Tuesday, December 9, 2008
News / Homo Marriage Equality's New Front
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Wouldn't it be hilarious if same-sex couples could get married in Iowa—with its pig manure lagoons and family farms—but not in California? The Iowa Supreme Court is hearing arguments today in a case brought to overturn a lower court's ruling that legalized—for about 15 minutes—marriage equality in that state. Live video feed of oral arguments here. The state is arguing that same-sex marriage "harms kids," because "after a generation, maybe two, people will see or could come to believe that if it’s not necessary to have its biological father, or its biological mother, then what’s the need for getting married?"
Gee, the state has a point—that's why it's currently illegal for single people to bear children out of wedlock, or seek infertility treatment, or adopt children. I mean, if single straight people could do that—if they could have children without a bio mom married to a bio dad, then children might conclude that there's no need to marry. Makes sense to me!
Wait, what's that you say? Single straight people can already have children—by hook, by crook, by test tube—right now? And they've been doing that for one, maybe two, generations now? And people still want to get married—even gay people? No way!
Share via
1
The Washington State Supreme Court pretty much bought the same stupid argument being peddled in Iowa, so I don't have high hopes that Iowoniainites will be marrying anytime soon.
My own California marriage is in limbo right now and I'm so sick of this fight I'm almost at ready to say "Fuck it, I don't care. My man and I will just raise our kid and if anyone comes after us, we'll take our money and head to Canada (or even fucking South Africa for that matter)." I'm pretty beat down on this one, at least for now.
My own California marriage is in limbo right now and I'm so sick of this fight I'm almost at ready to say "Fuck it, I don't care. My man and I will just raise our kid and if anyone comes after us, we'll take our money and head to Canada (or even fucking South Africa for that matter)." I'm pretty beat down on this one, at least for now.
2
How about a remake of Green Acres with a Gay Couple?
One guy could be an activist lawyer like Harvey Milk who was into "fresh air" and the other a fashion consultant who likes "Times Square".
They could call it "Gay Acres".
How about a remake of Green Acres with a Gay Couple?
One guy could be an activist lawyer like Harvey Milk who was into "fresh air" and the other a fashion consultant who likes "Times Square".
They could call it "Gay Acres".
3
The difference re Washington Court was three justices were up for reelection... it is still my belief that Chief Justice Alexander ruled against marriage equality just to hold on the his seat while the other two who were up for reelection ruled for marriage equality despite the fear of not being reelected.
4
It comes down to this. The relgious nuts are worried that their own kids won't grow up to be just like them and be people they can understand and see themselves reflected in and know that their culture will live on after they die. I'm sure the Inuit people understand. And all the other subcultures who see themselves dying as all the cultures blend together. Ask Mudede.
6
I have high hopes for Iowa. Growing up there people are fair-minded and tolerant. It's not a Bible-belt state. And yes, I did grow up on a family farm. But there was no manure lagoon, Dan.
7
Eastern Iowa has been headed in a more progressive direction for about the past 10 years or so. Especially with some of the new justices appointed to the Iowa Supreme Court recently, this really isn't too surprising. I'll actually be really surprised (and pissed) if Iowa isn't the next state to level the marriage field for everyone.
Hell, visit Iowa City if you want to see one of the most gay-friendly cities in the country. Western Iowa, on the other hand... *shudder* Nebraska can have 'em.
Hell, visit Iowa City if you want to see one of the most gay-friendly cities in the country. Western Iowa, on the other hand... *shudder* Nebraska can have 'em.
8
@1 I know what you mean. It is pretty sad when gay marriage is legal in places like South Africa, considering that history of apartheid. Countries like Nepal, China, Cambodia and Mexico are all progressing toward approval of gay marriage yet the Land of the Free continues to spin its wheels.
9
Dan-
Yes. "Hilarious."
News flash: Washington has manure lagoons and family farms, too. And radioactive superfund sites. And meth infestations.
Yes. "Hilarious."
News flash: Washington has manure lagoons and family farms, too. And radioactive superfund sites. And meth infestations.
12
Did anybody get to watch this? The appellant (villian) was really nervous the whole time. His opening two statements were 'Marriage is a fundamental right' and 'Marriage is for making babies'. Not a very strong gambit, and the justices made it known to him that those were not good arguments.
