A Win
I forgot to mention it yesterday, but good for Iowa.
Money quote:
“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,” Justice Mark S. Cady wrote for the seven-member court, adding later, “We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law.”
Yes.
Civil unions/domestic partnerships do not confer all the same legal benefits as marriage. See e.g. http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm for details.
The most important bullet points:
* Civil unions are not available nor recognized everywhere.
* Where they are available or recognized, definitions and rules vary.
* You cannot file a joint tax return under a civil union.
* Marriage automatically grants certain medical powers of attorney. Civil unions do not; this must be set up independently at additional cost.
* A civil union grants less legal power to the surviving partner than marriage when executing a will.
* A civil union cannot confer citizenship to an immigrant partner.
* Oddly, it can be more difficult to dissolve a civil union than a marriage.
That’s how things stand now. I fully support the movement towards removing government involvement in marriage, as the religious/social tradition. We ought to allow any partners to receive the valuable social and personal rights currently conferred by marriage. Problem is that it’s way easier from a legal standpoint to expand the definition of marriage than to expand the definition of civil union, but from a social standpoint the opposite is true.
Seems like a pretty fair compromise by my understanding … if I understand everything correctly, a gay couple could get a civil union and enjoy all of the same legal benefits as a marriage. Does it really matter of the government calls it a “civil union” or a “Marriage” (capital M)? I mean, gay couples may not be happy that they don’t have that official title, but if it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck…
I think removing state intervention into the whole marriage business is a good idea. Just call everything state recognized civil unions between two people, and then if they want it to be “Marriage”, they can seek whatever private organization they want to conduct the ceremony.
It seems like a decent compromise … I agree it may not be a complete win-win for both parties involved, but all compromises involve some sacrifice, and this loos like a good way to split it in the middle.
The problem with that approach is that it would satisfy neither side. Using a business term such as “civil contracts” doesn’t change the basic nature of the thing. “A rose by any other name,” and all that stuff. Calling it something else and opening it up to everybody would only anger people on both sides of the debate. The anti-gay marriage groups would feel it demeans a sacred rite, and the pro-gay marriage groups would feel they were being slighted by not getting the title of marriage. Really, at this point the debate is more about respect than about rights. Gay couples can receive civil unions just about anywhere, which allow them essentially the same rights and privileges as married couples, but not the all-important title of “marriage.” So yes, it would certainly simplify things if the government leveled the playing field and abolished a legal definition of marriage, but it wouldn’t make anybody happy. And that means it will never happen, because the one thing politicians fear more than anything else is making too many of their constituents unhappy.
Wrong approach. The government shouldn’t be in the business of recognizing marriages at all. All of them should be treated as civil contracts and just let the individuals involved decide what to call it.
That way a gay couple can call it a marriage if they want, and someone else can feel free to disagree. The government shouldn’t care.
I doubt too many other states will follow suit. Many of the states that have banned gay marriage have done so by amending their respective state constitutions. That means (or should mean) that the courts cannot overturn the bans because they are, technically, now constitutional. The only way to overturn those bans is another voter referendum to remove the new constitutional amendment (which is what certain groups in California are trying to do) or a federal overturn. With the way things stand now, I doubt the U.S. Supreme Court will step into this issue any time soon. Thus far they have been content to let the states hash it out themselves. I hope it stays that way. Legislating from the bench is not how the government is supposed to work. The majority of the populace can be surprisingly stupid for very long periods of time, but eventually things seem to work out the way they should. Of course, that may just be baseless optimism on my part. I’m still waiting to see any change I can believe in.
Seems to me that Iowa has gotten used to leading the nation during election seasons. They can see which way the train of public opinion is headed and they want to stay in front.
Also,
BRAAAAAAAAIIIIIINNNNS!
I still like Jerry Brown’s idea of having California step out of the business of marriage.
This is almost as good, though.
Such great news. Maybe other states will do the same.
But will it last?
I think it might be difficult for them to find a court to overturn the ruling.
Finally. But will it last?
I took “does not substantially further any important governmental objective” to be legal-speak for “the government has no business getting involved in this kind of thing.”
Ditto … great news for Iowa!
I find it just a little bit bittersweet that the court’s reasoning behind voiding the ban was because of a lack of an “important governmental objective” supporting the ban (I could have thought of a few other reasons), but an end is an end nonetheless.