Paradigm shift in global gay rights — OZONE Asylum, home of the Mad Scientists

Philosophy and other Silliness

Paradigm shift in global gay rights

This page's ID: 30708

Edit Post

Who can edit a post?	The poster and administrators may edit a post. The poster can only edit it for a short while after the initial post.

Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:	Remember Me On This Computer

Your Text: Insert Slimies » Insert UBB Code » Close Last Tag \| All Tags UBB Help	From the official summary of the Iowa decision: (I believe that the manner in which these issues are addressed in this decision very effectively addresses them in the bigger picture, which is why I am posting it here. bearing in mind, of course, that marriage is only one small issue as part of this topic) [quote] [b]Maintaining Traditional Marriage[/b]. Initially, the court considered the County?s argument the same-sex marriage ban promotes the ?integrity of traditional marriage? by ?maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one between a man and a woman).? The court noted that, when tradition is offered as a justification for preserving a statutory scheme challenged on equal protection grounds, the court must determine whether the reasons underlying the tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements. These reasons, the court found, must be something other than the preservation of tradition by itself. ?When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.? Here, the County offered no governmental reason underlying the tradition of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, so the court proceeded to consider the other reasons advanced by the County for the legislative classification. [b]Promotion of Optimal Environment to Raise Children[/b]. The second of the County?s proffered governmental objectives involves promoting child rearing by a father and a mother in a marital relationship, the optimal milieu according to some social scientists. Although the court found support for the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and oppositesex parents, it acknowledged the existence of reasoned opinions that dualgender parenting is the optimal environment for children. Nonetheless, the court concluded the classification employed to further that goal?sexual orientation? did not pass intermediate scrutiny because it is significantly under-inclusive and over-inclusive. The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents?such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons?that are undeniably less than optimal parents. If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not merely gay and lesbian people. The statute is also under-inclusive because it does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children in Iowa. The statute is over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. The court further noted that the County failed to show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban, or how the ban benefits the interests of children of heterosexual parents. Thus, the court concluded a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal environment to raise children. [b]Promotion of Procreation.[/b] Next, the court addressed the County?s argument that endorsement of traditional civil marriage will result in more procreation. The court concluded the County?s argument is flawed because it fails to address the required analysis of the objective: whether exclusion of gay and lesbian individuals from the institution of civil marriage will result in more procreation. The court found no argument to support the conclusion that a goal of additional procreation would be substantially furthered by the exclusion of gays and lesbians from civil marriage. [b]Promoting Stability in Opposite-Sex Relationships.[/b] The County also asserted that the statute promoted stability in opposite-sex relationships. The court acknowledged that, while the institution of civil marriage likely encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships, there was no evidence to support that excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage makes opposite-sex marriage more stable. [b]Conservation of Resources[/b]. Finally, the court rejected the County?s argument that banning same-sex marriages in a constitutional fashion conserves state resources. The argument in support of the same-sex marriage ban is based on a simple premise: civilly married couples enjoy numerous governmental benefits, so the state?s fiscal burden associated with civil marriage is reduced if less people are allowed to marry. While the ban on same-sex marriage may conserve some state resources, so would excluding any number of identifiable groups. However, under intermediate scrutiny the sexual-orientation-based classification must substantially further the conservation-of-resources objective. Here again, the court found it was over- and under-inclusive and did not substantially further the suggested governmental interest. [b]Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage[/b]. Having addressed and rejected each specific interest articulated by the County, the court addressed one final ground believed to underlie the same-sex marriage debate?religious opposition. Recognizing the sincere religious belief held by some that the ?sanctity of marriage? would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples, the court nevertheless noted that such views are not the only religious views of marriage. Other, equally sincere groups have espoused strong religious views yielding the opposite conclusion. These contrasting opinions, the court finds, explain the absence of any religious-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa?s same-sex marriage statute. ?Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them . . . . The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute, declares, ?Marriage is a civil contract? and then regulates that civil contract . . . . Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with marriage.? [b]Constitutional Infirmity[/b]. In concluding the marriage statute is constitutionally infirm, the court stated: [i]We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination. We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa?s marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2 denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by the Iowa Constitution[/i]. [/quote] [small](Edited by [url=http://www.ozoneasylum.com/user/163]DL-44[/url] on 07-15-2009 18:39)[/small] Loading...
Options:	Enable Slimies Enable Linkwords

« Backwards — Onwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu