Comments on: Cautious court offers few clues to its thinking in same-sex marriage case http://iowaindependent.com/9428/cautious-court-offers-few-clues-to-its-thinking-in-same-sex-marriage-case Iowa politics, news, and commentary Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:46:10 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: golfman_story http://iowaindependent.com/9428/cautious-court-offers-few-clues-to-its-thinking-in-same-sex-marriage-case/comment-page-1#comment-19720 golfman_story Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:01:10 +0000 http://iowaindependent.com/?p=9428#comment-19720 This is quite impressive, I am pleased to read this post, keep posts like this coming, you totally rock!<br><br><br><a href="http://sain-web.com" rel="nofollow">http://sain-web.com</a> This is quite impressive, I am pleased to read this post, keep posts like this coming, you totally rock!

http://sain-web.com

]]> By: golfman_story http://iowaindependent.com/9428/cautious-court-offers-few-clues-to-its-thinking-in-same-sex-marriage-case/comment-page-1#comment-16382 golfman_story Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:01:10 +0000 http://iowaindependent.com/?p=9428#comment-16382 This is quite impressive, I am pleased to read this post, keep posts like this coming, you totally rock!<br><br><br><a href="http://sain-web.com" rel="nofollow">http://sain-web.com</a> This is quite impressive, I am pleased to read this post, keep posts like this coming, you totally rock!

http://sain-web.com

]]> By: MarlaStevens http://iowaindependent.com/9428/cautious-court-offers-few-clues-to-its-thinking-in-same-sex-marriage-case/comment-page-1#comment-14757 MarlaStevens Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:42:12 +0000 http://iowaindependent.com/?p=9428#comment-14757 They only have to rely on civil marriage being a fundamental right to use strict scrutiny -- although it's obvious that gays are also a suspect class from the fact that gays suffer the highest per capita incidence of hate crimes (greater than any minority group according to the U.S. Department of Justice) and the fanatical opposition to civil marriage equality for same-sex couples plus the long history of other discrimination from the Inquisition to the disproportionately high number of gay minors turned out on the streets by intolerant parents (ask yourself how many black children are thrown out of their homes because their parents are upset that their children are black). Solicitor Johnson was right to call gays being a suspect class self-evident. <br><br>That leaves only the issue of how to right the wrong of denying same-sex couples equal access to civil marriage law -- either strike down the ban and allow the marriage licenses to be issued or strike it down but send it back to the legislature with instructions to come up with something equitable. <br><br>But, as civil unions other than civil marriage cannot be made equal due to nonredundancy requirements in Iowa law, issues of portability across state and international borders, and the many issues presented by Brown vs. Board of Education that Solicitor Johnson raised, the only functional choice the legislature would have is civil marriage, so the court dumping it in the legislature's lap wouldn't make any sense. No, the only legal, sensible choice the justices have is to strike down the ban and let the marriages begin after giving the state a short time to figure out how to accommodate same-sex couples. <br><br>Canada, for instance, calls both parties spouses and notes their respective sexes on the records, making geneaologists and others who use marriage records for research and other legitimate purposes happy while insulting no one as officiants are free to refer to people by bride and groom or whatever references suit them in their ceremonies. <br><br>Note that the religious freedom guaranteed by both the Iowa and U.S. constitutions already protect the rights of same-sex couples to religious marriage in whatever faith will have them and the rights of those faiths that do not wish to marry same-sex couples not to marry them. <br><br>Note, however, that religious approbation is not an acceptable defense to refusing someone a public accommodation even if a church runs the public accommodation separate from its sacred activities, such as when a church owns a business or rents apartments to the general public in a building it owns or takes tax money to run a program like a hospital or homeless services program. And an independent businessperson has to play by the rules of a fair and open marketplace no matter what his/her personal biases.<br><br>I hope the wedding services industry in Iowa is gearing up for the extra business that might be coming their way! They only have to rely on civil marriage being a fundamental right to use strict scrutiny — although it's obvious that gays are also a suspect class from the fact that gays suffer the highest per capita incidence of hate crimes (greater than any minority group according to the U.S. Department of Justice) and the fanatical opposition to civil marriage equality for same-sex couples plus the long history of other discrimination from the Inquisition to the disproportionately high number of gay minors turned out on the streets by intolerant parents (ask yourself how many black children are thrown out of their homes because their parents are upset that their children are black). Solicitor Johnson was right to call gays being a suspect class self-evident.

That leaves only the issue of how to right the wrong of denying same-sex couples equal access to civil marriage law — either strike down the ban and allow the marriage licenses to be issued or strike it down but send it back to the legislature with instructions to come up with something equitable.

But, as civil unions other than civil marriage cannot be made equal due to nonredundancy requirements in Iowa law, issues of portability across state and international borders, and the many issues presented by Brown vs. Board of Education that Solicitor Johnson raised, the only functional choice the legislature would have is civil marriage, so the court dumping it in the legislature's lap wouldn't make any sense. No, the only legal, sensible choice the justices have is to strike down the ban and let the marriages begin after giving the state a short time to figure out how to accommodate same-sex couples.

Canada, for instance, calls both parties spouses and notes their respective sexes on the records, making geneaologists and others who use marriage records for research and other legitimate purposes happy while insulting no one as officiants are free to refer to people by bride and groom or whatever references suit them in their ceremonies.

Note that the religious freedom guaranteed by both the Iowa and U.S. constitutions already protect the rights of same-sex couples to religious marriage in whatever faith will have them and the rights of those faiths that do not wish to marry same-sex couples not to marry them.

Note, however, that religious approbation is not an acceptable defense to refusing someone a public accommodation even if a church runs the public accommodation separate from its sacred activities, such as when a church owns a business or rents apartments to the general public in a building it owns or takes tax money to run a program like a hospital or homeless services program. And an independent businessperson has to play by the rules of a fair and open marketplace no matter what his/her personal biases.

I hope the wedding services industry in Iowa is gearing up for the extra business that might be coming their way!

]]>