Some details from the Iowa decision

Like I said, they made this thing solid, covered all the bases and put it to bed.

* The state failed to demonstrate that there was a specific and compelling government interest in prohibiting marriage between people of the same gender.

* The state's claim that gay people are fundamentally different because gay couples cannot procreate doesn't hold water; the fundamental fact is that both homosexuals and heterosexuals seeking marriage are in committed relationships, and thus are in similar circumstances- yet treated differently.

* The state's claim that the gay marriage ban does not discriminate against sexual preference or gender is, dressed up in legal terms, bullshit.

* Laws addressing factors that have been the subject of past unjust discrimination must meet a higher constitutional standard- strict scrutiny rather than the presumption of constitutionality. Homosexuality falls under this category because:
(1) homosexuals have been deliberately and methodically discriminated against;
(2) homosexuality does not affect their ability to participate in society;
(3) sexual orientation is not a choice, but a fundamental part of an individual's personality; and
(4) homosexuals are a minority with inadequate political power to defend their own rights in the political process.
At minimum, these factors require that the gay marriage ban be judged under an intermediate level of scrutiny- in other words, the government has to show an important government objective is being met by the ban.

* The state's claim that upholding tradition is an important government objective is bullshit; tradition is only legally important when it's being upheld for some other purpose, not for its own merit.

* The state's claim that the gay marriage ban provides the optimum environment for children in families is bullshit; the law doesn't ban child molesters, violent felons, or single parents from raising kids, nor does it bar unmarried gay people from doing so. Furthermore, the state didn't even bother to demonstrate that a gay marriage ban is actually good for children of heterosexual couples- whereas the plaintiffs brought studies showing that same-sex couples were about as good as mixed-sex couples for raising children.

* The state's claim that banning gay marriage promotes procreation is bullshit; the state failed to demonstrate that prohibiting homosexuals from marrying does anything to encourage procreation. (Personal note: there's nothing said about whether or not promoting procreation is a valid government interest in the first place.)

* The state's claim that banning gay marriage strengthens straight marriage is bullshit; there's no evidence for the proposition.

* The state's claim that denying the legal benefits of marriage to homosexuals conserves state resources is bullshit; similar savings could be made by discriminating against blacks, Catholics, etc. in the same fashion.

* Religious arguments on gay marriage have no place in the courts whatever, especially since there are religious arguments on both sides.

* Homosexuals are people too. As such, the law can't treat them differently from everyone else.

For those who want to read the whole thing, it's right here as a .pdf.

And Vermont is due its share of kudos

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) -- Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage -- and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.

The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law. New York Times

It's wonderful. Overriding the veto. That's outstanding. They passed the law, and they meant it. The representatives of the people have spoken out in behalf of the people.

Separate is not equal. They paved the way once, and they are still busting trail.

I can only hope the Calif. Supremes are as true to the ideals of the Constitutions they have to use.

Kicked up from comments

iclysdale pointed to a video of the Senate Majority Leader in Iowa refusing to co-sponsor a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in Iowa.

The text is worth reading. He gets it.



One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men. And those guys were talking about gay marriage. They were talking about discussions going on across the country.

Any my daughter Kate, after listening for about 20 minutes, said to them: You guys dont understand. Youve already lost. My generation doesnt care.

I think I learned something from my daughter that day, when she said that. And Ive talked with other people about it and thats what I see, Senator McKinley. I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other, and want state law to recognize that.

Is that so wrong? I dont think thats so wrong. As a matter of fact, last Friday night, I hugged my wife. You know Ive been married for 37 years. I hugged my wife. I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other.

No, Senator McKinley, I will not co-sponsor a leadership bill with you.