a step forward, without one shoe on

So to recap where we are now:

• Iowa's supreme court has legalized gay marriage by judicial activism
• Vermont's legislature has overridden a gubernatorial veto
• Washington DC has said they will recognize same-sex marriages from other states and will be debating their own law soon
• Massachusetts allows gay marriage
• More cases and laws are being debated....
  

So lots have been said about this issue in recent times (read the newspaper). I did come across one article that was fairly telling about the strategy of the gay marriage activists. I will not make a list of all the articles I have read however I do have a couple that may be more obscure that are worth reading. In the previous article the author stated that the governor of New York was planning to introduce a measure legalizing gay marriage. I didn't know that a governor could do that but apparently he can (since it was reported by multiple news sources and was previously done by Elliot Spitzer in earlier). This is not the way the federal government works which is why it is worthy of mention.

What I find most interesting about this article is the estimated increases in revenue from this law in Iowa. I find that fact trite. I don't think the judges supported the right to marry so the state could take in 54 Million dollars more which would be only be 54 million*6% = 3 million. (I love the economist so here is another article.) Nor do I think the huge income will keep Iowans from voting against gay marriage if they want to.

Now why do I say the step forward has only one shoe on? Because the decision in Iowa was not a legislative decision and was instead a judicial action. Those that know me know that I am much more of an originalist than most people (if you don't know what originalism is, then stay tuned, I have a post coming up soon about it). However in this case I am more worried about the consequences of the judicial action. The opponents of gay marriage will say 'correctly' that is was not a law (but the interpretation of one) and thus (arguably) not the will of the people. The problem with this is that the opponents of gay marriage are a group that is exceptionally against judicial activism as well (mostly). This could mobilize the opponents to this action. The only advantage in Iowa (and I would imagine this was well known to those who choose Iowa as a battleground) is that 2 consecutive sessions must pass an amendment before the amendment can be placed to a vote of the people. So there is a significant amount of time before a popular vote on the issue. This only helps the gay marriage movement. However to truly get me excited the state of Iowa should pass a law (or amendment to its constitution) to legalize gay marriage. That way there isn't any confusion in the future when new judges are installed which may interpret the old laws 'differently'.

I should say I am partial to gay marriage. I think that gay people should have the exact same legal recourse, obligations, and opportunities that we heterosexual couples do. This is from several levels. One is that our state (the United States) is a not a theocracy. I say this because the state sanctioning a marriage has no moral, or religious implications. Why does the state sanction marriage? That is a complicated topic which I have another post I am preparing for it. Partially there is a large school of thought that says stable households create better neighborhoods which lowers crime and increases the educational opportunities among other things. The state long ago decided that it was a good idea to promote that (in addition to the religious implications of the union). So to me a state sanctioned marriage is just a civil union no matter what and so why not allow two people who are dedicated to each other have this option? I mean what is the danger? That the divorce rate in the country may drop? Oh no, whatever will we do when the sanctity of marriage is destroyed and gay people can get divorced as well. We heterosexuals are hardly shining examples of the sanctity of marriage.

In my opinion all marriages should be sanctioned by religions. If you are not religious then it doesn't matter if a religion recognizes you right? The state should only sanction civil unions and in all cases where two adults want to commit the state should sanction the union for tax, legal, etc. reasons. Why? Because those are in the domain of the state (I don't remember the last time the state told me what to believe.) So, in my opinion, the state's laws and religion's dogma should reflect those realities because they allow for a more internally consistent reality, all institutions support and endorse the part of the union that is their domain and no other.

So while I think the decision goes further to getting the laws in a more consistent form I still feel uneasy about the decision because I still think there is a right way to do things, and that is not to get judges on your side and then have them overturn laws. But until everyone agrees with me I guess I will have to celebrate advances in whatever form they come in.