Iowa's Gay Marriage Ruling a Victory for Religious Liberty
Today’s Iowa Supreme Court decision striking down a state law banning same-sex marriage is a welcome reaffirmation of religious liberty, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
In its unanimous ruling, the Iowa high court makes it clear that religious denominations have a constitutional right to set their own rules about marriage but that civil law should reflect equal protection for all citizens and not be anchored in religious dogma.
“The court has reaffirmed religious liberty,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “The justices reminded us that religious groups are free to marry whomever they choose, but civil law cannot be based on any group’s theology.
“The court has recognized that civil marriage is the province of government and religious marriage is the province of the faith community,” Lynn said. “That’s what our constitutional principles mandate, and that’s the way it should be. Clergy are free to perform or decline to perform marriage ceremonies, while the government treats everyone equally when it comes to civil marriage.”
Observed the court in its Varnum v. Brien ruling, “[C]ivil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more.”
The court also made clear that its decision protects the rights of religious groups that oppose same-sex unions.
“In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage – religious or otherwise – by giving respect to our constitutional principles,” the justices asserted. “These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views.”
Added the court, “A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution.”
Lynn said this aspect of the ruling is important, as it debunks the common Religious Right argument that houses of worship will be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies.
“Religious Right scaremongers are trying to frighten clergy with bald-faced lies,” said Lynn. “The Iowa ruling makes clear just how wrong this charge is.”
Read the Opposing Views debate, Should Marriage for Same-Sex couples be Legal?
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Rev.? Barry Lynn, smart, well spoken, intelligent: BUT WRONG Legal marriage, [not religious ] is a man and woman announcing to society that they will beget and nurture their children . The gays don't seem to have a definition . The agenda seems to be, ME TO, ME TOO, give me all benefits, give me honor and respect without the responsibilities of begetting and nurturing their own children.
All gays [really not happy and gay ] are disturbed by their sex orientation which is understandable: and seek solace within the normal family social structure, Obvious they have all the rights to marry the opposite sex: however they want additional "rights"
due to a unsubstantiated mental sex orientation. Courts [and I] concede the claim based upon the existence of the group over thousands of years while ignoring the impact and disintegration of society sans the idealism of traditional marriage.
Many questions should be asked: How will gay marriage enhance and ennoble society? Is the agenda an expression of narcism? Why do they have claim greater rights then brothers, sisters, widows, spinsters, bachelors, unmarried dear friends.
Is it right to force people to destroy the meaning of marriage and substitute a ME TOO marriage license?
Will the pursuit of happiness [ gay marriage] result in a social pyrrhic victory?
The title Religious Liberty does not fit into Barry Lynn's discussion unless he has a new gay religion and has stated it poorly.
,
For any religious sect to make a claim about their particular religion or doctrine being the basis upon which this nation was founded...
...is implying entitlement and ownership of righteousness by which to impose on its citizens their specific rule of religion and not the rule of law.
You are free to make such claims, but understand that it is a contradiction of allowing freedom to every individual.
Why not just call it civil union ? Why the push to have the union of people of the same sex called "marriage"? Call it civil union and give them the same legal benefits as married people have. Then once the union dissolves (as it will for some), they would not have to divorce as they were not married.
Barbaroni is right for now.
NJ church sued for not allowing "Same-sex" couple to use church grounds for reception: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/nj-panel-faults-church-group-in-gay-rights-case /
In Iowa there is some protection for now, but that is not the case nation wide.
ufcarazy has a point about other forms of marriage (like polygamy). Once "gay marriage" is legal what is next?
Equal rights for apes: http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL256586320080625?feed
Will the US follow Spain's lead and give equal rights to apes? Spain has already legalized gay marriage.
If they do how long will it be before Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri push to get apes the right to marry, under anti- discrimination laws of course.
Do you think that this a far fetched fanatical idea? At the turn of the century even the possession of contraception was illegal, now it is taught as normal in school.
Why is "separation of church and state " a one way street? We complain when churches "impose" their views on the public; however, say nothing when the state tells churches (or believers) what to teach (or believe).
We don't call it civil union because otherwise we end up like Arkansas's Prop 1, where only -married- couples can adopt children .
- QuinceyQuick you need to read a little more.
http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/gay_adoption.HTM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/us/26florida.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1167209/Family-11th-hour-legal-battle-halt-brothers-adoption-gay-couple.html
No matter what the title of their union, gays are allowed to adopt . If you look a little you will also see that single persons are adopting.
Looking at one case does not allow you to look at the big picture. Iowa is not a victory, Prop 1 is not what is happening elsewhere.
Look at what is happening all over the States and the world.
Doesn't matter. My point is, there will always be someone trying to exploit the loopholes of " civil union " versus "marriage".
Furthermore, why can't two people of the same sex be married? What, exactly, is the meaning of marriage? Is a same-sex couple's relationship any less valuable than an opposite-sex couple's relationship? Doesn't the word "civil union" stink of "separate but equal" mentality?
For a long time, marriage has been the union of one man to one woman.
There have been historical cases where people of the same sex have been united, just as there have been cases of three or more persons united.
I am not sure when the alternate definition was added, but that was the only definition dictionaries used to have. Current dictionary definitions have "same sex" marriage listed.
Do you want people of the same sex to have the same legal rights or do you want the definition of marriage to be redefined?
Is your goal legal equality or something else?
Two individuals (unmarried of the same or opposite sex) can live together and legally obtain (through various documents) nearly all (depending on the State) the same "rights" as a married couple can, just not the title.
Why can their not be two terms, one religious and one civil? The difference would be one of how the union was performed and not a legal one. In this model two persons (same or opposite sex) who where united in a religious ceremony would be married and those united civilly would have a civil union. Those who were married would have the additional requirement of following the guidelines of their faith . Both could have the same legal "benefits".
I do not think that either side would support this. Do you? Would you?
If marriage was originally a secular term, why is it that Judeo-Christianity can force that term into their own religion and claim it as theirs?
Why can't religion use the term "holy union" or something to that effect?
I did not say that its origin was secular .
I do not claim to have enough knowledge on this topic to give a full history of the origin of marriage or its definition.
Marriage is spoken of in the Old Testament, putting it at least 1500 years ago. (Nailing down the date opens a can of worms in regard to how literal the Bible is understood; some claiming that the world is only 6K years old.)
What is the oldest secular use of the term marriage that was not in reference to a religious union?
One problem you will find in quoting secular sources, is was it a purely secular union or was it a religious "marriage"?
So are you willing to allow two terms or are you still shooting for one term with multiple meanings?
The oldest secular use would be at least 2375 BC from the laws of Urukagina, wherein marriages were performed without religious observance and same-sex marriages were not frowned upon.
Scholars predict that marriage became used in religious terms around the 13th c., around the same time when the church began being wary about sex. Churches viewed that sex should be for more than simply pleasure, which is why all kinds of sex acts ( homosexuality , masturbation, contraception , etc.) were illegal.
As for the Old Testament discussing marriage, I haven't extensively studied the Bible, so my response might be incorrect, but I wonder if the marriage described in the Bible was explicitly a Holy one (that is, explicitly between God and whoever was married), or if it was simply mentioned as a marriage (that is, simply an element at the time, like fish and bread were mentioned).
I would be willing to allow two terms, but from what I've seen, "marriage" originated as a secular term, so it seems strange that "marriage" should be given to religion while "civil union" should be used for government.