An Iowa district court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples can marry based on the state constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment . . ..
I’ve never been in favor the the litigation strategy to achieve equal marriage rights for same-sex couples as it feeds the fear of those that believe the “gay agenda” will be pushed on them by so-called activist courts. Voter backlash often follows.
Aside: A local activist once bitched my out at an HRC event when I referred to gay marriage. My second attempt – same-sex marriage – was met with the same scorn. He insisted I refer only to marriage equality. Problem is, that phrase doesn’t immediately communicate what you’re talking about like the other two.
Second aside: Just about 2 months ago I was at dinner with an ultra-liberal lesbian friend (she would gladly own that whole reference) when she complained that she shouldn’t have to make a case for why she should be treated equally. While empathizing with her, having the make the case, repeatedly, is simply what we have to do. Just not a court case.
August 31, 2007 at 8:31 am
[...] Michael Not Mike is talking about the recent decision in the Iowa court which allows same-sex couples to marry. An Iowa district court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples can marry based on the state constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment, court documents show. The ruling was in response to a December 2005 lawsuit brought by six same-sex couples seeking to wed. They were denied marriage licenses and claimed such treatment violates equal-protection and due-process clauses in the Iowa constitution. The court also struck down a state law declaring valid marriages are only between a man and woman. [...]
August 31, 2007 at 11:57 am
Hey Michael,
Regarding the second aside: I’ve remembered that very interesting conversation, too. And as I said then, I love it that we, and the others who were a part of it, can have honest and respectful conversations, even when we’re coming from near if not total polar opposite political perspectives.
Saying, as I did, that I shouldn’t have to make the case for equality wasn’t a complaint, but a statement of what I think “equal rights,” “equal protection,” or more broadly “human rights,” are suppose to be about. But of course, that’s the ideal, not the reality, and the case for actual equal rights is one that has needed to be made by people from and for all kinds of communities. We’ll have to keep on doing that, including, though by no means limited to, through the courts.
Stating that I shouldn’t have to prove that I deserve equal rights doesn’t mean I don’t know, in fact, that I have to do just that, over and over. I’ve been doing it for 30+ years, and like many other people, doing it not just for LGBT rights.
Living in a very imperfect world, and more specifically, an imperfect nation with imperfect laws and governments, the need to keep on working for equality is the reality. I still don’t think I should have to do that — a philosophical, ethical, spiritual perspective of a “fair” and “just” world. But I do, and at least for me, the need to keep on fighting / working provides me with more motivation and energy.
Hey, I’m ready for another round of good conversation and brews, my ultra conservative gay man friend
.
August 31, 2007 at 12:51 pm
ULL: I look forward to seeing you again, too. Drinks all around! Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I hope you’ll come back. (You might be surprised to learn that not everyone always agrees with me.)