Good News.
Apr. 3rd, 2009 12:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kiki_engSo, there was a lot of depressing and rage-inducing in the results of the American elections.
(Part of the aftermath of that has been this video, which is essentially a very nice bit of campaigning.)
There is good news in the world today, though! Gay marriage has been legalised in Iowa:
We begin with the County's argument that the goal of the same-sex marriage ban is to ensure children will be raised only in the optimal milieu. In pursuit of this objective, the statutory exclusion of gay and lesbian people is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. The civil marriage statute is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents--such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons--that are undeniably less than optimal parents. Such under-inclusion tends to demonstrate that the sexual-orientation-based classification is grounded in prejudice or "overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences" of gay and lesbian people, rather than having a substantial relationship to some important objective. See Virginia, 518 U.S. at 533, 116 S. Ct. at 2275, 135 L. Ed. 2d at 751 (rejecting use of overbroad generalizations to classify). If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not merely gay and lesbian people.
So:
Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.
ETA: NY times article
ETA2: Vermont's apparently had a bill legalising gay marriage clear both of their houses as of Thursday and is now waiting for it to be vetoed by it's governor. Dear James Douglas: you are not a hero, you are a homophobic asshole. (Apparently a two-thirds majority would haver overridden that veto right - they were just three votes short.) See what happens, I have to say that I'll be fairly impressed if he goes forward with it, just: "veto" - I forbid. It's daring language.
(Part of the aftermath of that has been this video, which is essentially a very nice bit of campaigning.)
There is good news in the world today, though! Gay marriage has been legalised in Iowa:
We begin with the County's argument that the goal of the same-sex marriage ban is to ensure children will be raised only in the optimal milieu. In pursuit of this objective, the statutory exclusion of gay and lesbian people is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. The civil marriage statute is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents--such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons--that are undeniably less than optimal parents. Such under-inclusion tends to demonstrate that the sexual-orientation-based classification is grounded in prejudice or "overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences" of gay and lesbian people, rather than having a substantial relationship to some important objective. See Virginia, 518 U.S. at 533, 116 S. Ct. at 2275, 135 L. Ed. 2d at 751 (rejecting use of overbroad generalizations to classify). If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not merely gay and lesbian people.
So:
Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.
ETA: NY times article
ETA2: Vermont's apparently had a bill legalising gay marriage clear both of their houses as of Thursday and is now waiting for it to be vetoed by it's governor. Dear James Douglas: you are not a hero, you are a homophobic asshole. (Apparently a two-thirds majority would haver overridden that veto right - they were just three votes short.) See what happens, I have to say that I'll be fairly impressed if he goes forward with it, just: "veto" - I forbid. It's daring language.