Critique of the good guys: The appellee said "Iowa has never had a gay elected official", arguing essentially that just being gay makes one a less likely political contender. The justices got all umbragey, saying "Are you calling Iowans discriminatory?!?!" The lawyer basically punted, saying "No, your honor. I believe Iowans are the most tolerant in the country", instead of actually citing available statistics to prove his point like they asked him to do. This was in the context of arguing political power of minority groups, which is important in determining the level of scrutiny applied to a class.
Overall though, based on the questions the justices were asking and my amateur mind-reading skills, I'd be 80% surprised if Iowa didn't allow gay marriage and 98% surprised if they didn't allow at least civil unions.
Critique of the good guys: The appellee said "Iowa has never had a gay elected official", arguing essentially that just being gay makes one a less likely political contender. The justices got all umbragey, saying "Are you calling Iowans discriminatory?!?!" The lawyer basically punted, saying "No, your honor. I believe Iowans are the most tolerant in the country", instead of actually citing available statistics to prove his point like they asked him to do. This was in the context of arguing political power of minority groups, which is important in determining the level of scrutiny applied to a class.
Overall though, based on the questions the justices were asking and my amateur mind-reading skills, I'd be 80% surprised if Iowa didn't allow gay marriage and 98% surprised if they didn't allow at least civil unions.
13
The judge in this case just asked the most incredible question. The state argued that a same gender couples would not create an optimal union for children. The judge pointed out that sex offenders can still get married, and THAT really doesn't create an optimal union for children.
Asked if sex offenders should NOT be able to get married, the states lawyer said no, as it would violate their rights.
SO - two registered violent sex offenders can get married (so long as they're opposite gender), but two responsible law-abiding guys/girls cannot. sick.
Asked if sex offenders should NOT be able to get married, the states lawyer said no, as it would violate their rights.
SO - two registered violent sex offenders can get married (so long as they're opposite gender), but two responsible law-abiding guys/girls cannot. sick.
14
I listened to the court case and Once again the term "Same Sex Marriage" is used with great HARM to civil marriage equality. Oh please DEAR GOD make all the straight and Gay people stop using a term that plays into the hands of the Radical Religious Extremists and conveys the notion that Gay Americans want Special Rights. Please God let then use the term that states the case: Civil Marriage Equality.
I thought the Plaintiffs' lawyer was very timid and ill prepared. I'll hope for the best but I don't think he presented a winning argument.
I thought the Plaintiffs' lawyer was very timid and ill prepared. I'll hope for the best but I don't think he presented a winning argument.
15
I don't want to open a whole 'nuther can of worms, but lately it's been bothering me - especially in light of recent headlines (not just Prop 8) - that I while same sex couples can't marry, I could order a bride from any other country in the world with little issue. Of course, I don't want to see couples of different nationalities be denied the right to marry here, but there's an especially glaring hypocrisy there that I haven't seen addressed, especially by those arguing the sanctity of the institution.
17
"Wouldn't it be hilarious if same-sex couples could get married in Iowa—with its pig manure lagoons and family farms—but not in California?"
That is a very ignorant and asshole-ish thing to say. Iowa has a progressive history in the arena of civil and women's rights. Don't forget that we also put Barack Obama on the map.
As for the pig manure lagoons, California is the Queen of inhumane industrial farming. Take a dump on that.
That is a very ignorant and asshole-ish thing to say. Iowa has a progressive history in the arena of civil and women's rights. Don't forget that we also put Barack Obama on the map.
As for the pig manure lagoons, California is the Queen of inhumane industrial farming. Take a dump on that.
18
Yes, I can understand Iowa's bad reputation for those who've not visited there in awhile. Its location--the Midwest--doesn't help it any. But Iowa City is a fun, funky, artsy, gay-friendly place to be, and it has a good influence on the rest of the state. Kind of like how Chicago is for Illinois.
19
C'mon, Dan. Quit drinking the haterade: ". . .in Iowa—with its pig manure lagoons and family farms."
I know you've skipped through the bustling riverfront Megalopolis of Dubuque--my hometown--and so we both know that at least one part of the state is not a giantic floatation device hovering over the fecal pool.
Give DBQ its props, already, jeez.
I know you've skipped through the bustling riverfront Megalopolis of Dubuque--my hometown--and so we both know that at least one part of the state is not a giantic floatation device hovering over the fecal pool.
Give DBQ its props, already, jeez.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
WTF? by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
Precious: Brutal New Classic or African-American Bruno? by David Schmader
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (19) RSS