By Tom Quiner
The Des Moines Register came out with a forceful defense of retaining Supreme Court Justices who support gay marriage. The Register called it the most important vote we’ll make this election.
They may be right in one way, this is the most item on the ballot for Iowa voters. All of the others are huge, too. But judges fundamentally changed a timeless, critical social institution, marriage.
The Register equated the marriage ruling with civil rights. They suggest that the Court’s decision was reasonable and inevitable, that the right to restructure marriage is found in the Iowa Constitution where it says:
“All men and women are, by nature, free and equal” … and that “the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
The suggestion that the 19th century writers of the Iowa Constitution would have ever imagined that this text was intended to legitimize same-sex marriage is, shall we say, unlikely.
Besides, this was never a civil rights issue, to which the Register equates the gay marriage issue. It was a definition issue. Iowa marriage laws don’t allow someone to marry two people. They don’t allow one to marry a brother or sister. The law defined marriage in a commonsensical way with the intent of perpetuating society. It defined it to protect children. It was not based on “the relationship.”
Before Barnum, gay people, in fact, could and did get married. But they could only marry someone of the opposite gender. By the same token, heterosexuals were prevented by law from marrying someone of the same gender. The law was consistent, unambiguous, and non-discriminatory.
Iowans amplified their belief in a traditional definition of marriage with additional legislation passed in 1998.
Regular folks don’t trust lawyers and judges who make convoluted rulings lacking in an iota of common sense. The judges’ decision in the eyes of regular folks was a political act. Some view it as a legislative act. A whole bunch of people view it as in irresponsible act.
Vote no on retaining these judges.
Vote no to Democratic legislators who now block efforts to redress the issue.
And vote no to Attorney General Tom Miller, whose office was assigned the task of defending 1998’s traditional marriage legislation, and blew it by not taking the case seriously.