Iowa Supreme Court OK's gay "marriage!"
It's a sad day for the state of Iowa and the nation.
The Iowa Supreme Court has illogically and inanely (but predictably) ruled that it is somehow unconstitutional for the state not to permit gay "marriage."
The text of the abomination can be found here.
A useful article on the social effects of legally-protected gay partnerships and "marriage" in Holland can be found here.
How marriage between people of the same gender differs from still-prohibited marriage between species or inanimate objects (both of which also stand outside the very definition of marriage as it has existed throughout the history of Western culture) is not explained. Homosexuals are not in any way discriminated against by any law which permits them to marry members of the opposite sex- since by the very definition of the word marriage can only take place between members of the opposite sex. Neither does any court or legislature have either the right or the authority to idiosyncratically redefine the most basic institution of human society.
Certainly the rights of non-gay Iowans are infringed by this ruling. Other than the obvious consequences for child rearing involved in failing to distinguish between couples including both genders and couples including only one, there will be other potentially devastating effects on marriage generally in this state if this ruling stands. The average duration of a legally protected gay commitment in Holland is 1.5 years. Only 29% of such relationships last seven years. The level of violence in gay relationships is between two and three times that in heterosexual relationships. And traditionally, sexual exclusivity is of marriage's very essence. In Holland, the average male partner in a legally protected "committed" relationship has eight other sexual partners per year.
The court's ruling undermines monogamous marriage even among heterosexuals by effectively removing the expectation of monogamy among an entire class of legally "married" individuals among whom it is not a widely-practiced standard. Despite the common recitation of the discredited Kinsey statistic that ten to eleven percent of adult American males are homosexual, more reliable statistics set the figure at between one and two percent. The very small percentage of the population that is in fact homosexual will prevent a skyrocketing in Iowa's divorce statistics in coming years- that is, if the ruling stands. Not much of a silver lining, of course.
Undoubtedly a movement will promptly start to overturn it by amending the Iowa constitution. This blog and this author will strongly support that movement, which will completely transform the political landscape of the state of Iowa for at least the next couple of cycles. Next year's election here in Iowa will not only be dominated by this ruling and by the attempt to amend Iowa's constitution to overturn the judicial amendment of that document to require that gay "marriage" be permitted, but will doubtless include a spirited campaign to deny retention to the three of the seven members of Iowa's Supreme Court whose names will be on the ballot in 2010.
Here's to Iowa's own upcoming version of Proposition 8- and to tossing the revolutionaries who have illegitimately used their judicial authority to amend Iowa's constitution out on their ears! As George H.W. Bush said of the invasion of Kuwait, "This will not stand."
The Iowa Supreme Court has illogically and inanely (but predictably) ruled that it is somehow unconstitutional for the state not to permit gay "marriage."
The text of the abomination can be found here.
A useful article on the social effects of legally-protected gay partnerships and "marriage" in Holland can be found here.
How marriage between people of the same gender differs from still-prohibited marriage between species or inanimate objects (both of which also stand outside the very definition of marriage as it has existed throughout the history of Western culture) is not explained. Homosexuals are not in any way discriminated against by any law which permits them to marry members of the opposite sex- since by the very definition of the word marriage can only take place between members of the opposite sex. Neither does any court or legislature have either the right or the authority to idiosyncratically redefine the most basic institution of human society.
Certainly the rights of non-gay Iowans are infringed by this ruling. Other than the obvious consequences for child rearing involved in failing to distinguish between couples including both genders and couples including only one, there will be other potentially devastating effects on marriage generally in this state if this ruling stands. The average duration of a legally protected gay commitment in Holland is 1.5 years. Only 29% of such relationships last seven years. The level of violence in gay relationships is between two and three times that in heterosexual relationships. And traditionally, sexual exclusivity is of marriage's very essence. In Holland, the average male partner in a legally protected "committed" relationship has eight other sexual partners per year.
The court's ruling undermines monogamous marriage even among heterosexuals by effectively removing the expectation of monogamy among an entire class of legally "married" individuals among whom it is not a widely-practiced standard. Despite the common recitation of the discredited Kinsey statistic that ten to eleven percent of adult American males are homosexual, more reliable statistics set the figure at between one and two percent. The very small percentage of the population that is in fact homosexual will prevent a skyrocketing in Iowa's divorce statistics in coming years- that is, if the ruling stands. Not much of a silver lining, of course.
Undoubtedly a movement will promptly start to overturn it by amending the Iowa constitution. This blog and this author will strongly support that movement, which will completely transform the political landscape of the state of Iowa for at least the next couple of cycles. Next year's election here in Iowa will not only be dominated by this ruling and by the attempt to amend Iowa's constitution to overturn the judicial amendment of that document to require that gay "marriage" be permitted, but will doubtless include a spirited campaign to deny retention to the three of the seven members of Iowa's Supreme Court whose names will be on the ballot in 2010.
Here's to Iowa's own upcoming version of Proposition 8- and to tossing the revolutionaries who have illegitimately used their judicial authority to amend Iowa's constitution out on their ears! As George H.W. Bush said of the invasion of Kuwait, "This will not stand."
Comments