Iowa lawmakers have ';excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification,'; the justices wrote.Do laws restricting marriage to mating couples deny equal protection?
No. First, rights belong to individuals, not to groups of people. This means the key question is whether every eligible individual has the right to marry. If so, there is no violation of equal protection.
To marry means to enter into a permanent mating relationship. Any single adult has this right, without regard to sexual orientation. Marriage requires an eligible partner, who must be one single consenting nonrelative adult of the opposite sex.
The reason for government support for marriage is to encourage mating couples to make their relationship permanent, which is vital to the nurturance and education of potential children. There is no reason to extend such recognition to other relationships that do not involve potential children.
It is in the state's interest to have individuals voluntarily raise children rather than incur the astronomical cost that individual couples freely take on.
The Supreme Court in Iowa is imposing liberal morality on Iowans by intentionally misreading the state constitution. I feel sorry for Iowans who must endure such tyranny until they can amend their constitution. But there is a good lesson here for any state who thinks they can withstand liberal tyranny on marriage without explicit language in their state constitutions.Do laws restricting marriage to mating couples deny equal protection?
They did their job, to interpret the law.
If you don't like it, go amend the Iowa constitution. No one is forcing anyone to live in Iowa.
Saying marriage is only for a certain type of couple is excluding the rights of certain types of people.
Most of the Christian arguments are against homosexuals sexual relations, and are purely based on religion. The government sees marriage purely as a civil contract, which gives it no reason to exempt people from it.
I love the phrase ';permanent mating relationship';.
The idea that marriage is reasonably restricted to breeding couples has been dunked over and over. Married couples are not required to have children, or even be capable of it.
What really upsets the bigots is that by allowing same-sex couples to marry there is no longer an acceptable basis for their practice of bigotry. As long as the state keeps gay relationships as second class the bigots have some basis for their discrimination.
Same with racists in the history of this country.
Well of course it's a violation of equal protection
Homo-phobic Christians don't want to publicly admit this But they have got to know that there is a huge and fatal flaw in their ';God created marriage between a man and woman '; argument : it assumes that the real purpose of heterosexual marriage is procreation.
The long version of that is ';God created marriage between a man and a woman so that the resulting children would grow up and thrive in a positive and nurturing environment';
All well and good so far
The fatal flaw is that it assumes that all heterosexual married couples will eventually have children and we all know that's simply not the case.
Since no court in the land would ever make procreation a condition of marriage between heterosexuals then granting a marriage license to heterosexual couples who either can't or won't procreate and not granting a marriage license to gay couples who either can't or won't procreate is indeed an equal protection violation.
To be consistent they should say pologamy is allowable and that marriage to animals and children is ok.
God has said marriage is between a man and a woman no matter what some unjust judge says.
The court has no right to tell a married couple they have to have sex or that they can't engage in sex.
To be clear you have to make a difference between church laws and civil laws. They do not always agree with each other as they have a different point of view to the question. So it depends on whether you take it as God's law or the law made by man.
Of course they deny it. And I give thanks to the founding fathers who invented the checks and balances that protect us all from mob (majority) rule.
Your kidding right ?
Iowa did the right thing, and many more states will be doing it in that near future as well, just watch.
Yeah it does... but marriage these days has become nothing more than a really bad joke... not really worth fighting for... It doesn't seem like it is anyhow.
No comments:
Post a Comment