marriage. There is only marriage, and what we are striving for is expansion of marriage to include same-sex couples as well as different-sex couples.

I’ll continue on this later.

Huckabee and Jon Stewart

Check out Stewart's interview with Huckabee. You must take seriously Huckabee's comment that we must get serious if we are to persuade conservative Christians to accept our premise of marriage equality.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

U.S. balks at UN resolution

The folks at UGA Liberal posted today an item about a United Nations resolution condemning the criminalization of homosexuality. The bog links to an article at PinkNews.co.uk reporting that the resolution will be presented to General Assembly in January, although UGA Liberal suggests the matter will be addressed this coming week.

While not immediately relevant to the issue of same-sex marriage, the Christian Science Monitor reported Dec. 9 that the resolution is feared by the Vatican as a way to further open the door to wider acceptance of marriage equality. Not surprisingly, the U.S. remains silent on the resolution.

The Monitor article is very telling, particularly with this passage: “(T)he Association of Catholic Jurists issued a statement trying to clarify the position of the Church. According to the group's president, Francesco D'Agostino, ‘The Vatican endorses the decriminalization of homosexuality, but opposes the equality between different sexual orientation.’” The epitome of doublespeak. How can you rationalize support for decriminalizing as sexual orientation while opposing equality? Criminalizing a human state of being, such as homosexuality, creates inequality. By decriminalizing, does that not then suggest equality in terms of just merely being? It’s just the Vatican trying to ensnare folks into its duplicitous position via manipulation of language. And amazingly, despite the Vatican having a nonvoting seat in the General Assembly, the Monitor reports that it carries great influence among the assembly, particularly on matters of human rights.

How does an entity with one of the worst histories in terms of human rights and respect for other cultural norms manage to hold such sway over this topic?

A comment, also, by the blogger at UGA, points once again to the challenge we face in obtaining marriage equality. “I can accept a lot of disagreements as valid when it comes to issues like same-sex marriage,” he writes. I would really like to hear his rationalization how the disagreements can be accepted as “valid.” Does he mean valid in that these disagreements are legitimate points of view on their own merits? Or valid because he is showing respect for an individual’s perspective, regardless of the merits?

Better latent than never

Slackers are getting into the marriage groove, now that they’ve seen how complacency gets them nowhere. A New York Times article from earlier today reveals how a new crop of gay activists is sprouting in the wake of the spanking we took in California over Prop 8.

Let’s hope it gains some traction.

Stop providing fodder!

I found these links on the Facebook page for the site “A civil union is not a marriage! Legalize gay marriage!” More evidence of the stupid and short-sighted things people do that damage our efforts to attain marriage equality. It’s not just the anti-marriage crowd we must do battle with. Unfortunately, we must battle ourselves as well.

In this story, a teacher hands out homosexual pledge cards to kindergartners. It is truly astounding that the teacher had the merest thought that what she did was even remotely appropriate.

A charter school in Hayward, Calif., held a “Gay Day” without notifying parents. This faux pas was quickly used by the Pacific Justice Institute as evidence that Prop 8’s passage would mean changes in public schools that would include “homosexual indoctrination.”

There were a couple other links, but the point is made.

Newsweek draws fire from Christian conservatives

Newsweek is taking a lot of heat for a cover story this week that suggests there is a pro-gay marriage argument that is Christian-based. The flak from the Christian right is covered by Politico.

As I posted previously, the religionists are sly at re-stating the facts, which author Lisa Miller so effectively points out in her article, “Our Mutual Joy.” Miller brings up a quote by the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, who spoke to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for an article in June: “The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because it stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition.”

No where, in the Bible – at least of the several interpretations I have read – is marriage explicitly defined as being between one man and one woman. And there is also the misogynistic apostle Paul, who, in Chapter 7 of his first epistle to the Corinthians, promoted celibacy as the way to God, but if you can’t be celibate, then get married rather than degrade yourself with a prostitute.

Richard Land, who heads the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, criticizes the article for failing to mention two important biblical passages – one involving Adam and Eve, and the other in the New Testament book of Ephesians – that describe marriage as being between one man and one woman. However, Land offers no explanation for the more than 1,000 pages of polygamous relationships and slavery in between these two definitive passages.

Miller’s article is excellent and should be read. It adds to the argument that David Myers and Lisa Dawson Scanzoni presented in their 2004 book, “What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage.”

The blame game

There’s an Op-Ed piece in today’s New York Times that takes a stab at explaining why Prop 8 succeeded. It examines the issue of race, which others have brought up as the critical issue that contributed to Prop 8’s passage (Bill O’Reilly in particular). Others added evidence for blaming the blacks as well as the Mormons. In today’s Times, authors Caitlin Flanagan and Benjamin Schwarz seek to discredit these assertions. Their argument is persuasive, but still misses the point. Keith Olbermann I think has been the only commentator to get the issue at least partially right, and that is if blacks did play an important role in Prop 8’s success, it was not because of antipathy toward gays within the black community (though it exists within the religious subsets of all groups), but because of an incredibly ignorant blunder by the gay lobby to barely spend any of its millions within that community. At least Hendrik Hertzberg’s article in the New Yorker gets it partly right by addressing this issue.

“(The gay lobby was) complacent: early polls had shown Prop. 8 losing by double digits,” Hertzberg wrote in his Dec. 1 article. “Their television ads were timid and ineffective, focussing (sic) on worthy abstractions like equality and fairness, while the other side’s were powerfully emotional.”

Not to forget outright mendacious. If we are to succeed – and don’t kid yourself, there is no guarantee of success – we must learn that we need to raise and spend more money than the other side and directly address the issues it presents. This is not about fairness; that calumny is worthless to our struggle. The point that needs to be clearly made loudly and often is we are the ones who are pro-marriage, while the other side is truly the side that is anti-marriage.